And they earned those social security checks by sending money to the government to save and grow for them. Not unlike what the private sector does with annuities and what companies less and less so are doing with pensions. It is a government run pension plan with much less overhead (translated: someone isn't getting very rich from skimming off other peoples money).
As to your comment asking for accurate statistics, followed by "I see an awful lot of people living VERY well, collecting social security checks and dying with lots of money".
I'm not seeing the statistics here. And it does not matter if you have money outside SS. If you payed in you get out. Kind of nice and equal like (as Sarah would probably say).
And yes people die. As a matter of fact there are no reliable statistics that show the anyone does not die. But my comment was about people, homeless people, starving people, and the death from the neglect of society to at least prevent that shameless sort of death. What was it a famous person said about what you do the the least of my people...
Well when it comes to governments, especially when they are suppose to be of the people and by the people. It is a weak case to claim that there is a similarity between leaking the wherabouts of hiding Jews and the conduct of a government leader that may be working against the good of his own country. If we adopt your reasoning (and the previous administration would agree) then no government communication should be revealed because it might be damaging to someone. Well that begs the question, if you are doing damaging things, do we not have a vested interest in exposing those, especially if it is government action. Is the Government or should the Government be above the law? I think that is the central question. Are we paying them to work for us or are we subject to them? BP is a good example, during the Oil spill it was weeks before they admitted to the enormity of the spill. Then they sprayed as much chemical dispersent on it as they could get their hands on to make it less visible. Should we have been made aware of that sooner, so action could be taken sooner. True the information damaged BP's image, and probably cost a few jobs, but the damage to everyone else was and is and will be far greater. Do we the public have a right to know. I think we do. In a democracy we can only make informed judgements if we have the information (hence the name). Some in power would keep that information secret as much as possible as in the previous adminstration which classified more than any prior administration and for the wrong reasons. You don't classify information just because it might expose that you made an error. You do that and you will keep making errors and it will keep getting worse and worse. I say bring a light to the dark room.
When it stepped in and established the Social Security system to provide some financial security to our parents and grand parents and great grandparents so they did not starve to death out in the cold. Kind of like a reaction to a sever economic depression. You would think we would learn from history.
As they tell us the only problem with Social Security is that it is not privatized, that means that none of them are making a dime off that business. They see a gold mine and they are after it like flies to fat. (flies actually prefer fat to honey).
When the government stepped in and protected children wanting to go to public school from harm in the deep south, where lynching had been common practice.
During any national disaster when they step up with help and aid.
When our country was attacked, protecting.
When our poor and old need medical care. Rather than letting them die like stray dogs, because they have no money. In the anti-government world, people only have dignity if they have money, people are only valuable if they have the cash. The rest can eat dog food.
I think they call that compasionate conservatism, or enlighted self interest. Well as usual they get it have right, and its the later half alway. The first half is the marketing spin to make you think they have a heart.
The fairness doctrine has a place. The airwaves are common property of all of us and radio stations are granted use of that common resource by the government. Originally in return they needed to provide some public service. That was the birth of news departments in tv and radio. The fairness doctrine was in place to insure that the public trust was maintained for the use of their resource. We all know what snake oil salesman can do, sell you something that will posion you and run. The fairness doctrine was in place to at least moderate that behavior and also to bring that great American doctrine into play, competition. The thing that the Fox new'es of the world don't want is competition of ideas in close proximity to their brand of the "truth". They claim to be fair and balanced but that too is a lie. The fairness doctrine is not a bad thing, it is a way of allowing both sides of a story to be heard so people can make informed judgements. So look who is fighting the fairness doctrine, look who is viewing the internet and cable as a gold mine. Those are the people to watch closely.
No I don't think we misunderstand Rush. He may have a hell of a research staff but he also has talking points and a spin staff and an agenda. The agenda is clear to many of us but to the sheep that really think that he is an honest broker of the truth and has their best interests in mind, he is a dangerous person, because he convinces them to vote against their own best interests. He is a clever agenda ridden snake oil salesman.
