No, there are still people who will lend Washington money. All we know now is that, even when they can see the day coming, politicians will continue to borrow money until no one will lend them any. Of course, the really scary part is that there are voters who think they should be borrowing even more money.
Re:Why does every story about US politics....
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
You are correct that only the facts can speak to the heart of the matter, but a reporter will only report the facts that they think are significant. As a result, if the person who is reporting an incident does not share your worldview, they may leave out facts that you would consider important. When they leave out facts that one of the parties in a dispute consider important, that party will likely appear irrational.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
As for raising the debt ceiling, we're like...the only country that has a debt ceiling that limits how much we can borrow.
You are absolutely correct. We should do away with the debt ceiling and go back to the way the Framers intended and force Congress to authorize every bond issue. The U.S. Constitution explicitly says that Congress is the only body that has the authority to "borrow money on the credit of the United States". In 1917, Congress wanted to give the Treasury the power to adjust the types of bonds it issued on the basis of changes in the market (and to avoid having to have a record of voting to borrow money that could be used against them in a campaign). In order to do so in a way that could at least give the appearance of passing Constitutional muster, they instituted the debt ceiling. There are two legitimate ways to get rid of the debt ceiling. The first is for Congress to authorize the issuance of every instrument of debt individually. The second is to ammend the Constitution to allow the President to "borrow money on the credit of the United States".
Re:Why does every story about US politics....
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 0
Because the overwhelming majority of news reporters are Democrats, therefore they report the news in ways that look good for the Democrats (often because they view the facts that make the Republican view look sensible as irrelevant, since they do not report those facts you are unable to judge for yourself, from your worldview whether or not those facts are indeed irrelevant). An important thing to realize about reporting (especially political reporting) is that if a story makes it seem as if one side in a dispute makes no sense, the story is probably not accurately reporting either the expressed motivations of that party, or leaving out facts which inform the position taken by that party. This does not mean that if you knew those facts you would agree with that party, it just means that if you knew those facts you would understand their logic.
Basically, U.S. politics can be divided in to two camps. One group thinks that the federal government is too big and spends too much money. The other group thinks that the federal government is too small and doesn't spend enough money. Along with this division are divisions about what people think the government should spend money on (this last is further complicated because some people may believe that some things should be government funded, but not funded by the federal government). There are numerous other complications, some of which are common to every democracy (such as the group that believes that national sovereignty should be gradually subsumed to international bodies)
Re:Well of course it will be downgraded...
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
There is no real way to gain more revenue short of raising taxes...
There is significant reason to doubt that raising taxes will increase government revenues by any significant amount. When Mayor Bloomberg first became mayor of New York, he raised cigarette taxes by a significant amount. A year later, he was scrambling to find money to balance the city budget because the tax did not generate anywhere near the amount of revenue he anticipated (my recollection is that revenue from the cigarette tax actually diminished, but that may be incorrect). The problem with raising taxes to increase revenue is that whatever activity you tax will decrease when you increase the tax on it. Additionally, that increased tax will increase the incentive to take the activity "off the books". It is very difficult to accurately predict the amount that the reported activity will decrease for a given tax increase because very few people know how much elasticity there is in demand for that activity. The few things that are known to have little elasticity in demand (and a high barrier to taking off the books) are politically very difficult to raise taxes on (fuel taxes are one example).
One of the reasons to have a person involved is to ensure that both parties are actually willing participants and reduce the likelihood that one of them is being coerced. Another problem with doing small claims online is that it would become too easy for someone to fake that the defendant in the case had "appeared" in court and admitted the debt, when in fact they were unaware that the case was even taking place. This has significant consequences for the defendant if they ever have to challenge the judgement.
The problem with using the fact that he was a 1099 "perma-temp" to say that he owns the copyright on the code is the fact that it appears that he wrote the code as part of they were paying him to do. If he was being paid by the company to create code as part of a group within the company and this particular application was part of the code he was paid to create, the company probably owns the copyright. My reading of the way he words what he says is that such was the case, although there is enough ambiguity in what he says that my reading may be a result of poor word choice on his part.
