Which is why they had to call on us, via NATO, to clean up their back yard (the Balkans) for them... We're the only reason why they can afford to spend so little on defense. How many troops do we still have occupying Europe? How many defense systems do we have planted over there? How much hardware did we move in during the Cold War to prevent the expansion of the Iron Curtain?
Dissolve NATO and watch how fast they scramble to cut domestic spending to try to put together a military so they can defend themselves.
Since 1967, the federal government has appropriated the excess monies paid into the Social Security system into the rest of federal spending because after just 4 years of the Great Society, politicians realized it was already bankrupting us. In return, Congress gave Social Security an IOU, promising to return the money when Social Security needed it.
That is, Social Security money goes into the general fund and is spent as fast as it comes in. It isn't invested and it isn't saved for the day Social Security starts paying out more than it takes in (projected to be 2017). So, yes, Social Security is as much a part of the federal budget as national defense spening.
The fun will be, come 2017, when Social Security becomes insolvent. Benefits will have to be cut for the baby boomers (pissing off an entire generation), taxes will have to be raised extraordinarily on the working age people (pissing off multiple generations) or we're going to have to deficit spend until there is no tomorrow, obliterating the value of the dollar. We've been playing games and sticking our head in the sand hoping that the day will never come, but it will... if it isn't 2017, it'll just be pushed back another couple years. The best part is, the people who are responsible for the decades of wasteful spending, appropriating Social Security money for federal spending, refusing to reform Social Security, etc will be dead and gone, having left us with trillions of dollars in debt while they lived it up at our expense.
Yes... the same ones that think there is a Constitutional role for the government to provide health care and retirement to the people of the United States, while clearly ignoring the Tenth Amendment.
It's real simple, the Constitution isn't that hard to figure out.
Here is every mention of the Vice President in the Constitution:
Article I, Section 3:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
...
In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The office is also mentioned in the Twelfth Amendment (which changes how the VP is selected), the Fourteenth (regarding who can vote for VP and that they can't have been part of a rebellion against the US), the Twentieth (defines the executive term and succession to President), the Twenty-third (giving DC electors), the Twenty-fourth (banning poll taxes), and the Twenty-fifth (succession).
That said, none of those amendments gives the office any more of a defined role, so we must go by the Constitution itself... which is very straightforward and if there's any doubt, look at the first Presidency, which ultimately defined the office in front of the very people that drafted the document creating it.
So yeah, those "Constitutional lawyers" that see the Vice President's role defined otherwise have a pretty bad reading comprehension problem.
Did I say Clinton was a bad guy, or was I establishing that this problem has a precedent and isn't a one time thing, so perhaps we need to do something to fix it so it doesn't happen in the future.
Just because Clinton is out of office doesn't mean his tenure in office was irrelevent. Further, a single data point is meaningless without context. Is the Bush administration solely responsible for a problem because they're evil(tm) or is it a systemic problem across all administrations that actually requires a fix?
Well, Clinton never tried to insist that his VP wasn't part of the executive branch,
It's called "Unitary Executive." That is, there's only one guy in the executive branch that gets to make the decisions. It's entirely up to the President how much of a role he gives the Vice President. Under George Washington, John Adams lamented that the only thing he could do was preside over the Senate and then, he had no say on anything unless there was a tie. It drove him nuts.
If you read the Constitution, Article II groups the Vice President in with the executive branch, but the ONLY place it provides a job description for him, other than sitting around, waiting for something to happen to the President, is in Article I, Section 3 where it says he is to preside over the Senate and break ties.
As for the rest of your comment, every administration keeps secrets and covers things up. All of them. It's not just a Bush thing or a Cheney thing, it's a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, et al thing. Some are better at hiding it than others... and some people simply refuse to open their eyes if it is "their guy" in the White House.
Perhaps you're too young to remember, but Clinton's administration had a problem with missing emails during investigations too (Lewinsky, why hundreds of FBI records on their political enemies ended up in the White House, illegal campaign donations from China, etc).
I'd say it's par for the course and if you think just one side is doing shady stuff, it might be because you're a bit partisan.
What do you do with Secretaries of State, such as Jennifer Brunner (D) or Katherine Harris (R), who play games with who can register, who gets kicked off, how verification works, etc?
There are vested interests working every facet of the election, from the company that makes the paper to the company that makes the machines to the poll workers watching you to the officials watching the poll workers to the officials watching the officials. Eliminating conflicts at any one of those steps doesn't solve the problem since there are dozens of other vectors for conflicts of interest to arise.
Even if every poll, elections board, or Secretary of State office had equal representation of both major parties, they would still team up against the third parties, consciously or not. That's not to say we should do nothing, just that pointing the finger at a single level effectively does nothing to prevent fraud and irregularities.
And what does "promote the general welfare" mean? Well, if we look to the Federalist Papers, we'll see:
Federalist 23 (Hamilton):
Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be,
this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers
of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for
its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make
requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to
direct their operations. As their requisitions are made
constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the
most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them,
the intention evidently was that the United States should command
whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common
defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of
their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith,
would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of
the duty of the members to the federal head.
Federalist 41 (Madison):
A system of
government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these
revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some,
who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have
grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the
language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed,
that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and
excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited
commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be
necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger
proof could be given of the distress under which these writers
labor for objections, than their stooping to such a
misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the
powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the
general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection
might have had some color for it; though it would have been
difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an
authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy
the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate
the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very
singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the
general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a
specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms
immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause
than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument
ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which
will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded
altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more
doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent,
and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification
whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular
powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be
included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural
nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to
explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea
of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor
qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to
confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced
to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection
or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty
of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection
here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language
used by the convention is a copy from the articles of
Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as
described in article third, are ``their common defense, security
of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms
of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war
And as for pregnancy, unless you're ugly, gay or a monk, I may get stuck paying for some poor uninsured girl you impregnate. What's that? You'd pay your fair share of her pregnancy costs? Uh, there goes your $24k, buddy.
As a male, my single policy (not family) wouldn't cover my girlfriend being pregnant anyway... it would be up to her insurance to cover it. Like I said, it's physically impossible for me to get pregnant and my plan would never have to pay for it, but it's just one example of the things I'll never need but I'm forced to pay for in NY.
NY mandates liability insurance if you have a car registered. Anything beyond that is optional - collision, comprehensive, glass, deductable levels, etc. Why can't I buy a health insurance policy the same way? NY refuses to let me have any kind of policy that doesn't cover everything under the sun. Maybe I don't want prescription coverage, routine care or fertility coverage. Maybe I'm willing to pay a $1000 yearly deductable rather than having immediate coverage to lower my premium. The state is deliberately inflating the cost of insurance so that they can claim more people under their state insurance plan and use them as political leverage.
Of course, as Governor Paterson said last week in his "NY is in an economic crisis" press conference, the problem with NY isn't that it has become a welfare state, it's that it has driven all the manufacturing and other jobs out leaving a "social services economy."
McCain is a liar too, as he is also a successful politician. They are more alike than you think. Obama is much smarter than McCain, however. So if you have to pick one of these two to be President, Obama is the better choice as he will screw up less once he is elected. Hint: Morons don't make good presidents.
And Hans Reiser was so much smarter than everyone, he could get away with killing his wife. Smart people can do stupid things too, especially if they're convinced they're smarter than everyone else. Intelligence and wisdom aren't the same thing... anyone who has played D&D knows that.