Your kidding of course. This is the standard, accuse the victim of being responsible, but I guess if your a conspiracy theorist you would. This is what at least two levels down. A conspiracy by the people exposing conspiracys on themselves. Maybe a little to self referential.
Agreed, but given the premise that voting machines will exist in some places like they do today, and the choice between (like now) proprietary systems and an open source body of code. I think the Open Source is clearly better.
That is of course assuming that the situation is what we have now, currently,today, voting machines. It may be the best we can do to mitigate the problem, and as you say, make it harder to cheat.
Well ballots can be stolen, and ballots can be replaced so humans are capable of finding ways around, but with some checks and balances and the ability to go back and actually recount, we have a chance. I think paper is the way to go, or at least a paper trail of ballots going into a counting machine. At least there a hand count can validate a machine count.
But if you do have machines, open source is prefereable to closed source. Which checksum type checks to make sure the software is what it claims to be, before and after and possibly during the voting. The machine should be quarentined until all challanges are finished so the machines can be examined.
The all machine idea scares me and I will not vote on one if given a chance. Luckily in my voting location we still have a choice.
Your kidding right? The open source issue is about transapency. Of course the business minded folk in the tea party would love to make a profit off anything they can, non-profit? thats un-American right? Well say you have your hands on the voting machines, and say some party approached you to maybe bias the count just a little to swing the election? for a little profit? well why not that is capitalism at its finest isn't it. No government is going to tell you how to run your business right? Well voting is not a business, its the right and responsibility of the people and the people's government. One vote one count. Checks and balances were built into our governmental system by our founding fathers, why? because people can't be trusted to play fair unless there is someone watching over their shoulders. So the open source issue is really Founding Fathers Patriotism! looking out for the common good, the will of the people (not corporations).
Interesting premise, either Christian or a businessman. Hmmm that would suggest that businemen are anti-Christian or just plain evil. Hmmm, you may be right.
The Presidency has a Bully Pulpit which means symbolic acts can carry weight in calling attention to the issue, show that even the top executive officer of the land supports the idea of renewable energy and puts those ideas into action. The example is powerful and a signal that it is alright to do it, acceptible practice and supported practice in this administration. I think it is instructive politically to note that President Reagan went to all the trouble and expense to remove what President Carter had started. Essentially getting the tax payer to pay for removing the collectors and obviously remove the acceptiblity from the standpoint of his administration. Carter had his cabinet travel "economy class" on airlines. Reagan brought back traveling "First Class" and use of government planes. You can see the shift in view from frugal responsible government to government by the Aristocracy. That was one of Reagan's goals, to bring back "Elegance" to the presidency. A common conservative view, "not on my house, not my daughter, not my son, not my money" idea which has held back any progress on so many fronts. We are all in this together, just not them. They are all in it together but only with their friends behind the gated community walls.
Gifted to America? I think it was independently developed. But it seems like the Brits developed it independently a little sooner, they should have gotten credit then. Such a waste these government classification things. Holds so much science and technology back. As well as the current patent situation which fosters idea's for money not idea's for idea's and progress. I think our priorities are off with these money centric, government centric ethics.
Sorry the comparison to the Health Care Coverage debaty is not a good one. If would hold water if instead of paying the bill it was the doctor, or hosptital that refused service. In that case the person is not denied the medical help he needs, he just has to pay for it. Hospitals I don't think can turn people away from the emergency room. (nor shoud they). The same should be true of Fire Departments, they should put out the fire and charge him. Then the models would match.
It is unconscionable that they would deny putting out the fire, while they were there on the scene, for a meer $75 fee. I have to say that the progressive and dare I say it Christian view would provide the service to your neighbor in time of need. Fire, police and health should be basic services provided to communities and supported by all. Insurance can be optional thats fine, but this is a good example of business thinking overriding morals and ethics. Here the only ethic is getting the money.
So many of us left Europe to get away from things like Debtor's prison. Another old and tired and morally bankrupt practice of jailing someone with at debt, this is very close to that same ethic. Haven't we evolved passed this?
