Today's financial woes are temporary. In the long run, investing is a good idea. It makes money. That's why the rich people do it. Enron employees were screwed because Enron stock tanked. If their portfolios had been diversified, no problem.
Soc Security is in horrible shape. And AFAIK, it doesn't take "contributions" like an IRA or 401k; it is funded by a TAX. You (assuming you work) pay a tax for it straight out of your paycheck, and so does your employer. There is no "cap" to adjust. There is simply the option of raising the tax, and all that does is shift more of the burden to me, the taxpayer, and represents MORE money that I'll never see again.
They do. I'm living it. But you didn't answer my question. Why should my Constitutional right to bear arms be abridged, although I meet all the legal requirements to bear arms (not violent, not a felon, etc.)? Second, exactly what safeguards any rights in the Constitution if even one can be quashed without due process?
Except reality is not that simple. Example: Politician 1 says he will vote for abc, but against xyz. Bill abc comes up for a vote. To kill it or to sneak xyz through, Politician 2 attaches rider xyz to it. Pol 1 is in an impossible situation.
Also, there is no room here that I see for a politician to honestly change their mind for the better.
I have heard that privatising social security and strip mining it's assets are really popular focus amongst the rich, greedy and worthless.
1) Are you an American?
2) How old are you?
I ask these questions because 1) you could be from anywhere, although if you are bringing up Soc Security, you are probably from the US, and 2) if you are in the US and around 35, you will see little or nothing from the Soc Security taxes you are now paying.
The assets have already been strip-mined. Congress and previous administrations have already taken the money. The money going in today goes directly out the door to pay for current benefits, and shortly that won't be sufficient. Assuming the government pays back every penny they owe the trust fund, by the time post-boomers need it, it will be gone, or nearly gone. The thousands that I am paying every year are never going to come back to me, ever.
I am getting fucked. Hard.
The privatization measure that was proposed was a great idea. It would have protected those receiving benefits now. It would have allowed people to choose whether to put their assets in the government-controlled program if they felt safer that way, or direct part of the funds they pay into stocks & bonds. Guess what? that approach works elsewhere. Chile has a similar system, and their retirees 1) get a better return on what they've put in, and 2) aren't facing a shortfall. You know what else? Where do you think IRAs, pensions, & 401ks are invested? Mostly in stocks & bonds & similar investments.
Lots of time and effort has been spent generating FUD against ideas like this. Despite the immediate market conditions today, the long-term outlook for these kinds of investments is good. What is the alternative?
What the fsck does Carly have to do with recent HP anything? Have you not read the news? She doesn't work there anymore. Hasn't for quite some time, actually.
Slashdot dictionary: hacker n, one who is skilled with computers, esp. if those skills are gained by exploration and experience vs. formal education cracker n, one who breaks into systems
Rest of the world: hacker n, one who breaks into systems cracker n, toasted wafer of bread, often served with cheese
AFAIK, Kevin Mitnick more or less said that any crack you can do by obtaining the pw through easy means (social engineering, etc) is better than resorting to exotic measures.
"She wasn't using the account for gov business, at least not based on what was posted on wikileaks, or according to the purported "Hacker". It was personal e-mail, in some cases about how she and others were being treated personally in the political arena, but not anything related to official government business."
You don't know that. It could have been deleted.
Did you just use imaginary evidence to try to convict someone in the court of popular opinion?
I know you're half joking, but I'd think that banks would prefer someone who can keep a secret. As a matter of fact, I'd think that any position that could use his meager skills also require the ability to STFU and be subtle.
"As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?
Gun control advocates have employed a slippery slope approach to accomplishing what they cannot do outright. For example. here in Massachusetts, handgun licenses are issued only at the discretion of the local chief of police. While that sounds reasonable on its face, what this means in terms of real-world effect is that the police chiefs of certain towns and cities have de facto repealed the Second Amendment for most citizens. Patterns of abuse range from outright denial of a permit to a qualified and law-abiding citizen, to simply never allowing the process to finish, by dragging it out for months.