And the grantparent-references wikipedia seems to state the HIPAA just makes them give you their privacy statement, but doesn't seem to force them to have a privacy policy that excludes sharing info.
I don't know if it's standard practice everywhere, but my mom works in the radiology department of a hospital and they're explicitly forbidden to give out any information to anyone who doesn't need to know. That is, if you're getting an x-ray, the x-ray tech, the supervising doctor and the doctor who ordered it (along with necessary staff like the secretaries that handle everything) are the only ones allowed to see anything, barring something like a court order. There have been people reprimanded (with a 3 strikes policy) for simply saying to another staffer "oh, did you see so and so was in and has X?"
McCain wants the market to help insurance costs, but it never will, because it's much cheaper for insurance companies to simply avoid insuring sick people than try to drive down costs. Obama has all but dropped healthcare as an issue, and wanted to let people opt out anyway.
I'm a single male without kids, 31 and in great health. I dropped my insurance provider back in 2005 when the 3 month premium went from $900 to $1400 in one fell swoop due to new state mandates on what the insurance company has to provide.
I don't want a package with all the frills, all I want is something to cover catastrophic needs. I can't buy it. New York State refuses to let me have it. I either need to pay for things like child birth, which I obviously have no anatomy to participate in and thus will never require, or else pay directly out of my pocket for everything. I've spent a grand total of $112 on my health care, and didn't miss out on anything, compared to the ~$24,000 I've saved in premiums. I'd gladly pay $200 a month for catastrophic care to cover any accidents, sudden problems like a cardiac arrest, etc, but the state won't let me... probably because they get to count me as a member of the uninsured, so they can leverage it to try to create a socialized system where they control everything.
It's worth noting that the whole HMO industry was created by an act of Congress introduced by Ted Kennedy as a freshman Senator looking to make his mark in 1973 as a response to regular people suddenly being left out of health care after the creation of Medicare/Medicaid increased demand and drove up costs. Government created the situation by interfering in the market, they deliberately keep the market from correcting itself by preventing companies from providing the plans people want, and their "solution" is to allow the government full control. I'll pass, thanks.
Please explain to me how the government paying Americans to build things didn't end the depression, but the government paying Americans to destroy things (and people) did?
The American government paying Americans to do things is a closed system that introduces nothing from the outside. The government borrows to pay people to work who will then pay a percentage of the money back via taxes. Economically, it is a loss for the government since the taxes gained don't equal the taxes paid since there isn't a 100% taxation rate, ultimately resulting in the costs being pushed onto future generations. Granted, we did get some handy infrastructure from the New Deal work projects, but we did so by passing the costs on to future workers.
Foreign countries paying Americans to build arms for them brings in capital that didn't exist here. So does offering loans to countries so they can rebuild after the war so long as they use the loaned money to buy American (see the Marshall Plan). By the same token, the governments of the Middle East would be hurting for money if the rest of the world weren't funneling cash into their golden palaces in exchange for their commodity. China's economic growth has corresponded with their increase in manufacturing products for global consumption and not from their internal work programs.
Roofs get replaced in Florida every 30 - 40 years. A cost effective roofing solution would take advantage of the fact that you need to spend money on a new roof anyway, so that reduces the cost. (I mean: If a solar roof costs $20k, and a standard roof $10k, than than solar roof incrementally only costs $10k, but the government subsidy will be based off $20k, making it even cheaper).
You do realize that the government has no money of its own, right? That $10k in subsidy comes from the taxpayers. You're essentially paying yourself to put a roof on, but only after giving the government a cut of the money to do other things with.
If there are 100 million homes in the US and they each get a $10k subsidy, you're also looking at $1 trillion in additional taxation. Unless, of course, you want to throw it in the pile of national debt and pretend it doesn't exist while paying hundreds of billions in interest on it, devaluing the dollar further, passing our debts off to our kids so we can feel better while screwing them, etc.
Anything we do to decrease our demand for fossil fuel based energy drastically drops the price, or at least gives us an advantage over people paying full price. If small increases in demand drastically push up prices, small decreases in demand can do the reverse.
Anything we do to decrease demand just leaves more supply for other countries, like China, to use more oil. Oil isn't a US or Europe centric commodity, the whole world needs it and unless you're going to get solar panels for 6 billion people, your slight drop in demand won't change the increase in demand in the developing world. That's a big part of why Kyoto was flawed; It strongarms the already developed world while giving a free pass to China and India, which have the potential to far exceed our indulgencies, in the name of letting them develop the same way as we did. At the end of the day, the price of fossil fuels won't drop because other countries will be using them and our own energy prices won't drop because the massive increase in demand for solar panels will drive their price up due to the rare (read expensive) materials used to fabricate them, just as the price of windmills have gone up over the last few years because supply can't meet demand.
There is no silver bullet to solving the energy issue. It's going to take lots of little things for us to be energy independent. Ultimately, we'll have no choice but to do those things, but we're going to cripple our economy and/or overburden our descendents to do it, so we need to get it right the first time because we can't afford to bet big on a technology that isn't going to be what we need it to. Look at how hard it is just to replace the existing utility infrastructure as it continues to fall behind the countries that deployed long after we did. Whatever we bet on, we're going to have to use for a long, long time.
Like we've had no economic growth or inflation that would make those numbers go up.
Could it possibly be that, gasp, cutting taxes stimulates economic growth by allowing people to invest and spend their dollars before Uncle Sam nabs them?
And the deficits are a comparison between fiscal year income and payouts. The deficits have increased dramatically due to increased spending, which has far outpace the rate of inflation. Not that inflation factors into taxation anyway. 17% of $20 is $3.40 whether a loaf of bread is $1 or $20. Inflation, however, does affect spending.
The current problems have nothing to do with the tax cuts and throwing it out there to blame is just a strawman to distract from the real problem: federal spending has increased at an exponential rate.
federal expenditures in millions of dollars:
1940: 9,468
1950: 42,562
1960: 92,191
1970: 195,649
1980: 590,941
1990: 1,253,130
2000: 1,789,216
2010 (estimate): 3,091,340
That's roughly doubling federal spending every decade, barring the one where the conservatives (as opposed to the Republicans pretending to be) held Congress for the majority of the decade along with a president who sought to triangulate to take away the conservatives' positions.
But those numbers are why your chart starts in 1998...and even that's not quite enough to hide tail end of the increase from 1.7 trillion to 2.0.
Those numbers start in 1998 because I went back 10 years, a nice, round number, figuring it would give a representative example of the last years of Clinton's term while also showing the effects of the dotcom boom, the 2000 recession, 911, Iraq and the tax cuts. We can go all the way back to 1940 if it makes you feel better.
But, yes, continue to pretend slashdot is made of total morons who think whoever has the highest number wins,
Despite also having a 5 digit ID on my real account (ie, the one for non-political stuff so it doesn't get moderated to hell for violating slashdot group think), you must be new here. There are still the occasional whiners posting here who think that Al Gore won based on the popular vote and that the electoral college doesn't matter.
PS - Check out the Laffer Curve. There is a spot of optimum taxation where you'll get the maximum revenues. I believe we're still overtaxing and could get more revenue with another tax cut (and yes, since I haven't been employed in a year and a half because I'm taking care of a disabled parent, I'm really advocating stuffing my pockets there since I paid all of $0 in income taxes in the last year). You probably think we're on the left side of the curve and that increasing taxes a little more will meet the optimum spot.