Sorry to disappoint you but there is the law on the books that requires radios sold in the US to Only tune to certain bands. Yes the elite few of us can build our own but most people use store bought radios and those come with band switches and ranges. Some have fixes to get around the problems (because they are also sold in other countries that do not have those stupid restrictions. Its all a way of making it easy for companies to not encrypt transmissions, or have something on the books to prosecute spies. I remember being in an electronics store where they had on a scanner listening to mobile frequencies and we were overhearing a phone call from our States govenor. Police, and law enforcement dont want people listening in on there transmissions either.
looks like its up now
on
Facebook Is Down
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
The problem is marketing, it works. Just look at the Republican parties' ability to pull the wool over everyones eyes. Claiming fiscal responsibility and running up record deficits, not once but every time in control, yet people were fooled and voted for them. That is the problem. It's so much easier if you don't have to fight a disinformation campaign or mount your own to counter the control threat. Look at the swift boating and other whisper campaigns that have been so evil and effective with a population that is too trusting (as they should be) with untrustworthy information mongers. They are just lazy all of them.
If that can be illegal under international law, we will slid quickly to ideological and religious islands with physical and idea walls around. It is censorship for sure. Not unlike the laws against circumventing content protection schemes. Thats illegal.. When I saw we had done that then I knew we were going to see more tightening and control of information, for profit and in this case for political control (well that is a different kind of profit that controls profit). Years before there were laws passed that made it illegal to listen in to certain radio frequencies or transmissions. That I think may have been one of the first steps in this control of information slide. They acually passed laws that Short wave radio's in this country could only tune to certain frequencies, but of course the fix to open that up to other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that bathes us all with its sunsine was easy and provided.
When will it stop, those that want to control and profit? Ya need to vote.
Well Balmer would probably spend that money to buy another fancy European car (jobs overseas) or a new painting or a very expensive dinner in Paris. I doubt whether the income tax he would pay would go towards providing many jobs, more likely go to savings somewhere. Well lets see what would happen if the money were sent to the State of Washington. Maybe it would go towards paving a road, or constructing a State Building, or paying a teacher, or a food stamp program, or a buying State contracted supplies from a local business to provide printer paper to the State Government, or the salaries to the enormously wealthy State employees, or go to a pension fund. Now lets see how will that money get into the economy efficiently to provide jobs? Maybe its the tide that lifts all boats?
Come on, this is the industries version of the stimulus package. You buy more and more overseas workers get jobs. Come on think of their kids. Oh and yes the kids of the executives that need that extra tuition for the Ivy League school they want to go to. The extra tuition being needed to open that back door.
Sharing Web traffic or disentors is not IP rights, just equivalent to illegal wire taps, or if you claim legal since the patriot act, then disclosing of priviledged information outside the law enforcement agency. Either one is unacceptable.
This is terribly interesting, the worst nightmare posible. The entrenched law inforcement and investigatory agency, tax payer funded being used to unabashedly help business over the general welfare. Someone should be going to jail here.
And "freedom of speech, but there will be consequences" is not the same as "freedom of speech".
Yes it is. There is always consequences. If you threaten to blow up a building, you can get arrested. Why? because other people have blown up buildings, if they did not take a threat seriouly and something happened, well the law suits would be swift and terrible. The point here is that the consequences are from the government. You can say what you want freely about your boss say, and get fired, you can say what you want about another person, he may deck you. You can express you ideas about religion and a Church may throw you out. You may look at a white girl and get lynched (oh right that consequence is long gone). There are always consequences. But you are not restricted from speaking freely, that is unless what you want to speak about has been classified by the government or maybe a gag order given by the courts, or maybe a non-disclosure clause in a contract. Or as it was in the Bush presidency, you're "Free Speech" was coralled into a "Free Speech Zone" where no one could see or hear you. Then there is always the wife factor.
There are always consequences to speech free or not and to suggest otherwise is being too simplistic.
We do hold our highest political office in high regard as we do say the flag or the Congress or our Embasies abroad and protect them. An verbal assault on the sitting President is an assault on our institutions and has consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
And they earned those social security checks by sending money to the government to save and grow for them. Not unlike what the private sector does with annuities and what companies less and less so are doing with pensions. It is a government run pension plan with much less overhead (translated: someone isn't getting very rich from skimming off other peoples money).