My right to vote, or free speech, or freedom of worship do not depend on my police chief's permission, nor should they. Why should my right to bear arms be restricted? I have not been deemed a threat to anyone around me. The free speech and fifth amendment rights of a convicted murderer/rapist receive more protection than the self-defense rights of an innocent man in this country.
But still I don't feel most bible-belters are "real republicans", and that under a better system, they would be in a separate party that actually fully represented them.
Earlier this summer, some acquaintances and I agreed to form the "We're Not Dumbasses" political party around a campfire one night. You're welcome to join our grassroots effort; bring marshmallows if you like s'mores. We got to discussing politics, and although we had different views and leanings, we actually managed to cobble together a number of possible solutions to a bunch of problems that the real politicians still haven't fixed. It felt kind of like that commercial with the firemen running congress. I'm not saying that it's possible to armchair-quarterback the nations woes away, but I think that regular people would do a better job of running things, and I'm all for another political party to join the mix.
I brought up the equal lending issue as an example of one of the many interdependent, sometimes paradoxical factors that led us to where we are now - I certainly wouldn't lay all the blame there.
I understand your point a little better, but I still disagree. I don't know the breakdown between rich vs. poor vs. middle class and their relative levels of charitable giving, so I can't either concede or refute your point about the poor Repubs giving and the rich Repubs not giving.
You are claiming that the GOP controls their votes by opposing gay marriage. The flip side of that coin is that I hear other people lament that the Bible Belt has hijacked the GOP with their anti-gay agenda. So which way does the control really flow?
Or I hear abortion opponents lament that pro-abortion forces have hijacked the Dems. Labor unions have hijacked the Dems. People who oppose gun rights say that the NRA has hijacked the GOP. From those that favor abortion rights, I hear that anti-abortionists have hijacked the GOP. In fact, it seems that whenever a cause is supported by one party, the other party claims that the group advocating/opposing something has taken control of their political opponents. I don't think you give people enough credit for thinking on their own. It may be natural for intelligent people, no matter what their party affiliation, to see their own opinion as so righteous that anyone opposed to them must be either dumb, duped, or corrupted.
Bush's policies have had some effect on the little guy (you can't fight wars without paying for them), but he also has inherited an economic headache that was years in the making under the previous administration. I'm not blaming Clinton, either. The fact is that the economy cycles, and periods of growth are followed by periods of recession. The "irrational exuberance" that characterized the last decade+ booms in the stock market and real estate is now coming back to bite us all in the ass.
Lots of people are willing to blame sub-prime lenders for making risky loans, but do these critics realize that anti-discrimination regulations in the lending industry propelled a lot of that?
Lenders are judged on who they lend to, and where, and on what terms. A bank can quickly find itself in legal trouble if their lending portfolio doesn't contain enough minorities, and cover communities of all economic classes. Also, if their loan policies towards minorities shows that they offer less favorable terms, such as charging higher interest rates, they are in trouble for "predatory lending". Now, don't get me wrong, there is good reason for these regulations. Without these protections, minorities and people in disadvantaged areas (not coincidentally, heavily minority) would suffer even worse economically. But the net effect is that lenders end up getting people approved for loans that are way outside their true ability to pay (especially with adjustable rate mortgages and interest-only loan payments), and the terms of the loan don't reflect the true risk the lender is taking.
To be fair, there are lots of other factors in the housing crisis right now, and I'm not trying to lay it all on anti-discrimination regs. I'm just trying to point out one example of how the current fix we're in has more to do with unforeseen consequences from causes that started long ago than from any conspiracy against the little guy, and in some cases the problem is made worse by things designed to help the little guy.
Uhh, the atmosphere is already almost 80% N2. He's asking if they are burning lignite and pure O2, and we assume that they got the O2 from the atmosphere, how did they separate the O2 and N2, and how much energy did they spend to do that?
My guess on the nitrogen is they either blow it back into the atmosphere where it belongs, or perhaps they could compress/cool it into liquid nitrogen, which has scientific, medical, and industrial uses.
If they pump it into what was a natural gas field that held large amounts of gas under pressure for millions of years, what makes you think it would find its way out easily?
Who cares what part of the country they are from, or what church they worship at, if any? Are you seriously proposing that their charity doesn't count for some reason? Are you saying that their charity should be counted as coming from Democrats, because the only reason you think someone would vote Repub is because you "feel" they were "duped"?