Living in western NY, however, I'll show you exactly what overtaxation does to an economy. NYC and the Hudson Valley area might be humming along just fine, but the rest of the state is an economic wasteland, full of empty buildings, cheap housing, an ever decreasing population and governments whose answer to everything is to raise taxes and spend more, totally ignoring the fact that those principles are what made other states and countries a better place to do business in (and also caused people to flee to find adequate employment).
Federal receipts in millions of dollars
1998: 1,721,955
1999: 1,827,645
2000: 2,025,457 (last year of the dotcom bubble)
2001: 1,991,426 (Clinton's last budget)
2002: 1,863,395 (Fresh off 9/11)
2003: 1,782,532 (Beginning of Iraq War)
2004: 1,880,279
2005: 2,153,859
2006: 2,407,254
2007: 2,568,239
Clinton's term only had two years with higher federal revenues than any of GWB's years. Arguably, Clinton's best years were due to the irrational exuberance rather than any government tax policy at the time while Bush's worst year coincide with 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq War.
The increased deficits have nothing to do with decreasing revenue... in fact, revenue is up significantly. It has everything to do with spending increases far outstripping revenue increases.
Anyway, before you go and call the GP pointless and lacking in evidence, you might want to do a little investigation yourself to see if the dogma you've been taught is actually true.
So -- the goal wasn't to stir up hatred or fear; the goal was to explain (in answer to a question at a fundraiser) how he could garner some traditionally-Republican votes. Unfortunately, it came out about as badly has could have happened, and his opponents (including his Democratic primary opponent) jumped on it hard... raising the doubt we have now.
WHENEVER a politician panders to a political group and gets caught on it, they always come out saying they were simply misunderstood. Obama was pandering to his core group, openly sharing feelings with how they all really think about another group. And it perpetuates the stereotype that the rich liberals that he was begging for money from really do think that rural America is bitter, and irrationally loves guns and religion. He played stereotypes and in the process furthered the stereotype on both sides of the aisles. At no point did they examine themselves and say "what are we doing wrong that continues to keep these people voting GOP when we think we serve their interests bests?"
That is EXACTLY the type of politics the GP claimed that Obama was out to change. However, Obama is all rhetoric, just like the next politician. Carefully planning how to pander to each group without pissing off another group too much in an effort to gain votes. They always slip up though... always. And the surest way to piss off everyone is to try to be everything to everyone.
Right now, much of the left is on an Obama high... the guy can do no wrong and they'll defend everything and anything he or his supporters say. Those people are no better than the people on the right who refuse to criticize Bush and are simply sheep of another stripe. Unfortunately, someone stole the shears and the wool has been pulled over their eyes.
A polished turd, no matter how much it shines, is still at turd.
The 'change' Obama speaks of isn't in terms of what he votes for, but how he gets support for it. No more using religion as a wedge -- or trying to avoid it altogether. No more using fear to try to drive votes ("but the terrrorists will get you!").
The 'hope' Obama speaks of is getting past all this petty divisiveness and reversing the actions which have destroyed our reputation in the world. Except for the getting-past-the-divisiveness part, that's something all Democrats want to do. This is neither unrealistic or poorly defined.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
So let's see... changing the anti-religion rhetoric... check. Not using fear (of rednecks wielding guns)... check. Not preying on stereotypes that people in small town America fear immigration... check. And does Obama really want to talk about his NAFTA policies that he's talked out of both sides of his mouth on?
The change we can believe in isn't there... he's just another politician, like all other politicians engaging in the same old pandering to voting groups that every other politician has engaged in. He's simply better at covering it up via his cult of personality. Thou shalt not question Obama.
McCain isn't much better... he'll flip flop to whatever he thinks will get him votes and a large part of his party won't be voting for him because of it. Conservatives like me saw it back in 2000 but everyone else fell in love with the "maverick" who bucked his party's principles time and time again.
My service contract was only one or two pages long... it definitely wasn't excessive, though it did contact legalese weasel words and lots of disclaimers, in addition to statements like I'm not allowed to run servers (which, I have since day 1 and they've never complained about it). There was also no fine print, everything was in a standard, consistent font size.
The advertising is definitely misleading and I'm sure would violate the laws of some countries, but the rules are more lax in the US, just as your libel laws are different than ours. The commercials don't define exactly what is "unlimited" and the ISP can simply say the connection/availability itself is unlimited; That is, it is always on and available for use even if the usage itself is limited. Thus, we end up with misleading, but not unlawful advertising.
Pretty much every Slashdotter who claims their service should be unlimited because the commercial says so should know better especially since so many work in the IT industry. They're using the commercials as their excuse for behavior they know crosses the line of acceptable use. Just because I invite you to a party with unlimited food and drink doesn't mean you get to move in with me, eventually, you have to go home or I'm going to throw you out.
Many ISPs promoted their services as "unlimited" because it sounded better, even though this relied upon most people not using anything like the full capacity they were given. If this situation changes, it's *their* problem for overselling something they can't deliver, not the customers' for "abusing the system". I'm not going to come up with another trite analogy to illustrate that:)
All advertising tells you only partial truths to entice you to buy... and my ISP did it as well. They advertised "UP TO 100x faster than dialup" and as soon as I subscribed, I found out that it was 2 Mbit. Many of us complained and the ISP weaseled out by saying they only promised speeds UP TO 100x faster than dialup, not that you would actually get speeds 100x faster than dialup.
Of course, that fact was nowhere in the TOS I signed... but there was a line claiming that the ISP couldn't guarantee my maximum speed and that they have the right to change the TOS at any time without consent (ok, illegal under most state laws, but paying your bill amounts to acceptance of the new terms).
The people who insist that they have a full blown, pipe with no limits at all are the ones clinging to the advertising rather than the contract they likely signed. Those people also seem to dislike advertising more than most people as well, so you'd think they'd naturally be cynical about the claims.
I'm also guessing by your u in "behaviour" that you aren't American... are advertising laws are much more lax than many countries. As long as the claims are somewhat true, even by convoluted logic, they're usually not "false advertising." Again, see the "UP TO 100x dialup speed" claim of my ISP. Still, at the end of the day, caveat emptor. I didn't trust the salesman to tell me what was in my cell phone contract, why would I trust an advertisement to tell me what's in my ISP contract?
wouldn't a better car analogy be that drivers with certain cargo are being forced to drive slower than people who have the "acceptable" cargo load.
That's the case as well... a house mover will drive down the road at a slower speed than someone in a regular vehicle (and if they drive as fast as the rest of the traffic, they're likely guilty of reckless driving). Ditto for highway trucks out plowing and whatnot (they like to stick around 30 mph to optimize their plowing and sand/salt coverage unless they're on an actual highway). You'll also find a lot of roads that limit the gross vehicle weight allowed on the road, so that tractor trailers can't drive on some roads becaus those roads weren't designed for them since they'll tear them up/warp them (kinda like how DOCSIS is designed for downloading, not uploading).
I would love to see that as a comcast commercial.
Commercials are there to entice you into buying, not to give you all of full information about a product. That's what all the fine print in the contract is for. If you don't read the contracts you sign, that's your fault. Caveat Emptor.
If the government told you that you can go as fast as you want, and then if you go over 75, a cop will show up and give you a ticket, anyway, wouldn't you complain, too?
Roads without speed limit signs (and there are a lot of them, at least here in NY) are limited to the state speed limit (55 in our case). You can still be pulled over and ticketed for going 55 on them if a cop deems that the speed is unsafe for the current road conditions.