As to your comment asking for accurate statistics, followed by "I see an awful lot of people living VERY well, collecting social security checks and dying with lots of money".
I'm not seeing the statistics here. And it does not matter if you have money outside SS. If you payed in you get out. Kind of nice and equal like (as Sarah would probably say).
And yes people die. As a matter of fact there are no reliable statistics that show the anyone does not die. But my comment was about people, homeless people, starving people, and the death from the neglect of society to at least prevent that shameless sort of death. What was it a famous person said about what you do the the least of my people...
Merry Christmas Scrooge.
Well when it comes to governments, especially when they are suppose to be of the people and by the people. It is a weak case to claim that there is a similarity between leaking the wherabouts of hiding Jews and the conduct of a government leader that may be working against the good of his own country. If we adopt your reasoning (and the previous administration would agree) then no government communication should be revealed because it might be damaging to someone. Well that begs the question, if you are doing damaging things, do we not have a vested interest in exposing those, especially if it is government action. Is the Government or should the Government be above the law? I think that is the central question. Are we paying them to work for us or are we subject to them? BP is a good example, during the Oil spill it was weeks before they admitted to the enormity of the spill. Then they sprayed as much chemical dispersent on it as they could get their hands on to make it less visible. Should we have been made aware of that sooner, so action could be taken sooner. True the information damaged BP's image, and probably cost a few jobs, but the damage to everyone else was and is and will be far greater. Do we the public have a right to know. I think we do. In a democracy we can only make informed judgements if we have the information (hence the name). Some in power would keep that information secret as much as possible as in the previous adminstration which classified more than any prior administration and for the wrong reasons. You don't classify information just because it might expose that you made an error. You do that and you will keep making errors and it will keep getting worse and worse. I say bring a light to the dark room.
"Name one time government did any good"
When it stepped in and established the Social Security system to provide some financial security to our parents and grand parents and great grandparents so they did not starve to death out in the cold. Kind of like a reaction to a sever economic depression. You would think we would learn from history.
As they tell us the only problem with Social Security is that it is not privatized, that means that none of them are making a dime off that business. They see a gold mine and they are after it like flies to fat. (flies actually prefer fat to honey).
When the government stepped in and protected children wanting to go to public school from harm in the deep south, where lynching had been common practice.
During any national disaster when they step up with help and aid.
When our country was attacked, protecting.
When our poor and old need medical care. Rather than letting them die like stray dogs, because they have no money. In the anti-government world, people only have dignity if they have money, people are only valuable if they have the cash. The rest can eat dog food.
I think they call that compasionate conservatism, or enlighted self interest. Well as usual they get it have right, and its the later half alway. The first half is the marketing spin to make you think they have a heart.
The fairness doctrine has a place. The airwaves are common property of all of us and radio stations are granted use of that common resource by the government. Originally in return they needed to provide some public service. That was the birth of news departments in tv and radio. The fairness doctrine was in place to insure that the public trust was maintained for the use of their resource. We all know what snake oil salesman can do, sell you something that will posion you and run. The fairness doctrine was in place to at least moderate that behavior and also to bring that great American doctrine into play, competition. The thing that the Fox new'es of the world don't want is competition of ideas in close proximity to their brand of the "truth". They claim to be fair and balanced but that too is a lie. The fairness doctrine is not a bad thing, it is a way of allowing both sides of a story to be heard so people can make informed judgements. So look who is fighting the fairness doctrine, look who is viewing the internet and cable as a gold mine. Those are the people to watch closely.
No I don't think we misunderstand Rush. He may have a hell of a research staff but he also has talking points and a spin staff and an agenda. The agenda is clear to many of us but to the sheep that really think that he is an honest broker of the truth and has their best interests in mind, he is a dangerous person, because he convinces them to vote against their own best interests. He is a clever agenda ridden snake oil salesman.
Your kidding of course. This is the standard, accuse the victim of being responsible, but I guess if your a conspiracy theorist you would. This is what at least two levels down. A conspiracy by the people exposing conspiracys on themselves. Maybe a little to self referential.