If I do something at home it does not belong to my employer. If I build a shed in my backyard, that does not belong to my employer.
If that something was part of your job and you take it on to company property and leave it there, it probably is. If part of your job is building a shed to store company property and you build that shed in your back yard, then transport the shed to your employer's property and use it to store company property, unless you have a specific agreement with your employer saying otherwise, that shed is your employer's property. It does not matter that you originally built it on your own time on your own property. Of course, if you had done that and took it with you when you left that employer, the fact that you had done so would make it harder for the company to get it back from you, as well (you could claim that you had a verbal agreement that it was yours, if your employer doesn't/can't contest that you built it on your own time, on your own property, it woul suggest that you did indeed have such an agreement).
That's as may be, but I don't know if you noticed, they aren't proposing doing that. What they are proposing is tightening an existing regulation without loosening those that have kept the market of meeting their new goals on its own.
Did it meet current U.S. safety standards? How about emission standards? My guess would be that the answer is no to both. Even so, it still got less than what the new CAFE will call for as the average for all cars sold by a manufacturer (not average of all models offered, but average of all cars actually sold).
Yeah, that's what everyone needs. We need all the poor people that can't afford a decent car to get raped on gas prices.
So, instead, we'll make it even harder for them to afford a car at all. Oh, right, we already had the first installment on that called "cash for clunkers".
The Europeans manage to regularly sell vehicles with fuel economies in the high 40s/low 50s of MPG.
Of course many of those cars are not legal to sell in the U.S., either because of emmissions requirements or because of the lack of certain safety features. Auto manufacturers have attempted to sell others of those cars in the U.S. to limited interest from the American car market.
The problem is that history teaches us that increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles does not reduce the amount of fuel used in vehicles. As the cost of driving goes down, people drive more.
Currently a Prius gets 45-50mpg, and the new standards will push the average up to 55...
My understanding is that the Prius is in the top 10% of cars for gas mileage...and we are talking about making the average be higher than what it gets. What share of the new car market is the Prius?
Of course not... when my '93 Civic sedan manual was getting an average of over 35MPG (combined), what it makes you wonder is why it takes a hybrid to get that mileage now.
Of course, a little bit of research would give you the answer: increased weight from new safety and emission requirements.
Hey, there's an idea. Instead of investing in one vehicle, why don't I spend my hard earned capital and buy one bigger, more expensive vehicle and on smaller, less expensive vehicle.
Of course, it, also, did not meet current safety standards to be sold to be driven on U.S. roads and thus weighed a lot less than any equivalent current car.
What's the worse that could happen, the US auto industry could collapse, leaving Detroit a apocalyptic burned-out wasteland and we'd have to throw trillions of dollars at them to prop up executive bonuses? oh, wait, we already did that. Thanks US automakers!
You are aware that the original CAFE standards played a role in that happening, right? (not that the auto industry--including the UAW-- didn't have a significant hand in that as well).
That is part of the idea, if people can't afford a vehicle they will have to take public transportation. The question I have for the people who think this is a good idea is this, considering that right now there aren't more than two vehicles that aren't classed as motorcycles that are legal to drive on U.S. roads that get 54.5 mile per gallon, how are the auto manufacturers going to get all of the vehicles they sell to average 54.5 mpg by 2025?
What evidence do you have that subsidies for renewable energy sources are temporary? There have been significant subsidies for solar energy since the 1970s. Same for wind power. Same for ethanol.
Please name some of the "subsidies" that fossil fuel plants receive that are unique to fossil fuels. There are a few, but every list I have seen indicate they play little or no role in the adoption of fossil fuels over other energy sources.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there are still people who will lend Washington money. All we know now is that, even when they can see the day coming, politicians will continue to borrow money until no one will lend them any. Of course, the really scary part is that there are voters who think they should be borrowing even more money.