As for complaining, people will complain about the same amount whether they get ticketed for reckless driving or for speeding. They're upset that they got nailed for doing something that they, generally, knew they shouldn't be doing in the first place because it's "not fair" that they got ticketed while "nobody else" does.
You can hog the available bandwidth all you want... but the more you do it, the more likely the internet cop is going to pull you over. You'll complain that 99% of people don't get "ticketed" but that still doesn't change the fact that you were abusing the service. That 6 mbit or 10 mbit pipe isn't designed to be used at full capacity 24/7 by each subscriber, it's designed to be a shared service between multiple people, splitting the cost of the full 6 mbit or 10 mbit pipe between them. If you want full, unfettered access to your total subscribed bandwidth, look into pricing a T2 (or building a private road if we want to keep up the car analogy) and try not to choke on what it really costs for that much unlimited bandwidth. Maybe then, you'll be grateful you're only paying $40 or $50 a month to share it.
Had there been a compulsory draft, I do not believe that Iraq would ever have been invaded. Right now the "professional" army is largely composed of members of the working poor. They enlist because they have no other career options. So, when they are killed, the middle and upper classes simply don't care. However, if middle and upper class kids were sent over there to die, it would be a different matter altogether.
Oh, and before you suggest Vietnam as some sort of counter-argument, the wealthy found any number of ways to ensure that their kids were kept safely out of harm's way: studying at McGill or in state-side non-combat postings. There were not many doctor's or lawyer's sons in Vietnam...
In other words... you just defeated your own argument. If military service was mandatory, Iraq would have never happened, however, when military service was mandatory, Vietnam still happened.
Now, not being satisfied with that, you've also insulted the people in the military in the same snobbish, elitist way John Kerry did. Anyone who joins the military is too poor or dumb to do anything else, eh? I mean, none of them could have joined out of a feeling of service and duty, anyone who feels that is supposed to sign up to be a bureaucrat for their government's social programs... especially since that's where all the best and brightest are.
Not only did you defeat your own argument against my question, you didn't answer my question,
What rubbish. If the american people are too stupid to see the economic and personal benefits of a publicly funded universal health-care system, so be it. But please don't think it boils down to freedom. The Hobbesian state of nature is allows individuals the ultimate degree of freedom, but I don't think any sane individual would ever want to experience it.
I never advocated a state of anarchy and no government... govenrment does have a role, a very limited one. Chiefly, the role of government is to protect our freedoms fromt he abuse of others. It is not, however, there to provide every service we need or desire.
However, if you believe that the purpose of govenment is to force people to work for the benefit of others, you just equated slavery to the state with freedom. Have you ever read 1984?
If anything, not being insured is hypocritical and selfish. The first, because it shows contempt for the notion of personal accountability, and selfish because others will have to cover the costs if you should need health care and are unable to cover it yourself.
Quite the opposite... I've borne the cost of all of my health care. Not only that, but I've put away a nest egg of about $24k over the last 4 years which can be used for any medical services I need or continue to grow for my retirement. I did that with the money I would have wasted on insurance... but you can sit there and tell me just how personally irresponsible I'm being by not trusting my money and health care to someone else rather than managing it myself.
As for caring for others, this is totally contrary to you world view, but it is not my job to care for every person out there. It's my job to take care of me and my immediate family, not someone 3000 miles away. I can assure you that my family gets far better care than what the state would provide. Just ask my disabled father (aneurysm and stroke) that I take care of, who would have otherwise been put into a state operated nursing home at 40 to wait to die.
But preach about my moral inferiority
I believe your counter-examples are atypical, and have been refuted by other posters. For what it's worth, I believe the measure of a society is in the way the least of it's members are treated. How many americans cannot afford any health care insurance, and what happens to them if they get sick?
They're taken care of... very, very few people in the US are denied the medical care they need and most o
Note that the US media love complaining about our health care (it sells papers), but when confronted with a plan to actually take over the health care industry, almost everyone favors keeping the current system (see Hillarycare in 1993 that cost the Democrats the House for the first time since the 50s).
Polls show that people think the current system is messed up... some 60-80% think there are problems with the current system. However, that doesn't equate to 60-80% of people supporting a government run system. Only a minority of people do, especially when confronted with the costs, limited doctor selection, etc.
If socialized medicine works for Europe, great... but don't pretend that America and Europe are the same thing. We're made up of a different type of person, one who prefers to largely be independent and not have to rely on the generosity and benevolence of the government. That's precisely why we aren't still a British commonwealth. Sure, some people feel that the government should provide those services, but that is usually out of guilt (wealthy folks who feel bad others don't ave what they do), personal need (poor folks who feel they're owed) or the desire to acquire power (politicians who want more control over your life to maintain their own power).
Compulsory means that I no longer have a choice but to pay for health care.
So what? Welcome to civil society, and the trade-offs that come with it. If that does not suit you, please accept my sympathies, and learn to deal with it. So, if we institute compulsory military service, like Israel does, will you accept the trade-off as being part of a civil society when you're sitting on the front lines in Iraq against your will? If that does not suit you, please accept my sympathies, and learn to deal with it.
Two things:
1. What "right" do you have to keep your money? What is so special about you that you are entitled to a free ride?
2. Only possibly? Is there a list of ailments you would be prepared to cope with, assuming you could pay less?
BTW - You are aware that publicly funded health care systems have been shown to provide a higher quality of care and are less expensive to maintain that the current US model? 1) the fact that I earned my money... just like if you buy a house, joe squatter doesn't have any right to come in and kick you out of your bed
2) possibly in the sense that, it is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to buy insurance. Possibly, I don't want it. Possibly, you do. That's called freedom.
That's exactly the type of system I want to emulate... nevermind getting into things like your personal health records showing up in the hands of people who would like to use them against you, much like FBI records of hundreds of political enemies showing up in the Clinton White House.
I currently deliberately have no health care plan
And you consider that to be some kind of virtue? No, I consider it a wise economic move, allowing me to invest my money into other things that I deem more important, like my house and private retirement. Since Social Security will never pay me a dime, I'd guess I'd better have something planned to avoid that nanny state plan as well.
Money is nothing more than pieces of metal or paper that we have collectively agreed can be exchanged for something else of value. Wait a minute... it is a tangible object which can be traded for another object... why... that sounds like property!
For what it's worth, I haven't the slightest concern for however you choose to lead your life provided that you aren't doing anything illegal or harmful to others. So long as you can spend my money how you think is best...
As such, I fail to see the point of your bitching... In the same way you fail to understand why government control of an entire industry is socialism - because you choose not to. The cognitive dissonance would bring down your entire world view.
Would you be kind enough to explain how compulsory (but not necessarily universal) healthcare implies losing property rights? AFAIK, pretty much the rest of the first world has publicly funded universal health care, and yet people still own homes, cars, and other possessions.
Compulsory means that I no longer have a choice but to pay for health care. If the government takes away my right to keep my money, by forcing me to pay for care I possibly don't want (and I currently deliberately have no health care plan since $6000 a year for a healthy, single 30 year old male with no children that has been to the doctor twice in 7 years is obscene. NY is the worst of all models for attempting to buy insurance. Forget what you want to buy, you have to buy what the nanny state says you're allowed to buy), it IS taking away my property, in the form of money. Money itself is a tangible asset, a property if you will, that I am compensated with in return for my labor.
