The US didn't become a superpower by stealing loom technology. It became a superpower because every other major power was a bombed out husk following World War II.
If you're wondering, that means that they've built a faraday cage the size of a room. They're a lot of fun if you can get one.
In what way? Every company I've ever worked at has either had one, or bought time in one. They suck. They're poorly ventilated, noisy & hot (from all the equipment running in a confined space), and if you forget to leave your phone outside, they'll kill your battery.
R: "Give me your car, or I'll burn down your house." D: "No! That's blackmail!" R: "Okay, fine. Give me your car for a year, and I promise not to burn down your house for a year." D: "No! You're just going to make the same threat next year, and every year thereafter!" R: "Why won't you negotiate!? Now I have no choice but to burn down your house!"
It's truly depressing that there are people who can look at what's going on and blame the Democrats. People, like you QuantumPion, are just too stupid, too gullible. A government by the people doesn't work when the people are fools.
When I was a little kid and pulled the legs off a daddy longlegs, my scoutmaster told me not to do that, that it was cruel. Now we're encouraging kids to inflict pain on animals for their own amusement. Can you really not see a problem with that?
What would you call it then? They are inflicting harm on the economy to force us to accept the policy positions of the minority. What is that, if not terrorism?
Should we all pretend that this is just normal politics? Should we pretend that this is okay? Do you think if we talk really politely that they'll decide to stop hurting us?
I would say, if they had a majority in one of the houses of Congress, and they felt those issues to be this important, then there would clearly be a need to negotiate.
Do you really not see what's going on? There is no negotiation. Negotiation means I give up something, you give up something, and we meet somewhere in the middle. The Republicans are saying "Do what we want, or else." They aren't giving up anything. They just have a list of demands, and they'll hurt the entire country until they get their way.
You've heard the poem about why would should never pay the Danegeld, right?
And by the way, the Democrats TRIED to negotiate on healthcare. They spent months negotiating. The entire plan is modeled on a Republican idea. But the Republicans declared that they would "make it Obama's Waterloo". That they would not give an inch, no matter what, as a political strategy.
It's fascinating that people can forget such recent history. I suspect it's why things have gotten so bad.
That's exactly what moderation is for. We get enough false equivalency from mainstream news sources. Some statements are just plain wrong, and should be modded down. Or do you mod up creationists?
The elections wouldn't matter. The Tea Party terrorists who have taken our country hostage all come from heavily gerrymandered districts. Unless Boehner comes to his senses and lets the moderate Republicans vote with the Democrats to pass a budget, this is the end of the US as we've known it.
That's not an exaggeration. Either we give in to hostage taking, and it becomes an annual event, in which case we're no longer truly a democracy. Or we default on our debt and collapse into a Great Depression.
That Forbes piece that you got your "facts" from (which you cited in another post) is diving the increase in total health care spending by the number of people in America. But it conveniently overlooks the fact that many of those people didn't have healthcare before.
To make this simple for you, if 70 people are paying $1000 a year for a service and the other 30 aren't getting it at all, and then a law makes it so that all 100 people are paying $900 a year, the total spending has increased by about 30% (from $70k to $90k).
So yeah, in that case the "average" spending has increased. But every single person is better off than they were before.
So which is it? Are you too stupid to figure this out for yourself? Or are you a liar, intending to deceive the people reading this site?
The Democrats in the Senate amended those bills to fund Obamacare, and sent them back to the House for approval.
The Tea Party should not hold the economy hostage to force people to accept their legislative agenda. Are you really too dense to see what sort of precedent that would set? If you care about democracy at all, you should be opposed to what they're doing. It is economic terrorism, plain and simple.
How would you feel if the Democrats declared that the 2nd amendment is repealed, all workers must be unionized, and income in excess of $250k will be taxed at 95%, or else they'll force the country to default and plunge the world into a depression? Would you think the Republicans should agree to that deal? Would you say "the ball's in their court"?
That gets brought up every time, and it's a terrible idea. It would feel good, sure, but you gotta remember that most Congressmen are already filthy rich.
Emphasis on most. Some of them aren't, and they would be forced to cave in order to afford their rent. This country is enough of a plutocracy as it is. We'd best not give the rich yet another tool to extract concessions from the people.
That was an awful lot of words built up on one fundamental, crippling flaw.
The House has the right to initiate budgets, as you say. But those budgets must be agreed to by the Senate and (barring a 2/3rd majority) the President.
If your stance is that the Senate and President must accept whatever the House gives them, then why do we even have a Senate or Executive?
That's a solution like legalizing stabbing is a solution to gun violence.
By all means, legalize non-addictive drugs (e.g. marijuana, MDMA, LSD), but heroin is something else entirely. People shouldn't have their lives destroyed just because some skilled salesman convinced them to try it. It's not good for the user, and it's not good for society. It's only good for the dealer. The last thing this country needs is the marketing arm of Philip Morris or InBev pushing an even worse drug.
Some liberals were pissed that the owner was a homophobe. Some conservatives rallied to support the homophobe just to spite the liberals. Some asshole mayor tried to ban Chik-fil-a from his town. And then nothing happened.