Doesn't represent their economic interests? Yeah, I know, everyone loves to hate Bush, but the fact is that under Bush, the little guy has gotten a better deal on his 1040 form than he did at any point under Clinton.
I've never understood the big opposition to gay rights/sex/marriage/whatever. Let's call it what it is: one group imposing their religion and personal "ick" bias on another group.
Let's break down the numbers. First, for every male gay couple out there, there are theoretically 2 more women out there looking for a guy to be with. Considering the world's population is pretty close to being 50-50 m/f, anything that tips the balance in our favor is pure goodness, especially among the/. crowd. Second, for every lesbian out there... well, I know I can't explain why, but we all know that two women together is inexplicably hot, even if us guys have zero chance of being involved. So, yeah... that's pure goodness too. What's not too like?
1) OP might be posting from outside the US - immigration is not necessarily a factor, and that may tell something about your own biases and assumptions.
2) Do you expect immigrants to learn english as we all do, through trial and error and hard work and education over a period of time, or to speak/write it perfectly right away? Because regardless of the OP's fluency, he/she at least got their point across to me, which is more than many Americans can do in another language. Hell, OP's english isn't much worse than some high school kids getting mashed through the "education" process these days.
Anonymous is not doing us a favor by hacking Palin's email. First, anyone concerned with privacy rights should be alarmed not just by the intrusion, but by the 'it's okay, we did it for a good reason' defense. I would think that a group known as Anonymous would get that. Second, Scientology gets the benefit of watching/gloating as the Secret Service does all the heavy lifting in uncovering these guys. I'm pretty sure that when the Feds are done with these guys, the one thing they won't be is anonymous.
Slashdot Mirror
Today's financial woes are temporary. In the long run, investing is a good idea. It makes money. That's why the rich people do it. Enron employees were screwed because Enron stock tanked. If their portfolios had been diversified, no problem.
Soc Security is in horrible shape. And AFAIK, it doesn't take "contributions" like an IRA or 401k; it is funded by a TAX. You (assuming you work) pay a tax for it straight out of your paycheck, and so does your employer. There is no "cap" to adjust. There is simply the option of raising the tax, and all that does is shift more of the burden to me, the taxpayer, and represents MORE money that I'll never see again.
I don't think they do
They do. I'm living it. But you didn't answer my question. Why should my Constitutional right to bear arms be abridged, although I meet all the legal requirements to bear arms (not violent, not a felon, etc.)? Second, exactly what safeguards any rights in the Constitution if even one can be quashed without due process?
Except reality is not that simple. Example: Politician 1 says he will vote for abc, but against xyz. Bill abc comes up for a vote. To kill it or to sneak xyz through, Politician 2 attaches rider xyz to it. Pol 1 is in an impossible situation.
Also, there is no room here that I see for a politician to honestly change their mind for the better.
I have heard that privatising social security and strip mining it's assets are really popular focus amongst the rich, greedy and worthless.
1) Are you an American?
2) How old are you?
I ask these questions because 1) you could be from anywhere, although if you are bringing up Soc Security, you are probably from the US, and 2) if you are in the US and around 35, you will see little or nothing from the Soc Security taxes you are now paying.
The assets have already been strip-mined. Congress and previous administrations have already taken the money. The money going in today goes directly out the door to pay for current benefits, and shortly that won't be sufficient. Assuming the government pays back every penny they owe the trust fund, by the time post-boomers need it, it will be gone, or nearly gone. The thousands that I am paying every year are never going to come back to me, ever.
I am getting fucked. Hard.
The privatization measure that was proposed was a great idea. It would have protected those receiving benefits now. It would have allowed people to choose whether to put their assets in the government-controlled program if they felt safer that way, or direct part of the funds they pay into stocks & bonds. Guess what? that approach works elsewhere. Chile has a similar system, and their retirees 1) get a better return on what they've put in, and 2) aren't facing a shortfall. You know what else? Where do you think IRAs, pensions, & 401ks are invested? Mostly in stocks & bonds & similar investments.