As for the rest of the first world having universal health care, maybe you heard about this thing called the American Revolutionary War, where our country decided that we wanted to determine our own future and government, rather than relying on Europe to do it for us. I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, but as, presumably a freedom loving liberal, you're going to tell me how to live mine.
While you are at it, please explain why you believe that publicly funded healthcare == socialism. Maybe it's just me, but I do not see the connection.
Socialism
dictionary.com: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
American Heritage: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
wordnet: 1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
American Heritage New Dictionary: An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
Are you still failing to understand why the government controlling an industry does not equate to socialism?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why they had to call on us, via NATO, to clean up their back yard (the Balkans) for them... We're the only reason why they can afford to spend so little on defense. How many troops do we still have occupying Europe? How many defense systems do we have planted over there? How much hardware did we move in during the Cold War to prevent the expansion of the Iron Curtain?
Dissolve NATO and watch how fast they scramble to cut domestic spending to try to put together a military so they can defend themselves.
Since 1967, the federal government has appropriated the excess monies paid into the Social Security system into the rest of federal spending because after just 4 years of the Great Society, politicians realized it was already bankrupting us. In return, Congress gave Social Security an IOU, promising to return the money when Social Security needed it.
That is, Social Security money goes into the general fund and is spent as fast as it comes in. It isn't invested and it isn't saved for the day Social Security starts paying out more than it takes in (projected to be 2017). So, yes, Social Security is as much a part of the federal budget as national defense spening.
The fun will be, come 2017, when Social Security becomes insolvent. Benefits will have to be cut for the baby boomers (pissing off an entire generation), taxes will have to be raised extraordinarily on the working age people (pissing off multiple generations) or we're going to have to deficit spend until there is no tomorrow, obliterating the value of the dollar. We've been playing games and sticking our head in the sand hoping that the day will never come, but it will... if it isn't 2017, it'll just be pushed back another couple years. The best part is, the people who are responsible for the decades of wasteful spending, appropriating Social Security money for federal spending, refusing to reform Social Security, etc will be dead and gone, having left us with trillions of dollars in debt while they lived it up at our expense.
It's real simple, the Constitution isn't that hard to figure out.
Here is every mention of the Vice President in the Constitution:
Article I, Section 3:
...
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The office is also mentioned in the Twelfth Amendment (which changes how the VP is selected), the Fourteenth (regarding who can vote for VP and that they can't have been part of a rebellion against the US), the Twentieth (defines the executive term and succession to President), the Twenty-third (giving DC electors), the Twenty-fourth (banning poll taxes), and the Twenty-fifth (succession).
That said, none of those amendments gives the office any more of a defined role, so we must go by the Constitution itself... which is very straightforward and if there's any doubt, look at the first Presidency, which ultimately defined the office in front of the very people that drafted the document creating it.
So yeah, those "Constitutional lawyers" that see the Vice President's role defined otherwise have a pretty bad reading comprehension problem.
Did I say Clinton was a bad guy, or was I establishing that this problem has a precedent and isn't a one time thing, so perhaps we need to do something to fix it so it doesn't happen in the future.
Just because Clinton is out of office doesn't mean his tenure in office was irrelevent. Further, a single data point is meaningless without context. Is the Bush administration solely responsible for a problem because they're evil(tm) or is it a systemic problem across all administrations that actually requires a fix?
Well, Clinton never tried to insist that his VP wasn't part of the executive branch,
It's called "Unitary Executive." That is, there's only one guy in the executive branch that gets to make the decisions. It's entirely up to the President how much of a role he gives the Vice President. Under George Washington, John Adams lamented that the only thing he could do was preside over the Senate and then, he had no say on anything unless there was a tie. It drove him nuts.
If you read the Constitution, Article II groups the Vice President in with the executive branch, but the ONLY place it provides a job description for him, other than sitting around, waiting for something to happen to the President, is in Article I, Section 3 where it says he is to preside over the Senate and break ties.
As for the rest of your comment, every administration keeps secrets and covers things up. All of them. It's not just a Bush thing or a Cheney thing, it's a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, et al thing. Some are better at hiding it than others... and some people simply refuse to open their eyes if it is "their guy" in the White House.
Perhaps you're too young to remember, but Clinton's administration had a problem with missing emails during investigations too (Lewinsky, why hundreds of FBI records on their political enemies ended up in the White House, illegal campaign donations from China, etc).
I'd say it's par for the course and if you think just one side is doing shady stuff, it might be because you're a bit partisan.
What do you do with Secretaries of State, such as Jennifer Brunner (D) or Katherine Harris (R), who play games with who can register, who gets kicked off, how verification works, etc?
There are vested interests working every facet of the election, from the company that makes the paper to the company that makes the machines to the poll workers watching you to the officials watching the poll workers to the officials watching the officials. Eliminating conflicts at any one of those steps doesn't solve the problem since there are dozens of other vectors for conflicts of interest to arise.
Even if every poll, elections board, or Secretary of State office had equal representation of both major parties, they would still team up against the third parties, consciously or not. That's not to say we should do nothing, just that pointing the finger at a single level effectively does nothing to prevent fraud and irregularities.
Federalist 23 (Hamilton):
Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.
Federalist 41 (Madison):
A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war
And as for pregnancy, unless you're ugly, gay or a monk, I may get stuck paying for some poor uninsured girl you impregnate. What's that? You'd pay your fair share of her pregnancy costs? Uh, there goes your $24k, buddy.
As a male, my single policy (not family) wouldn't cover my girlfriend being pregnant anyway... it would be up to her insurance to cover it. Like I said, it's physically impossible for me to get pregnant and my plan would never have to pay for it, but it's just one example of the things I'll never need but I'm forced to pay for in NY.
NY mandates liability insurance if you have a car registered. Anything beyond that is optional - collision, comprehensive, glass, deductable levels, etc. Why can't I buy a health insurance policy the same way? NY refuses to let me have any kind of policy that doesn't cover everything under the sun. Maybe I don't want prescription coverage, routine care or fertility coverage. Maybe I'm willing to pay a $1000 yearly deductable rather than having immediate coverage to lower my premium. The state is deliberately inflating the cost of insurance so that they can claim more people under their state insurance plan and use them as political leverage.
Of course, as Governor Paterson said last week in his "NY is in an economic crisis" press conference, the problem with NY isn't that it has become a welfare state, it's that it has driven all the manufacturing and other jobs out leaving a "social services economy."
McCain is a liar too, as he is also a successful politician. They are more alike than you think. Obama is much smarter than McCain, however. So if you have to pick one of these two to be President, Obama is the better choice as he will screw up less once he is elected. Hint: Morons don't make good presidents.
And Hans Reiser was so much smarter than everyone, he could get away with killing his wife. Smart people can do stupid things too, especially if they're convinced they're smarter than everyone else. Intelligence and wisdom aren't the same thing... anyone who has played D&D knows that.
And the grantparent-references wikipedia seems to state the HIPAA just makes them give you their privacy statement, but doesn't seem to force them to have a privacy policy that excludes sharing info.
I don't know if it's standard practice everywhere, but my mom works in the radiology department of a hospital and they're explicitly forbidden to give out any information to anyone who doesn't need to know. That is, if you're getting an x-ray, the x-ray tech, the supervising doctor and the doctor who ordered it (along with necessary staff like the secretaries that handle everything) are the only ones allowed to see anything, barring something like a court order. There have been people reprimanded (with a 3 strikes policy) for simply saying to another staffer "oh, did you see so and so was in and has X?"
