"""
The agencies cited exemptions at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009, compared with 312,683 times the previous year, the review found. Over the same period, the number of information requests declined by about 11 percent, from 493,610 requests in fiscal 2008 to 444,924 in 2009. """
I would expect it to increase if a set of new people started making them.
This might be part of the it though:
""" Much of the Obama administration's early effort seems to have been aimed at clearing out a backlog of old cases: The number of requests still waiting past deadlines spelled out in the open-records law fell from 124,019 in budget year 2008 to 67,764 at the end of the most recent budget year. There is no way to tell whether people whose cases were closed ultimately received the information they sought. """
Backlogged requests are more likely to not want to be answered (that's why they got put at the back of the queue) and hence more likely to be met with a exemption when you start to clear them.
Of course, and the guy who came first was a member of the same team I believe.
But still, he didn't win the race. And the claim made was "at least we didn't lose the race", which is not "we didn't lose the championship" or "we didn't lose all the points".
And everyone who downloads a movie or music file from the internet illegally is also going to get involved in the drug trade, rape your daughter and murder any witnesses.
After all they've made is clear that American law means nothing to them by that downloading.
They are asking: what is the legal basis for doing this.
The government can just reply with "paragraph 13 of section 6, part 9 of statute 9201", assuming they do have such a legal basis for assassinating US citizens of course. Or they could say "they are enemy combatants according to XYZ and this these drone's comply with our obligations to international treaties on warfare we are party to"
""" Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones """
It's in the damn summary, for fuck sake.
Now that mightn't be the case, but it's the claim the ACLU is making and the reason why they are asking for the information in the first place.
Demographics were such that wasn't going to be a problem.
Basically life expectancies were lower, so people would be taking from the system for a shorter period of time on average.
And there wasn't a "bulge" in the population distribution to magnify that problem.
Basically it wasn't a pyramid, it was a rectangle - you didn't need more people starting to pay in than there were people stopping paying in.
Some entering the workforce at 18 in 1940 had a life expectancy of about 68. Retirement age was 65. So they are paying the payroll tax to fund the thing for 47 years and claiming benefits for 3. So 16 years of paying for every year of claiming.
Now, someone entering the workforce at 18 has a life expectancy of 77. Retirement age is 67. So they are paying into the system for 49 years and claiming benefits for 10. So 5 years of paying for every year of claiming.
It's not just poorly managed, it's impossible for it to do what it claims to do even with great management (well short of magical prescient management).
But yes pyramid scheme isn't quite true, because the government can change the rules whenever they want to. It is a pyramid scheme under the current rules - it wasn't when it began, but things have changed such as life expectancies.
Doesn't matter if it's a stupid move or an unlikely move, it's a possibility and hence your "If you don't put something [equity] in, you're not a partner -you're an employee" isn't true
If you have the skills/contacts/whatever that someone wants they could employ you or the could offer you an equity stake and some control over the company.
You don't have to actually put money down to be a business partner. It's the usual case of course, but there's no requirement for it.
If the expected returns on the investment does not meet the expected payouts and the difference is made up by new contributors then it is by definition a pyramid scheme.
Social security funds are invested in treasuries. The expected returns on those are crap (since interest rates are being held low). And of course the Treasury doesn't have the money to pay back those bonds anyway - the government balance sheet is in the red. Of course it can print it, but that leads to a whole bunch of other problems.
What would happen if SS contributions were cut to 0 tomorrow - no more contributions to social security (the equivalent on no one earning any taxable income). Could SS make all the payments it is on the hook for now? What about when the baby boomers all retire? If not then it is a pyramid scheme since it is relying on future contributions not investments to make payments.
In fact it says that it does, "national security" and all that. Of course it isn't hiding it from the citizens... but you can't risk the foreigners finding out.
And individuals don't need privacy, for the same reason: "national security".
The government needs to know everything it possibly can, and needs to keep as much of it secret as possible. It doesn't pretend otherwise.
I wouldn't expect such a person to get preferential treatment now anyway. And if they do now, then why would their special case treatment change anyway?
Throwing away a perfectly good organ because there are no donors who need it and are a match for transplantation purposes is ridiculous. The non-donor got lucky in that case no need to let them die just to spite them.
Why should you get a organ from someone who just died if you aren't willing to give the same if you die?
Except for the group of people who have something that means they aren't candidates for organ donations but are candidates for organ transplant (I don't know if there is such a pair, but you don't take organs from people with aids or numerous other illnesses) - they are going to get the short end of the stick. Though it's a simple exception to add.
Yes it is a self selection sample bias of the early Americans.
And that outlook is precisely why some shitty little colonies became a global superpower, economic powerhouse, and research and innovation center or the world.
Of course they've been overwhelmed now, hence the imminent collapse of all of that.
Slashdot Mirror
He was saying they made a mistake, they thought something would be profitable, but it turns out it wasn't worth the effort.
There was no sinister greedy motivations ascribed. Just usual business decisions.
Except that the number of requests has fallen:
"""
The agencies cited exemptions at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009, compared with 312,683 times the previous year, the review found. Over the same period, the number of information requests declined by about 11 percent, from 493,610 requests in fiscal 2008 to 444,924 in 2009.
"""
I would expect it to increase if a set of new people started making them.
This might be part of the it though:
"""
Much of the Obama administration's early effort seems to have been aimed at clearing out a backlog of old cases: The number of requests still waiting past deadlines spelled out in the open-records law fell from 124,019 in budget year 2008 to 67,764 at the end of the most recent budget year. There is no way to tell whether people whose cases were closed ultimately received the information they sought.