The only thing to come out of it was that Americans were left hating their neighbors slightly more than they did before.
Of course the money is pooled. That's how you manage risk. I suppose you think car insurance is terribly unfair as well, and that it should just be an individual savings account. And that Apple is foolish for using money from the iPod to fund development of the iPhone.
And LOL at adding Medicare to the list. Still only 37%. What other programs shall I add for you? Oh my God!! The federal government is spending 100% of what the federal government is spending!
It's a misleading number. It comes from this study by the Fraser Institute. Basically, they said "the government spends X% of it's income on health care, therefore we can take X% of each citizen's tax bill as the amount that they paid for health care". This is perfectly reasonable on its own, but the GP cherry-picked the number for a married couple with no kids because they have the highest tax bill. This makes Canadian health care costs seem higher than they truly are.
If you do an apples to apples comparison, the Canadians have a clear advantage.
Single adult: $3780 in Canada, $5884 in US Family of four: $11320 in Canada, $16351 in US
Canadian numbers are from the Fraser Institute study, US numbers are from this study by KFF.
The deal was "pay X% of your income into this pool, and we'll use that money to take care of you when you're old and sick". Who gives a flying fuck about (X% * mean income * population) / ((X% * mean income * population) + military spending + medicare + discretionary spending) ? Why would the value of that expression matter in the slightest? It's obviously going to be driven by several factors that have nothing to do with the program itself.
The answer is around 22%, by the way. If that number, in and of itself, is what scares you, let's just triple military spending. That'll "fix" it. Or you can admit that that number is meaningless, and a distraction from any actual issues.
You're lying. Or perhaps just regurgitating lies you heard on Fox or AM radio. Not a big difference, either way.
Here's an official Senate report showing that removing the tax cap would ensure the solvency of Social Security for over 75 years (the maximum duration in their calculations).
Do you see how I keep citing numbers and figures? I'm able to do that because I'm telling the truth.
Social Security has a net surplus right now. That will over the course of the next couple decades as the boomers retire, but that can be fixed by (for example) allowing the tax ceiling to be adjusted with inflation.
It's funny that you would claim our ideology thrives on misinformation and lies. Perhaps you're doing a bit of projecting?
Anyways, find a way to get the patient to actually care about the cost of their medical services, and you'll see the prices go down.
No, you won't. In fact, you'll see prices rise.
There are two cases in which someone would seek medical help -- life-threatening situations, and non-life-threatening.
In the vast majority of life threatening situations, people aren't going to care about the cost. You've heard about the stages of grief, right? Well bargaining's a big one. Most people will do ANYTHING to get just a few more years, or months, or days. They'll throw money away on homeopathic crap and colloidal silver and psychic voodoo. People don't generally go gently into that good night, and shifting more of the cost on to them won't change that.
But in non-life-threatening situations, people will look at the price tag, and decide that they don't need to see the doctor so bad after all. And so curable illnesses go untreated, and become far more dangerous. They might be contagious and spread their illness. They might lose a limb and end up unable to work and on the public dole. They might die. That might reduce costs in the short term, but in the long run the cost to society is far higher.
Like I said, if they're really interested in finding scandalous stuff, they can dig for it. It'll still be there. But should it really be the first thing that comes up?
Slashdot Mirror
The US didn't become a superpower by stealing loom technology. It became a superpower because every other major power was a bombed out husk following World War II.
If you're wondering, that means that they've built a faraday cage the size of a room. They're a lot of fun if you can get one.
In what way? Every company I've ever worked at has either had one, or bought time in one. They suck. They're poorly ventilated, noisy & hot (from all the equipment running in a confined space), and if you forget to leave your phone outside, they'll kill your battery.
You scoutmaster was a douche. Did he care to explain why it was cruel? oh right, no.
Are you asking if my scoutmaster gave my ten year old self a lecture on consciousness and solipsism and morality?
R: "Give me your car, or I'll burn down your house."
D: "No! That's blackmail!"
R: "Okay, fine. Give me your car for a year, and I promise not to burn down your house for a year."
D: "No! You're just going to make the same threat next year, and every year thereafter!"
R: "Why won't you negotiate!? Now I have no choice but to burn down your house!"
It's truly depressing that there are people who can look at what's going on and blame the Democrats. People, like you QuantumPion, are just too stupid, too gullible. A government by the people doesn't work when the people are fools.
This country's finished.
When I was a little kid and pulled the legs off a daddy longlegs, my scoutmaster told me not to do that, that it was cruel. Now we're encouraging kids to inflict pain on animals for their own amusement. Can you really not see a problem with that?
What would you call it then? They are inflicting harm on the economy to force us to accept the policy positions of the minority. What is that, if not terrorism?
Should we all pretend that this is just normal politics? Should we pretend that this is okay? Do you think if we talk really politely that they'll decide to stop hurting us?
I would say, if they had a majority in one of the houses of Congress, and they felt those issues to be this important, then there would clearly be a need to negotiate.