McCain wants the market to help insurance costs, but it never will, because it's much cheaper for insurance companies to simply avoid insuring sick people than try to drive down costs. Obama has all but dropped healthcare as an issue, and wanted to let people opt out anyway.
I'm a single male without kids, 31 and in great health. I dropped my insurance provider back in 2005 when the 3 month premium went from $900 to $1400 in one fell swoop due to new state mandates on what the insurance company has to provide.
I don't want a package with all the frills, all I want is something to cover catastrophic needs. I can't buy it. New York State refuses to let me have it. I either need to pay for things like child birth, which I obviously have no anatomy to participate in and thus will never require, or else pay directly out of my pocket for everything. I've spent a grand total of $112 on my health care, and didn't miss out on anything, compared to the ~$24,000 I've saved in premiums. I'd gladly pay $200 a month for catastrophic care to cover any accidents, sudden problems like a cardiac arrest, etc, but the state won't let me... probably because they get to count me as a member of the uninsured, so they can leverage it to try to create a socialized system where they control everything.
It's worth noting that the whole HMO industry was created by an act of Congress introduced by Ted Kennedy as a freshman Senator looking to make his mark in 1973 as a response to regular people suddenly being left out of health care after the creation of Medicare/Medicaid increased demand and drove up costs. Government created the situation by interfering in the market, they deliberately keep the market from correcting itself by preventing companies from providing the plans people want, and their "solution" is to allow the government full control. I'll pass, thanks.
Please explain to me how the government paying Americans to build things didn't end the depression, but the government paying Americans to destroy things (and people) did?
The American government paying Americans to do things is a closed system that introduces nothing from the outside. The government borrows to pay people to work who will then pay a percentage of the money back via taxes. Economically, it is a loss for the government since the taxes gained don't equal the taxes paid since there isn't a 100% taxation rate, ultimately resulting in the costs being pushed onto future generations. Granted, we did get some handy infrastructure from the New Deal work projects, but we did so by passing the costs on to future workers.
Foreign countries paying Americans to build arms for them brings in capital that didn't exist here. So does offering loans to countries so they can rebuild after the war so long as they use the loaned money to buy American (see the Marshall Plan). By the same token, the governments of the Middle East would be hurting for money if the rest of the world weren't funneling cash into their golden palaces in exchange for their commodity. China's economic growth has corresponded with their increase in manufacturing products for global consumption and not from their internal work programs.
Roofs get replaced in Florida every 30 - 40 years. A cost effective roofing solution would take advantage of the fact that you need to spend money on a new roof anyway, so that reduces the cost. (I mean: If a solar roof costs $20k, and a standard roof $10k, than than solar roof incrementally only costs $10k, but the government subsidy will be based off $20k, making it even cheaper).
You do realize that the government has no money of its own, right? That $10k in subsidy comes from the taxpayers. You're essentially paying yourself to put a roof on, but only after giving the government a cut of the money to do other things with.
If there are 100 million homes in the US and they each get a $10k subsidy, you're also looking at $1 trillion in additional taxation. Unless, of course, you want to throw it in the pile of national debt and pretend it doesn't exist while paying hundreds of billions in interest on it, devaluing the dollar further, passing our debts off to our kids so we can feel better while screwing them, etc.
Anything we do to decrease our demand for fossil fuel based energy drastically drops the price, or at least gives us an advantage over people paying full price. If small increases in demand drastically push up prices, small decreases in demand can do the reverse.
Anything we do to decrease demand just leaves more supply for other countries, like China, to use more oil. Oil isn't a US or Europe centric commodity, the whole world needs it and unless you're going to get solar panels for 6 billion people, your slight drop in demand won't change the increase in demand in the developing world. That's a big part of why Kyoto was flawed; It strongarms the already developed world while giving a free pass to China and India, which have the potential to far exceed our indulgencies, in the name of letting them develop the same way as we did. At the end of the day, the price of fossil fuels won't drop because other countries will be using them and our own energy prices won't drop because the massive increase in demand for solar panels will drive their price up due to the rare (read expensive) materials used to fabricate them, just as the price of windmills have gone up over the last few years because supply can't meet demand.
There is no silver bullet to solving the energy issue. It's going to take lots of little things for us to be energy independent. Ultimately, we'll have no choice but to do those things, but we're going to cripple our economy and/or overburden our descendents to do it, so we need to get it right the first time because we can't afford to bet big on a technology that isn't going to be what we need it to. Look at how hard it is just to replace the existing utility infrastructure as it continues to fall behind the countries that deployed long after we did. Whatever we bet on, we're going to have to use for a long, long time.
Like we've had no economic growth or inflation that would make those numbers go up.
Could it possibly be that, gasp, cutting taxes stimulates economic growth by allowing people to invest and spend their dollars before Uncle Sam nabs them?
And the deficits are a comparison between fiscal year income and payouts. The deficits have increased dramatically due to increased spending, which has far outpace the rate of inflation. Not that inflation factors into taxation anyway. 17% of $20 is $3.40 whether a loaf of bread is $1 or $20. Inflation, however, does affect spending.
The current problems have nothing to do with the tax cuts and throwing it out there to blame is just a strawman to distract from the real problem: federal spending has increased at an exponential rate.
federal expenditures in millions of dollars:
1940: 9,468
1950: 42,562
1960: 92,191
1970: 195,649
1980: 590,941
1990: 1,253,130
2000: 1,789,216
2010 (estimate): 3,091,340
That's roughly doubling federal spending every decade, barring the one where the conservatives (as opposed to the Republicans pretending to be) held Congress for the majority of the decade along with a president who sought to triangulate to take away the conservatives' positions.
But those numbers are why your chart starts in 1998...and even that's not quite enough to hide tail end of the increase from 1.7 trillion to 2.0.
Those numbers start in 1998 because I went back 10 years, a nice, round number, figuring it would give a representative example of the last years of Clinton's term while also showing the effects of the dotcom boom, the 2000 recession, 911, Iraq and the tax cuts. We can go all the way back to 1940 if it makes you feel better.
But, yes, continue to pretend slashdot is made of total morons who think whoever has the highest number wins,
Despite also having a 5 digit ID on my real account (ie, the one for non-political stuff so it doesn't get moderated to hell for violating slashdot group think), you must be new here. There are still the occasional whiners posting here who think that Al Gore won based on the popular vote and that the electoral college doesn't matter.
PS - Check out the Laffer Curve. There is a spot of optimum taxation where you'll get the maximum revenues. I believe we're still overtaxing and could get more revenue with another tax cut (and yes, since I haven't been employed in a year and a half because I'm taking care of a disabled parent, I'm really advocating stuffing my pockets there since I paid all of $0 in income taxes in the last year). You probably think we're on the left side of the curve and that increasing taxes a little more will meet the optimum spot.
Living in western NY, however, I'll show you exactly what overtaxation does to an economy. NYC and the Hudson Valley area might be humming along just fine, but the rest of the state is an economic wasteland, full of empty buildings, cheap housing, an ever decreasing population and governments whose answer to everything is to raise taxes and spend more, totally ignoring the fact that those principles are what made other states and countries a better place to do business in (and also caused people to flee to find adequate employment).
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Federal receipts in millions of dollars
1998: 1,721,955
1999: 1,827,645
2000: 2,025,457 (last year of the dotcom bubble)
2001: 1,991,426 (Clinton's last budget)
2002: 1,863,395 (Fresh off 9/11)
2003: 1,782,532 (Beginning of Iraq War)
2004: 1,880,279
2005: 2,153,859
2006: 2,407,254
2007: 2,568,239
Clinton's term only had two years with higher federal revenues than any of GWB's years. Arguably, Clinton's best years were due to the irrational exuberance rather than any government tax policy at the time while Bush's worst year coincide with 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq War.