Lots of time and effort has been spent generating FUD against ideas like this. Despite the immediate market conditions today, the long-term outlook for these kinds of investments is good. What is the alternative?
What the fsck does Carly have to do with recent HP anything? Have you not read the news? She doesn't work there anymore. Hasn't for quite some time, actually.
Slashdot dictionary:
hacker n, one who is skilled with computers, esp. if those skills are gained by exploration and experience vs. formal education
cracker n, one who breaks into systems
Rest of the world:
hacker n, one who breaks into systems
cracker n, toasted wafer of bread, often served with cheese
AFAIK, Kevin Mitnick more or less said that any crack you can do by obtaining the pw through easy means (social engineering, etc) is better than resorting to exotic measures.
"She wasn't using the account for gov business, at least not based on what was posted on wikileaks, or according to the purported "Hacker". It was personal e-mail, in some cases about how she and others were being treated personally in the political arena, but not anything related to official government business."
You don't know that. It could have been deleted.
Did you just use imaginary evidence to try to convict someone in the court of popular opinion?
I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
I know you're half joking, but I'd think that banks would prefer someone who can keep a secret. As a matter of fact, I'd think that any position that could use his meager skills also require the ability to STFU and be subtle.
"As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?
Gun control advocates have employed a slippery slope approach to accomplishing what they cannot do outright. For example. here in Massachusetts, handgun licenses are issued only at the discretion of the local chief of police. While that sounds reasonable on its face, what this means in terms of real-world effect is that the police chiefs of certain towns and cities have de facto repealed the Second Amendment for most citizens. Patterns of abuse range from outright denial of a permit to a qualified and law-abiding citizen, to simply never allowing the process to finish, by dragging it out for months.
My right to vote, or free speech, or freedom of worship do not depend on my police chief's permission, nor should they. Why should my right to bear arms be restricted? I have not been deemed a threat to anyone around me. The free speech and fifth amendment rights of a convicted murderer/rapist receive more protection than the self-defense rights of an innocent man in this country.
Or airplanes!
But still I don't feel most bible-belters are "real republicans", and that under a better system, they would be in a separate party that actually fully represented them.
Earlier this summer, some acquaintances and I agreed to form the "We're Not Dumbasses" political party around a campfire one night. You're welcome to join our grassroots effort; bring marshmallows if you like s'mores. We got to discussing politics, and although we had different views and leanings, we actually managed to cobble together a number of possible solutions to a bunch of problems that the real politicians still haven't fixed. It felt kind of like that commercial with the firemen running congress. I'm not saying that it's possible to armchair-quarterback the nations woes away, but I think that regular people would do a better job of running things, and I'm all for another political party to join the mix.
I brought up the equal lending issue as an example of one of the many interdependent, sometimes paradoxical factors that led us to where we are now - I certainly wouldn't lay all the blame there.
Well, according to Rule 34, someone somewhere must like the bulldog-on-bulldog.
I understand your point a little better, but I still disagree. I don't know the breakdown between rich vs. poor vs. middle class and their relative levels of charitable giving, so I can't either concede or refute your point about the poor Repubs giving and the rich Repubs not giving.
You are claiming that the GOP controls their votes by opposing gay marriage. The flip side of that coin is that I hear other people lament that the Bible Belt has hijacked the GOP with their anti-gay agenda. So which way does the control really flow?
Or I hear abortion opponents lament that pro-abortion forces have hijacked the Dems. Labor unions have hijacked the Dems. People who oppose gun rights say that the NRA has hijacked the GOP. From those that favor abortion rights, I hear that anti-abortionists have hijacked the GOP. In fact, it seems that whenever a cause is supported by one party, the other party claims that the group advocating/opposing something has taken control of their political opponents. I don't think you give people enough credit for thinking on their own. It may be natural for intelligent people, no matter what their party affiliation, to see their own opinion as so righteous that anyone opposed to them must be either dumb, duped, or corrupted.
Bush's policies have had some effect on the little guy (you can't fight wars without paying for them), but he also has inherited an economic headache that was years in the making under the previous administration. I'm not blaming Clinton, either. The fact is that the economy cycles, and periods of growth are followed by periods of recession. The "irrational exuberance" that characterized the last decade+ booms in the stock market and real estate is now coming back to bite us all in the ass.