You are correct that only the facts can speak to the heart of the matter, but a reporter will only report the facts that they think are significant. As a result, if the person who is reporting an incident does not share your worldview, they may leave out facts that you would consider important. When they leave out facts that one of the parties in a dispute consider important, that party will likely appear irrational.
As for raising the debt ceiling, we're like...the only country that has a debt ceiling that limits how much we can borrow.
You are absolutely correct. We should do away with the debt ceiling and go back to the way the Framers intended and force Congress to authorize every bond issue. The U.S. Constitution explicitly says that Congress is the only body that has the authority to "borrow money on the credit of the United States". In 1917, Congress wanted to give the Treasury the power to adjust the types of bonds it issued on the basis of changes in the market (and to avoid having to have a record of voting to borrow money that could be used against them in a campaign). In order to do so in a way that could at least give the appearance of passing Constitutional muster, they instituted the debt ceiling. There are two legitimate ways to get rid of the debt ceiling. The first is for Congress to authorize the issuance of every instrument of debt individually. The second is to ammend the Constitution to allow the President to "borrow money on the credit of the United States".
Because the overwhelming majority of news reporters are Democrats, therefore they report the news in ways that look good for the Democrats (often because they view the facts that make the Republican view look sensible as irrelevant, since they do not report those facts you are unable to judge for yourself, from your worldview whether or not those facts are indeed irrelevant). An important thing to realize about reporting (especially political reporting) is that if a story makes it seem as if one side in a dispute makes no sense, the story is probably not accurately reporting either the expressed motivations of that party, or leaving out facts which inform the position taken by that party. This does not mean that if you knew those facts you would agree with that party, it just means that if you knew those facts you would understand their logic.
Basically, U.S. politics can be divided in to two camps. One group thinks that the federal government is too big and spends too much money. The other group thinks that the federal government is too small and doesn't spend enough money. Along with this division are divisions about what people think the government should spend money on (this last is further complicated because some people may believe that some things should be government funded, but not funded by the federal government). There are numerous other complications, some of which are common to every democracy (such as the group that believes that national sovereignty should be gradually subsumed to international bodies)
There is no real way to gain more revenue short of raising taxes...
There is significant reason to doubt that raising taxes will increase government revenues by any significant amount. When Mayor Bloomberg first became mayor of New York, he raised cigarette taxes by a significant amount. A year later, he was scrambling to find money to balance the city budget because the tax did not generate anywhere near the amount of revenue he anticipated (my recollection is that revenue from the cigarette tax actually diminished, but that may be incorrect). The problem with raising taxes to increase revenue is that whatever activity you tax will decrease when you increase the tax on it. Additionally, that increased tax will increase the incentive to take the activity "off the books". It is very difficult to accurately predict the amount that the reported activity will decrease for a given tax increase because very few people know how much elasticity there is in demand for that activity. The few things that are known to have little elasticity in demand (and a high barrier to taking off the books) are politically very difficult to raise taxes on (fuel taxes are one example).
One of the reasons to have a person involved is to ensure that both parties are actually willing participants and reduce the likelihood that one of them is being coerced. Another problem with doing small claims online is that it would become too easy for someone to fake that the defendant in the case had "appeared" in court and admitted the debt, when in fact they were unaware that the case was even taking place. This has significant consequences for the defendant if they ever have to challenge the judgement.
The problem with using the fact that he was a 1099 "perma-temp" to say that he owns the copyright on the code is the fact that it appears that he wrote the code as part of they were paying him to do. If he was being paid by the company to create code as part of a group within the company and this particular application was part of the code he was paid to create, the company probably owns the copyright. My reading of the way he words what he says is that such was the case, although there is enough ambiguity in what he says that my reading may be a result of poor word choice on his part.
If I do something at home it does not belong to my employer. If I build a shed in my backyard, that does not belong to my employer.