The increased deficits have nothing to do with decreasing revenue... in fact, revenue is up significantly. It has everything to do with spending increases far outstripping revenue increases.
Anyway, before you go and call the GP pointless and lacking in evidence, you might want to do a little investigation yourself to see if the dogma you've been taught is actually true.
So -- the goal wasn't to stir up hatred or fear; the goal was to explain (in answer to a question at a fundraiser) how he could garner some traditionally-Republican votes. Unfortunately, it came out about as badly has could have happened, and his opponents (including his Democratic primary opponent) jumped on it hard... raising the doubt we have now.
WHENEVER a politician panders to a political group and gets caught on it, they always come out saying they were simply misunderstood. Obama was pandering to his core group, openly sharing feelings with how they all really think about another group. And it perpetuates the stereotype that the rich liberals that he was begging for money from really do think that rural America is bitter, and irrationally loves guns and religion. He played stereotypes and in the process furthered the stereotype on both sides of the aisles. At no point did they examine themselves and say "what are we doing wrong that continues to keep these people voting GOP when we think we serve their interests bests?"
That is EXACTLY the type of politics the GP claimed that Obama was out to change. However, Obama is all rhetoric, just like the next politician. Carefully planning how to pander to each group without pissing off another group too much in an effort to gain votes. They always slip up though... always. And the surest way to piss off everyone is to try to be everything to everyone.
Right now, much of the left is on an Obama high... the guy can do no wrong and they'll defend everything and anything he or his supporters say. Those people are no better than the people on the right who refuse to criticize Bush and are simply sheep of another stripe. Unfortunately, someone stole the shears and the wool has been pulled over their eyes.
A polished turd, no matter how much it shines, is still at turd.
The 'change' Obama speaks of isn't in terms of what he votes for, but how he gets support for it. No more using religion as a wedge -- or trying to avoid it altogether. No more using fear to try to drive votes ("but the terrrorists will get you!").
The 'hope' Obama speaks of is getting past all this petty divisiveness and reversing the actions which have destroyed our reputation in the world. Except for the getting-past-the-divisiveness part, that's something all Democrats want to do. This is neither unrealistic or poorly defined.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
So let's see... changing the anti-religion rhetoric... check. Not using fear (of rednecks wielding guns)... check. Not preying on stereotypes that people in small town America fear immigration... check. And does Obama really want to talk about his NAFTA policies that he's talked out of both sides of his mouth on?
The change we can believe in isn't there... he's just another politician, like all other politicians engaging in the same old pandering to voting groups that every other politician has engaged in. He's simply better at covering it up via his cult of personality. Thou shalt not question Obama.
McCain isn't much better... he'll flip flop to whatever he thinks will get him votes and a large part of his party won't be voting for him because of it. Conservatives like me saw it back in 2000 but everyone else fell in love with the "maverick" who bucked his party's principles time and time again.
My service contract was only one or two pages long... it definitely wasn't excessive, though it did contact legalese weasel words and lots of disclaimers, in addition to statements like I'm not allowed to run servers (which, I have since day 1 and they've never complained about it). There was also no fine print, everything was in a standard, consistent font size.
The advertising is definitely misleading and I'm sure would violate the laws of some countries, but the rules are more lax in the US, just as your libel laws are different than ours. The commercials don't define exactly what is "unlimited" and the ISP can simply say the connection/availability itself is unlimited; That is, it is always on and available for use even if the usage itself is limited. Thus, we end up with misleading, but not unlawful advertising.
Pretty much every Slashdotter who claims their service should be unlimited because the commercial says so should know better especially since so many work in the IT industry. They're using the commercials as their excuse for behavior they know crosses the line of acceptable use. Just because I invite you to a party with unlimited food and drink doesn't mean you get to move in with me, eventually, you have to go home or I'm going to throw you out.
Many ISPs promoted their services as "unlimited" because it sounded better, even though this relied upon most people not using anything like the full capacity they were given. If this situation changes, it's *their* problem for overselling something they can't deliver, not the customers' for "abusing the system". I'm not going to come up with another trite analogy to illustrate that :)
All advertising tells you only partial truths to entice you to buy... and my ISP did it as well. They advertised "UP TO 100x faster than dialup" and as soon as I subscribed, I found out that it was 2 Mbit. Many of us complained and the ISP weaseled out by saying they only promised speeds UP TO 100x faster than dialup, not that you would actually get speeds 100x faster than dialup.
Of course, that fact was nowhere in the TOS I signed... but there was a line claiming that the ISP couldn't guarantee my maximum speed and that they have the right to change the TOS at any time without consent (ok, illegal under most state laws, but paying your bill amounts to acceptance of the new terms).
The people who insist that they have a full blown, pipe with no limits at all are the ones clinging to the advertising rather than the contract they likely signed. Those people also seem to dislike advertising more than most people as well, so you'd think they'd naturally be cynical about the claims.
I'm also guessing by your u in "behaviour" that you aren't American... are advertising laws are much more lax than many countries. As long as the claims are somewhat true, even by convoluted logic, they're usually not "false advertising." Again, see the "UP TO 100x dialup speed" claim of my ISP. Still, at the end of the day, caveat emptor. I didn't trust the salesman to tell me what was in my cell phone contract, why would I trust an advertisement to tell me what's in my ISP contract?
wouldn't a better car analogy be that drivers with certain cargo are being forced to drive slower than people who have the "acceptable" cargo load.
That's the case as well... a house mover will drive down the road at a slower speed than someone in a regular vehicle (and if they drive as fast as the rest of the traffic, they're likely guilty of reckless driving). Ditto for highway trucks out plowing and whatnot (they like to stick around 30 mph to optimize their plowing and sand/salt coverage unless they're on an actual highway). You'll also find a lot of roads that limit the gross vehicle weight allowed on the road, so that tractor trailers can't drive on some roads becaus those roads weren't designed for them since they'll tear them up/warp them (kinda like how DOCSIS is designed for downloading, not uploading).
I would love to see that as a comcast commercial.
Commercials are there to entice you into buying, not to give you all of full information about a product. That's what all the fine print in the contract is for. If you don't read the contracts you sign, that's your fault. Caveat Emptor.
If the government told you that you can go as fast as you want, and then if you go over 75, a cop will show up and give you a ticket, anyway, wouldn't you complain, too?
Roads without speed limit signs (and there are a lot of them, at least here in NY) are limited to the state speed limit (55 in our case). You can still be pulled over and ticketed for going 55 on them if a cop deems that the speed is unsafe for the current road conditions.
As for complaining, people will complain about the same amount whether they get ticketed for reckless driving or for speeding. They're upset that they got nailed for doing something that they, generally, knew they shouldn't be doing in the first place because it's "not fair" that they got ticketed while "nobody else" does.
You can hog the available bandwidth all you want... but the more you do it, the more likely the internet cop is going to pull you over. You'll complain that 99% of people don't get "ticketed" but that still doesn't change the fact that you were abusing the service. That 6 mbit or 10 mbit pipe isn't designed to be used at full capacity 24/7 by each subscriber, it's designed to be a shared service between multiple people, splitting the cost of the full 6 mbit or 10 mbit pipe between them. If you want full, unfettered access to your total subscribed bandwidth, look into pricing a T2 (or building a private road if we want to keep up the car analogy) and try not to choke on what it really costs for that much unlimited bandwidth. Maybe then, you'll be grateful you're only paying $40 or $50 a month to share it.