Well ther are not mutually exclusive after what is it Bishop Usher calculated 4006 BC. Before that the theories diverge.
Agreed, but given the premise that voting machines will exist in some places like they do today, and the choice between (like now) proprietary systems and an open source body of code. I think the Open Source is clearly better.
That is of course assuming that the situation is what we have now, currently ,today, voting machines. It may be the best we can do to mitigate the problem, and as you say, make it harder to cheat.
more eyes thats the ticket
Well ballots can be stolen, and ballots can be replaced so humans are capable of finding ways around, but with some checks and balances and the ability to go back and actually recount, we have a chance. I think paper is the way to go, or at least a paper trail of ballots going into a counting machine. At least there a hand count can validate a machine count.
But if you do have machines, open source is prefereable to closed source. Which checksum type checks to make sure the software is what it claims to be, before and after and possibly during the voting. The machine should be quarentined until all challanges are finished so the machines can be examined.
The all machine idea scares me and I will not vote on one if given a chance. Luckily in my voting location we still have a choice.
Your kidding right? The open source issue is about transapency. Of course the business minded folk in the tea party would love to make a profit off anything they can, non-profit? thats un-American right? Well say you have your hands on the voting machines, and say some party approached you to maybe bias the count just a little to swing the election? for a little profit? well why not that is capitalism at its finest isn't it. No government is going to tell you how to run your business right? Well voting is not a business, its the right and responsibility of the people and the people's government. One vote one count. Checks and balances were built into our governmental system by our founding fathers, why? because people can't be trusted to play fair unless there is someone watching over their shoulders. So the open source issue is really Founding Fathers Patriotism! looking out for the common good, the will of the people (not corporations).
Great opportunity to let your congressmen and women and the President know your feelings on the subject. Lets /. them on this.
Interesting premise, either Christian or a businessman. Hmmm that would suggest that businemen are anti-Christian or just plain evil. Hmmm, you may be right.
The Presidency has a Bully Pulpit which means symbolic acts can carry weight in calling attention to the issue, show that even the top executive officer of the land supports the idea of renewable energy and puts those ideas into action. The example is powerful and a signal that it is alright to do it, acceptible practice and supported practice in this administration. I think it is instructive politically to note that President Reagan went to all the trouble and expense to remove what President Carter had started. Essentially getting the tax payer to pay for removing the collectors and obviously remove the acceptiblity from the standpoint of his administration. Carter had his cabinet travel "economy class" on airlines. Reagan brought back traveling "First Class" and use of government planes. You can see the shift in view from frugal responsible government to government by the Aristocracy. That was one of Reagan's goals, to bring back "Elegance" to the presidency. A common conservative view, "not on my house, not my daughter, not my son, not my money" idea which has held back any progress on so many fronts. We are all in this together, just not them. They are all in it together but only with their friends behind the gated community walls.
Gifted to America? I think it was independently developed. But it seems like the Brits developed it independently a little sooner, they should have gotten credit then. Such a waste these government classification things. Holds so much science and technology back. As well as the current patent situation which fosters idea's for money not idea's for idea's and progress. I think our priorities are off with these money centric, government centric ethics.
Sorry the comparison to the Health Care Coverage debaty is not a good one. If would hold water if instead of paying the bill it was the doctor, or hosptital that refused service. In that case the person is not denied the medical help he needs, he just has to pay for it. Hospitals I don't think can turn people away from the emergency room. (nor shoud they). The same should be true of Fire Departments, they should put out the fire and charge him. Then the models would match.
It is unconscionable that they would deny putting out the fire, while they were there on the scene, for a meer $75 fee. I have to say that the progressive and dare I say it Christian view would provide the service to your neighbor in time of need. Fire, police and health should be basic services provided to communities and supported by all. Insurance can be optional thats fine, but this is a good example of business thinking overriding morals and ethics. Here the only ethic is getting the money.
So many of us left Europe to get away from things like Debtor's prison. Another old and tired and morally bankrupt practice of jailing someone with at debt, this is very close to that same ethic. Haven't we evolved passed this?