Lots of people are willing to blame sub-prime lenders for making risky loans, but do these critics realize that anti-discrimination regulations in the lending industry propelled a lot of that?
Lenders are judged on who they lend to, and where, and on what terms. A bank can quickly find itself in legal trouble if their lending portfolio doesn't contain enough minorities, and cover communities of all economic classes. Also, if their loan policies towards minorities shows that they offer less favorable terms, such as charging higher interest rates, they are in trouble for "predatory lending". Now, don't get me wrong, there is good reason for these regulations. Without these protections, minorities and people in disadvantaged areas (not coincidentally, heavily minority) would suffer even worse economically. But the net effect is that lenders end up getting people approved for loans that are way outside their true ability to pay (especially with adjustable rate mortgages and interest-only loan payments), and the terms of the loan don't reflect the true risk the lender is taking.
To be fair, there are lots of other factors in the housing crisis right now, and I'm not trying to lay it all on anti-discrimination regs. I'm just trying to point out one example of how the current fix we're in has more to do with unforeseen consequences from causes that started long ago than from any conspiracy against the little guy, and in some cases the problem is made worse by things designed to help the little guy.
Yeah, CO2 leaking into your drinking water is serious business. If you aren't careful, you might have Perrier tap water.
*whoosh*!
Uhh, the atmosphere is already almost 80% N2. He's asking if they are burning lignite and pure O2, and we assume that they got the O2 from the atmosphere, how did they separate the O2 and N2, and how much energy did they spend to do that?
My guess on the nitrogen is they either blow it back into the atmosphere where it belongs, or perhaps they could compress/cool it into liquid nitrogen, which has scientific, medical, and industrial uses.
If they pump it into what was a natural gas field that held large amounts of gas under pressure for millions of years, what makes you think it would find its way out easily?
Who cares what part of the country they are from, or what church they worship at, if any? Are you seriously proposing that their charity doesn't count for some reason? Are you saying that their charity should be counted as coming from Democrats, because the only reason you think someone would vote Repub is because you "feel" they were "duped"?
Doesn't represent their economic interests? Yeah, I know, everyone loves to hate Bush, but the fact is that under Bush, the little guy has gotten a better deal on his 1040 form than he did at any point under Clinton.
Pesky facts, indeed.
I've never understood the big opposition to gay rights/sex/marriage/whatever. Let's call it what it is: one group imposing their religion and personal "ick" bias on another group.
/. crowd. Second, for every lesbian out there ... well, I know I can't explain why, but we all know that two women together is inexplicably hot, even if us guys have zero chance of being involved. So, yeah ... that's pure goodness too. What's not too like?
Let's break down the numbers. First, for every male gay couple out there, there are theoretically 2 more women out there looking for a guy to be with. Considering the world's population is pretty close to being 50-50 m/f, anything that tips the balance in our favor is pure goodness, especially among the
Thanks for the info.
1) OP might be posting from outside the US - immigration is not necessarily a factor, and that may tell something about your own biases and assumptions.
2) Do you expect immigrants to learn english as we all do, through trial and error and hard work and education over a period of time, or to speak/write it perfectly right away? Because regardless of the OP's fluency, he/she at least got their point across to me, which is more than many Americans can do in another language. Hell, OP's english isn't much worse than some high school kids getting mashed through the "education" process these days.
Anonymous is not doing us a favor by hacking Palin's email. First, anyone concerned with privacy rights should be alarmed not just by the intrusion, but by the 'it's okay, we did it for a good reason' defense. I would think that a group known as Anonymous would get that. Second, Scientology gets the benefit of watching/gloating as the Secret Service does all the heavy lifting in uncovering these guys. I'm pretty sure that when the Feds are done with these guys, the one thing they won't be is anonymous.
Sure, we'll take your $$ as soon as I get Granny to sign a release form. ;)
Heh, heh, heh ... I said "most people". Rule 34 strikes again.
Nice, um "research". Wow. He ought to be able to fill his 1TB drive with that. He must not be looking hard enough.