I'm a boomer, and I agree with him on both points. Means-test SS. Bring the troops home.
I paid into SS all my life. And the politicians already spent it! How is it fair to demand the next generation pay for my retirement if I have other resources to draw upon?
That's the way it works for you or me, but that's not actually how it works when you can print the money. There is no connection now between how much they bring in, and how much they spend. Whatever they don't get in taxes, they just borrow or print to make up the difference.
I agree that they need to stop spending. Let's start by cutting the defense budget in half. See how many republicans you can get to agree to that.
I don't agree, raising taxes will just exacerbate the problem. Not because it wouldn't balance the budget, but because it just 'enables' more of the same behavior..
I used to believe this too. The republicans call it "Starving the beast". It doesn't work. There is no connection between taxes and spending that I can see.
This is a common misconception. The first amendment to the US constitution applies to the government of the United States. The 14th Amendment then extended that to the state governments also. One doesn't have to be a US citizen to benefit from this.
Follow that train of thought another step, though. Companies were only able to do it because there was a large pool of college graduates to choose from. If that pool wasn't available, they would have to change their minimum requirements to something more like what the job actually requires, or they wouldn't be able to fill those positions.
I bet a lot of companies do this because it is an easy filter to cut down on the pool of applicants they have to look at.
I'm guessing that most people would have chosen legal methods back in the day if they were available and inexpensive and easy to use.. Now that the piracy infrastructure is in place, and people are used to using it, it is going to be extremely difficult to get that genie back into the bottle.
You appear to be saying that raising the minimum wage has no bad effects, only good ones. So, you could propose raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour, say, and the effects would be all good. Why not $20 per hour? Why not $50 per hour? Why not $100 per hour? Is there some number which is too high, and what would the downside be?
Wages are the price of labor, and the price is normally set by supply and demand, just like other prices. Does having the government set prices have any bad effects, and what might they be? Discuss.
That "different domains" argument is full of shit. Most of what is now in the domain of science used to be in the domain of religion. The domain of religion just keeps getting smaller and smaller, and philosophy as you know it is going to get shredded by cognitive science and evolutionary psychology. Sorry.
In theory, this is true. If you've been living in the US a while, you know that it is not true in practice. They can stretch the "General welfare" clause and the "Interstate Commerce" clause to cover anything.
Limited Government is history.
If they would pass on something like the actual cost per channel, plus overhead and profit, we consumers could make better choices about which channels are actually worth it. Channels that charge too much for their programming would be obvious. Those with higher costs and less value would find themselves with fewer viewers. This sounds like a win to me!
At some point, they will be forced to do some kind of updates, if only to deal with security issues. Imagine how things would be if Microsoft never sent out patches for Windows. That's what Android will be like in the future if the manufacturers and carriers don't get together and address this problem.
Remember the days of the "I love you" and Melissa viruses? I'd rather not.
Speaking from the US:
Crashes are not caused by deregulation. Crashes are the natural result of bubbles, which are caused by increasing the money supply too fast. Blame the federal reserve and their low interest rate policy.
Before the federal reserve was created, panics were always sharp, and recovery was always quick. And this was in an environment with almost no regulation compared to today.
I strongly disagree with this. Ethics, law, love, justice don't appear out of thin air. I bet evolutionary biology and cognitive science will have a lot to say about these issues.
I don't get the money laundering. Isn't laundering money to make it look like it came from a legitimate, legal source? How does bitcoin help you do that? Seems to me that bitcoin is pretty equivalent to cash that way.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno. A lot of the tea party is retired. Try cutting social security and medicare and see how fast they abandon "limited federal government".
I'm a boomer, and I agree with him on both points. Means-test SS. Bring the troops home. I paid into SS all my life. And the politicians already spent it! How is it fair to demand the next generation pay for my retirement if I have other resources to draw upon?
If there's no money, you stop spending.