Sorry to disappoint you but there is the law on the books that requires radios sold in the US to Only tune to certain bands. Yes the elite few of us can build our own but most people use store bought radios and those come with band switches and ranges. Some have fixes to get around the problems (because they are also sold in other countries that do not have those stupid restrictions. Its all a way of making it easy for companies to not encrypt transmissions, or have something on the books to prosecute spies. I remember being in an electronics store where they had on a scanner listening to mobile frequencies and we were overhearing a phone call from our States govenor. Police, and law enforcement dont want people listening in on there transmissions either.
look likes its back
The problem is marketing, it works. Just look at the Republican parties' ability to pull the wool over everyones eyes. Claiming fiscal responsibility and running up record deficits, not once but every time in control, yet people were fooled and voted for them. That is the problem. It's so much easier if you don't have to fight a disinformation campaign or mount your own to counter the control threat. Look at the swift boating and other whisper campaigns that have been so evil and effective with a population that is too trusting (as they should be) with untrustworthy information mongers. They are just lazy all of them.
If that can be illegal under international law, we will slid quickly to ideological and religious islands with physical and idea walls around. It is censorship for sure. Not unlike the laws against circumventing content protection schemes. Thats illegal.. When I saw we had done that then I knew we were going to see more tightening and control of information, for profit and in this case for political control (well that is a different kind of profit that controls profit). Years before there were laws passed that made it illegal to listen in to certain radio frequencies or transmissions. That I think may have been one of the first steps in this control of information slide. They acually passed laws that Short wave radio's in this country could only tune to certain frequencies, but of course the fix to open that up to other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that bathes us all with its sunsine was easy and provided.
When will it stop, those that want to control and profit? Ya need to vote.
Well Balmer would probably spend that money to buy another fancy European car (jobs overseas) or a new painting or a very expensive dinner in Paris. I doubt whether the income tax he would pay would go towards providing many jobs, more likely go to savings somewhere. Well lets see what would happen if the money were sent to the State of Washington. Maybe it would go towards paving a road, or constructing a State Building, or paying a teacher, or a food stamp program, or a buying State contracted supplies from a local business to provide printer paper to the State Government, or the salaries to the enormously wealthy State employees, or go to a pension fund. Now lets see how will that money get into the economy efficiently to provide jobs? Maybe its the tide that lifts all boats?
Come on, this is the industries version of the stimulus package. You buy more and more overseas workers get jobs. Come on think of their kids. Oh and yes the kids of the executives that need that extra tuition for the Ivy League school they want to go to. The extra tuition being needed to open that back door.
Not really, look at the decimal expansion of 1/3 for instance.
Sharing Web traffic or disentors is not IP rights, just equivalent to illegal wire taps, or if you claim legal since the patriot act, then disclosing of priviledged information outside the law enforcement agency. Either one is unacceptable.
This is terribly interesting, the worst nightmare posible. The entrenched law inforcement and investigatory agency, tax payer funded being used to unabashedly help business over the general welfare. Someone should be going to jail here.
And "freedom of speech, but there will be consequences" is not the same as "freedom of speech".
Yes it is. There is always consequences. If you threaten to blow up a building, you can get arrested. Why? because other people have blown up buildings, if they did not take a threat seriouly and something happened, well the law suits would be swift and terrible. The point here is that the consequences are from the government. You can say what you want freely about your boss say, and get fired, you can say what you want about another person, he may deck you. You can express you ideas about religion and a Church may throw you out. You may look at a white girl and get lynched (oh right that consequence is long gone). There are always consequences. But you are not restricted from speaking freely, that is unless what you want to speak about has been classified by the government or maybe a gag order given by the courts, or maybe a non-disclosure clause in a contract. Or as it was in the Bush presidency, you're "Free Speech" was coralled into a "Free Speech Zone" where no one could see or hear you. Then there is always the wife factor.
There are always consequences to speech free or not and to suggest otherwise is being too simplistic.
We do hold our highest political office in high regard as we do say the flag or the Congress or our Embasies abroad and protect them. An verbal assault on the sitting President is an assault on our institutions and has consequences.