If that something was part of your job and you take it on to company property and leave it there, it probably is. If part of your job is building a shed to store company property and you build that shed in your back yard, then transport the shed to your employer's property and use it to store company property, unless you have a specific agreement with your employer saying otherwise, that shed is your employer's property. It does not matter that you originally built it on your own time on your own property. Of course, if you had done that and took it with you when you left that employer, the fact that you had done so would make it harder for the company to get it back from you, as well (you could claim that you had a verbal agreement that it was yours, if your employer doesn't/can't contest that you built it on your own time, on your own property, it woul suggest that you did indeed have such an agreement).
The Republicans are out to service the rich and powerful, by making them more of each at the expense of all other Americans.
While the Democrats are the rich and powerful and are out to make sure that no one else gets to join the club.
Well, either that, or you get appointed Secretary of the Treasury.
That's as may be, but I don't know if you noticed, they aren't proposing doing that. What they are proposing is tightening an existing regulation without loosening those that have kept the market of meeting their new goals on its own.
Did it meet current U.S. safety standards? How about emission standards? My guess would be that the answer is no to both. Even so, it still got less than what the new CAFE will call for as the average for all cars sold by a manufacturer (not average of all models offered, but average of all cars actually sold).
Yeah, that's what everyone needs. We need all the poor people that can't afford a decent car to get raped on gas prices.
So, instead, we'll make it even harder for them to afford a car at all. Oh, right, we already had the first installment on that called "cash for clunkers".
The Europeans manage to regularly sell vehicles with fuel economies in the high 40s/low 50s of MPG.
Of course many of those cars are not legal to sell in the U.S., either because of emmissions requirements or because of the lack of certain safety features. Auto manufacturers have attempted to sell others of those cars in the U.S. to limited interest from the American car market.
The problem is that history teaches us that increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles does not reduce the amount of fuel used in vehicles. As the cost of driving goes down, people drive more.
Currently a Prius gets 45-50mpg, and the new standards will push the average up to 55...
My understanding is that the Prius is in the top 10% of cars for gas mileage...and we are talking about making the average be higher than what it gets. What share of the new car market is the Prius?
Of course not... when my '93 Civic sedan manual was getting an average of over 35MPG (combined), what it makes you wonder is why it takes a hybrid to get that mileage now.
Of course, a little bit of research would give you the answer: increased weight from new safety and emission requirements.
Hey, there's an idea. Instead of investing in one vehicle, why don't I spend my hard earned capital and buy one bigger, more expensive vehicle and on smaller, less expensive vehicle.
Of course, it, also, did not meet current safety standards to be sold to be driven on U.S. roads and thus weighed a lot less than any equivalent current car.
What's the worse that could happen, the US auto industry could collapse, leaving Detroit a apocalyptic burned-out wasteland and we'd have to throw trillions of dollars at them to prop up executive bonuses? oh, wait, we already did that. Thanks US automakers!
You are aware that the original CAFE standards played a role in that happening, right? (not that the auto industry--including the UAW-- didn't have a significant hand in that as well).
I didn't say it would work. I said it was part of the idea.
That is part of the idea, if people can't afford a vehicle they will have to take public transportation. The question I have for the people who think this is a good idea is this, considering that right now there aren't more than two vehicles that aren't classed as motorcycles that are legal to drive on U.S. roads that get 54.5 mile per gallon, how are the auto manufacturers going to get all of the vehicles they sell to average 54.5 mpg by 2025?
I remember there being lots of claims that SSDs would be more reliable because they had no moving parts.
What evidence do you have that subsidies for renewable energy sources are temporary? There have been significant subsidies for solar energy since the 1970s. Same for wind power. Same for ethanol.
Please name some of the "subsidies" that fossil fuel plants receive that are unique to fossil fuels. There are a few, but every list I have seen indicate they play little or no role in the adoption of fossil fuels over other energy sources.
No, we have two ideas on the table.
1.) Lay your cards on the table and negotiate from there.
2.) Claim to be willing to negotiate, but change your position as soon as it looks like there might be a deal.
I will take 1 every time.