That's the way it works for you or me, but that's not actually how it works when you can print the money. There is no connection now between how much they bring in, and how much they spend. Whatever they don't get in taxes, they just borrow or print to make up the difference. I agree that they need to stop spending. Let's start by cutting the defense budget in half. See how many republicans you can get to agree to that.
I think they call it "Student loans"
I don't agree, raising taxes will just exacerbate the problem. Not because it wouldn't balance the budget, but because it just 'enables' more of the same behavior..
I used to believe this too. The republicans call it "Starving the beast". It doesn't work. There is no connection between taxes and spending that I can see.
This is a common misconception. The first amendment to the US constitution applies to the government of the United States. The 14th Amendment then extended that to the state governments also. One doesn't have to be a US citizen to benefit from this.
Same for health care. There is a pretty obvious pattern here.
Follow that train of thought another step, though. Companies were only able to do it because there was a large pool of college graduates to choose from. If that pool wasn't available, they would have to change their minimum requirements to something more like what the job actually requires, or they wouldn't be able to fill those positions. I bet a lot of companies do this because it is an easy filter to cut down on the pool of applicants they have to look at.
I'm guessing that most people would have chosen legal methods back in the day if they were available and inexpensive and easy to use.. Now that the piracy infrastructure is in place, and people are used to using it, it is going to be extremely difficult to get that genie back into the bottle.
Not necessarily. If what you are using has a practical use, then it has value even if nobody else wants it in the future.
One slight correction, the Democratic party didn't vote in Robert Byrd, the voters of West Virginia did. Carry on.
You appear to be saying that raising the minimum wage has no bad effects, only good ones. So, you could propose raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour, say, and the effects would be all good. Why not $20 per hour? Why not $50 per hour? Why not $100 per hour? Is there some number which is too high, and what would the downside be? Wages are the price of labor, and the price is normally set by supply and demand, just like other prices. Does having the government set prices have any bad effects, and what might they be? Discuss.
So it's a pre-darwinian interpretation. It's not natural selection, but some other force.
As the saying goes, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
That "different domains" argument is full of shit. Most of what is now in the domain of science used to be in the domain of religion. The domain of religion just keeps getting smaller and smaller, and philosophy as you know it is going to get shredded by cognitive science and evolutionary psychology. Sorry.
In theory, this is true. If you've been living in the US a while, you know that it is not true in practice. They can stretch the "General welfare" clause and the "Interstate Commerce" clause to cover anything. Limited Government is history.
If they would pass on something like the actual cost per channel, plus overhead and profit, we consumers could make better choices about which channels are actually worth it. Channels that charge too much for their programming would be obvious. Those with higher costs and less value would find themselves with fewer viewers. This sounds like a win to me!
At some point, they will be forced to do some kind of updates, if only to deal with security issues. Imagine how things would be if Microsoft never sent out patches for Windows. That's what Android will be like in the future if the manufacturers and carriers don't get together and address this problem. Remember the days of the "I love you" and Melissa viruses? I'd rather not.
Speaking from the US: Crashes are not caused by deregulation. Crashes are the natural result of bubbles, which are caused by increasing the money supply too fast. Blame the federal reserve and their low interest rate policy. Before the federal reserve was created, panics were always sharp, and recovery was always quick. And this was in an environment with almost no regulation compared to today.
I strongly disagree with this. Ethics, law, love, justice don't appear out of thin air. I bet evolutionary biology and cognitive science will have a lot to say about these issues.
I don't get the money laundering. Isn't laundering money to make it look like it came from a legitimate, legal source? How does bitcoin help you do that? Seems to me that bitcoin is pretty equivalent to cash that way.
But are there more messed up families due to drugs than there are due to drug prohibition? I doubt it.
I thought by the Church-Turing thesis all Turing complete computers were equivalent. What difference does analog or digital make?
I think he was saying that he had trouble understanding how a black man could support the democratic party.
I believe those comScore numbers are installed base, not current sales.