"""
Backlogged requests are more likely to not want to be answered (that's why they got put at the back of the queue) and hence more likely to be met with a exemption when you start to clear them.
Why would you not believe that his jaw dropped.
It is a common physical reaction to seeing something the person finds amazing.
What's the point of driving a car around a track really fast and ending up back where you started?
Of course, and the guy who came first was a member of the same team I believe.
But still, he didn't win the race. And the claim made was "at least we didn't lose the race", which is not "we didn't lose the championship" or "we didn't lose all the points".
And everyone who downloads a movie or music file from the internet illegally is also going to get involved in the drug trade, rape your daughter and murder any witnesses.
After all they've made is clear that American law means nothing to them by that downloading.
The ACLU isn't asking them not to do this.
They are asking: what is the legal basis for doing this.
The government can just reply with "paragraph 13 of section 6, part 9 of statute 9201", assuming they do have such a legal basis for assassinating US citizens of course. Or they could say "they are enemy combatants according to XYZ and this these drone's comply with our obligations to international treaties on warfare we are party to"
Or just add the ACLU to the list I guess.
"""
Recent reports, including public statements from the director of national intelligence, indicate that US citizens have been placed on the list of targets who can be hunted and killed with drones
"""
It's in the damn summary, for fuck sake.
Now that mightn't be the case, but it's the claim the ACLU is making and the reason why they are asking for the information in the first place.
Winning is coming first.
Everything else is losing.
It doesn't matter that second place is better than third or last or DNF, you still didn't win. Hence you lost.
Demographics were such that wasn't going to be a problem.
Basically life expectancies were lower, so people would be taking from the system for a shorter period of time on average.
And there wasn't a "bulge" in the population distribution to magnify that problem.
Basically it wasn't a pyramid, it was a rectangle - you didn't need more people starting to pay in than there were people stopping paying in.
Some entering the workforce at 18 in 1940 had a life expectancy of about 68. Retirement age was 65. So they are paying the payroll tax to fund the thing for 47 years and claiming benefits for 3. So 16 years of paying for every year of claiming.
Now, someone entering the workforce at 18 has a life expectancy of 77. Retirement age is 67. So they are paying into the system for 49 years and claiming benefits for 10. So 5 years of paying for every year of claiming.
Second is losing.
Huh?
So now you are claiming it is illegal to be a partner in a business without putting money up front into the business?
Your statement: "If you don't put something [equity] in, you're not a partner -you're an employee" is simply 100% false, incorrect, a lie.
Seriously, you want to stick by that claim? Do you have a legal reference for it???
[Note I wasn't thinking vendor/client lists when I said "contacts" you invented that.]
It's not just poorly managed, it's impossible for it to do what it claims to do even with great management (well short of magical prescient management).
But yes pyramid scheme isn't quite true, because the government can change the rules whenever they want to. It is a pyramid scheme under the current rules - it wasn't when it began, but things have changed such as life expectancies.
Doesn't matter if it's a stupid move or an unlikely move, it's a possibility and hence your "If you don't put something [equity] in, you're not a partner -you're an employee" isn't true
That's not true at all.
If you have the skills/contacts/whatever that someone wants they could employ you or the could offer you an equity stake and some control over the company.
You don't have to actually put money down to be a business partner. It's the usual case of course, but there's no requirement for it.
If the expected returns on the investment does not meet the expected payouts and the difference is made up by new contributors then it is by definition a pyramid scheme.
Social security funds are invested in treasuries. The expected returns on those are crap (since interest rates are being held low). And of course the Treasury doesn't have the money to pay back those bonds anyway - the government balance sheet is in the red. Of course it can print it, but that leads to a whole bunch of other problems.
What would happen if SS contributions were cut to 0 tomorrow - no more contributions to social security (the equivalent on no one earning any taxable income). Could SS make all the payments it is on the hook for now? What about when the baby boomers all retire? If not then it is a pyramid scheme since it is relying on future contributions not investments to make payments.
No.
I spend hours straight reading off LCD screens. I don't get eye-strain, headaches, etc.
Obviously the piracy part was being referred to as unethical.
You aren't disagreeing with me.
I didn't say I think that is the true, I said that is what the government claims and hence the argument isn't valid.
The government doesn't claim it has nothing hide.
In fact it says that it does, "national security" and all that. Of course it isn't hiding it from the citizens... but you can't risk the foreigners finding out.
And individuals don't need privacy, for the same reason: "national security".
The government needs to know everything it possibly can, and needs to keep as much of it secret as possible. It doesn't pretend otherwise.
So your message it irrelevant.
It's stretching to call recreational drug users a minority group.
Yes 47% is technically a minority, but not by muchy - http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/AppG.htm#TabG-2
Of course if you count the number who have used illicit drugs in the last year/month/whatever then you have a clear minority group.
Why would that matter?
I wouldn't expect such a person to get preferential treatment now anyway. And if they do now, then why would their special case treatment change anyway?
That's just silly.
Giving donors preference makes sense.
Throwing away a perfectly good organ because there are no donors who need it and are a match for transplantation purposes is ridiculous. The non-donor got lucky in that case no need to let them die just to spite them.
Why should you get a organ from someone who just died if you aren't willing to give the same if you die?
Except for the group of people who have something that means they aren't candidates for organ donations but are candidates for organ transplant (I don't know if there is such a pair, but you don't take organs from people with aids or numerous other illnesses) - they are going to get the short end of the stick. Though it's a simple exception to add.
Yes it is a self selection sample bias of the early Americans.
And that outlook is precisely why some shitty little colonies became a global superpower, economic powerhouse, and research and innovation center or the world.
Of course they've been overwhelmed now, hence the imminent collapse of all of that.