Had there been a compulsory draft, I do not believe that Iraq would ever have been invaded. Right now the "professional" army is largely composed of members of the working poor. They enlist because they have no other career options. So, when they are killed, the middle and upper classes simply don't care. However, if middle and upper class kids were sent over there to die, it would be a different matter altogether.
Oh, and before you suggest Vietnam as some sort of counter-argument, the wealthy found any number of ways to ensure that their kids were kept safely out of harm's way: studying at McGill or in state-side non-combat postings. There were not many doctor's or lawyer's sons in Vietnam...
In other words... you just defeated your own argument. If military service was mandatory, Iraq would have never happened, however, when military service was mandatory, Vietnam still happened.
Now, not being satisfied with that, you've also insulted the people in the military in the same snobbish, elitist way John Kerry did. Anyone who joins the military is too poor or dumb to do anything else, eh? I mean, none of them could have joined out of a feeling of service and duty, anyone who feels that is supposed to sign up to be a bureaucrat for their government's social programs... especially since that's where all the best and brightest are.
Not only did you defeat your own argument against my question, you didn't answer my question,
What rubbish. If the american people are too stupid to see the economic and personal benefits of a publicly funded universal health-care system, so be it. But please don't think it boils down to freedom. The Hobbesian state of nature is allows individuals the ultimate degree of freedom, but I don't think any sane individual would ever want to experience it.
I never advocated a state of anarchy and no government... govenrment does have a role, a very limited one. Chiefly, the role of government is to protect our freedoms fromt he abuse of others. It is not, however, there to provide every service we need or desire.
However, if you believe that the purpose of govenment is to force people to work for the benefit of others, you just equated slavery to the state with freedom. Have you ever read 1984?
If anything, not being insured is hypocritical and selfish. The first, because it shows contempt for the notion of personal accountability, and selfish because others will have to cover the costs if you should need health care and are unable to cover it yourself.
Quite the opposite... I've borne the cost of all of my health care. Not only that, but I've put away a nest egg of about $24k over the last 4 years which can be used for any medical services I need or continue to grow for my retirement. I did that with the money I would have wasted on insurance... but you can sit there and tell me just how personally irresponsible I'm being by not trusting my money and health care to someone else rather than managing it myself.
As for caring for others, this is totally contrary to you world view, but it is not my job to care for every person out there. It's my job to take care of me and my immediate family, not someone 3000 miles away. I can assure you that my family gets far better care than what the state would provide. Just ask my disabled father (aneurysm and stroke) that I take care of, who would have otherwise been put into a state operated nursing home at 40 to wait to die.
But preach about my moral inferiority
I believe your counter-examples are atypical, and have been refuted by other posters. For what it's worth, I believe the measure of a society is in the way the least of it's members are treated. How many americans cannot afford any health care insurance, and what happens to them if they get sick?
They're taken care of... very, very few people in the US are denied the medical care they need and most o
Note that the US media love complaining about our health care (it sells papers), but when confronted with a plan to actually take over the health care industry, almost everyone favors keeping the current system (see Hillarycare in 1993 that cost the Democrats the House for the first time since the 50s).
Polls show that people think the current system is messed up... some 60-80% think there are problems with the current system. However, that doesn't equate to 60-80% of people supporting a government run system. Only a minority of people do, especially when confronted with the costs, limited doctor selection, etc.
If socialized medicine works for Europe, great... but don't pretend that America and Europe are the same thing. We're made up of a different type of person, one who prefers to largely be independent and not have to rely on the generosity and benevolence of the government. That's precisely why we aren't still a British commonwealth. Sure, some people feel that the government should provide those services, but that is usually out of guilt (wealthy folks who feel bad others don't ave what they do), personal need (poor folks who feel they're owed) or the desire to acquire power (politicians who want more control over your life to maintain their own power).
So what? Welcome to civil society, and the trade-offs that come with it. If that does not suit you, please accept my sympathies, and learn to deal with it. So, if we institute compulsory military service, like Israel does, will you accept the trade-off as being part of a civil society when you're sitting on the front lines in Iraq against your will? If that does not suit you, please accept my sympathies, and learn to deal with it. Two things:
1. What "right" do you have to keep your money? What is so special about you that you are entitled to a free ride?
2. Only possibly? Is there a list of ailments you would be prepared to cope with, assuming you could pay less?
BTW - You are aware that publicly funded health care systems have been shown to provide a higher quality of care and are less expensive to maintain that the current US model? 1) the fact that I earned my money... just like if you buy a house, joe squatter doesn't have any right to come in and kick you out of your bed
2) possibly in the sense that, it is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to buy insurance. Possibly, I don't want it. Possibly, you do. That's called freedom.
As for your quip about the current US model being too inefficient compared to socialized models... was that before or after the UK began telling people to treat their asthma, arthritis and heart problems themselves? Or the extreme waiting lists in places like Canada for things like cancer treatment? Does it consider doctors who aren't paid for work they do, so they take monthhs off every year, forcing even more delays?
That's exactly the type of system I want to emulate... nevermind getting into things like your personal health records showing up in the hands of people who would like to use them against you, much like FBI records of hundreds of political enemies showing up in the Clinton White House.
I currently deliberately have no health care plan
And you consider that to be some kind of virtue? No, I consider it a wise economic move, allowing me to invest my money into other things that I deem more important, like my house and private retirement. Since Social Security will never pay me a dime, I'd guess I'd better have something planned to avoid that nanny state plan as well. Money is nothing more than pieces of metal or paper that we have collectively agreed can be exchanged for something else of value. Wait a minute... it is a tangible object which can be traded for another object... why... that sounds like property! For what it's worth, I haven't the slightest concern for however you choose to lead your life provided that you aren't doing anything illegal or harmful to others. So long as you can spend my money how you think is best... As such, I fail to see the point of your bitching... In the same way you fail to understand why government control of an entire industry is socialism - because you choose not to. The cognitive dissonance would bring down your entire world view.
Would you be kind enough to explain how compulsory (but not necessarily universal) healthcare implies losing property rights? AFAIK, pretty much the rest of the first world has publicly funded universal health care, and yet people still own homes, cars, and other possessions.
Compulsory means that I no longer have a choice but to pay for health care. If the government takes away my right to keep my money, by forcing me to pay for care I possibly don't want (and I currently deliberately have no health care plan since $6000 a year for a healthy, single 30 year old male with no children that has been to the doctor twice in 7 years is obscene. NY is the worst of all models for attempting to buy insurance. Forget what you want to buy, you have to buy what the nanny state says you're allowed to buy), it IS taking away my property, in the form of money. Money itself is a tangible asset, a property if you will, that I am compensated with in return for my labor.As for the rest of the first world having universal health care, maybe you heard about this thing called the American Revolutionary War, where our country decided that we wanted to determine our own future and government, rather than relying on Europe to do it for us. I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, but as, presumably a freedom loving liberal, you're going to tell me how to live mine.
While you are at it, please explain why you believe that publicly funded healthcare == socialism. Maybe it's just me, but I do not see the connection.
Socialismdictionary.com: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
American Heritage: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
wordnet: 1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
American Heritage New Dictionary: An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
Are you still failing to understand why the government controlling an industry does not equate to socialism?