Do you really not see what's going on? There is no negotiation. Negotiation means I give up something, you give up something, and we meet somewhere in the middle. The Republicans are saying "Do what we want, or else." They aren't giving up anything. They just have a list of demands, and they'll hurt the entire country until they get their way.
You've heard the poem about why would should never pay the Danegeld, right?
And by the way, the Democrats TRIED to negotiate on healthcare. They spent months negotiating. The entire plan is modeled on a Republican idea. But the Republicans declared that they would "make it Obama's Waterloo". That they would not give an inch, no matter what, as a political strategy.
It's fascinating that people can forget such recent history. I suspect it's why things have gotten so bad.
That's exactly what moderation is for. We get enough false equivalency from mainstream news sources. Some statements are just plain wrong, and should be modded down. Or do you mod up creationists?
The elections wouldn't matter. The Tea Party terrorists who have taken our country hostage all come from heavily gerrymandered districts. Unless Boehner comes to his senses and lets the moderate Republicans vote with the Democrats to pass a budget, this is the end of the US as we've known it.
That's not an exaggeration. Either we give in to hostage taking, and it becomes an annual event, in which case we're no longer truly a democracy. Or we default on our debt and collapse into a Great Depression.
If they can afford to cut back, then their employer can afford to pay them less.
Welcome to capitalism, slave. Now get back to work!
That Forbes piece that you got your "facts" from (which you cited in another post) is diving the increase in total health care spending by the number of people in America. But it conveniently overlooks the fact that many of those people didn't have healthcare before.
To make this simple for you, if 70 people are paying $1000 a year for a service and the other 30 aren't getting it at all, and then a law makes it so that all 100 people are paying $900 a year, the total spending has increased by about 30% (from $70k to $90k).
So yeah, in that case the "average" spending has increased. But every single person is better off than they were before.
So which is it? Are you too stupid to figure this out for yourself? Or are you a liar, intending to deceive the people reading this site?
The Democrats in the Senate amended those bills to fund Obamacare, and sent them back to the House for approval.
The Tea Party should not hold the economy hostage to force people to accept their legislative agenda. Are you really too dense to see what sort of precedent that would set? If you care about democracy at all, you should be opposed to what they're doing. It is economic terrorism, plain and simple.
How would you feel if the Democrats declared that the 2nd amendment is repealed, all workers must be unionized, and income in excess of $250k will be taxed at 95%, or else they'll force the country to default and plunge the world into a depression? Would you think the Republicans should agree to that deal? Would you say "the ball's in their court"?
Blaming the victim isn't super helpful, even when you maybe, sort-of have a point
Unless we're talking about sexual assault, in which case blaming the victim will get you +5, Interesting.
That gets brought up every time, and it's a terrible idea. It would feel good, sure, but you gotta remember that most Congressmen are already filthy rich.
Emphasis on most. Some of them aren't, and they would be forced to cave in order to afford their rent. This country is enough of a plutocracy as it is. We'd best not give the rich yet another tool to extract concessions from the people.
"Lately"?
That was an awful lot of words built up on one fundamental, crippling flaw.
The House has the right to initiate budgets, as you say. But those budgets must be agreed to by the Senate and (barring a 2/3rd majority) the President.
If your stance is that the Senate and President must accept whatever the House gives them, then why do we even have a Senate or Executive?
That's a solution like legalizing stabbing is a solution to gun violence.
By all means, legalize non-addictive drugs (e.g. marijuana, MDMA, LSD), but heroin is something else entirely. People shouldn't have their lives destroyed just because some skilled salesman convinced them to try it. It's not good for the user, and it's not good for society. It's only good for the dealer. The last thing this country needs is the marketing arm of Philip Morris or InBev pushing an even worse drug.
What constructive dialog are you talking about?
Some liberals were pissed that the owner was a homophobe. Some conservatives rallied to support the homophobe just to spite the liberals. Some asshole mayor tried to ban Chik-fil-a from his town. And then nothing happened.
The only thing to come out of it was that Americans were left hating their neighbors slightly more than they did before.
Way to change the subject, buddy.
Of course the money is pooled. That's how you manage risk. I suppose you think car insurance is terribly unfair as well, and that it should just be an individual savings account. And that Apple is foolish for using money from the iPod to fund development of the iPhone.
And LOL at adding Medicare to the list. Still only 37%. What other programs shall I add for you? Oh my God!! The federal government is spending 100% of what the federal government is spending!
It's a misleading number. It comes from this study by the Fraser Institute. Basically, they said "the government spends X% of it's income on health care, therefore we can take X% of each citizen's tax bill as the amount that they paid for health care". This is perfectly reasonable on its own, but the GP cherry-picked the number for a married couple with no kids because they have the highest tax bill. This makes Canadian health care costs seem higher than they truly are.
If you do an apples to apples comparison, the Canadians have a clear advantage.
Single adult: $3780 in Canada, $5884 in US
Family of four: $11320 in Canada, $16351 in US
Canadian numbers are from the Fraser Institute study, US numbers are from this study by KFF.
Why does that matter, so long as it's paid for?
The deal was "pay X% of your income into this pool, and we'll use that money to take care of you when you're old and sick". Who gives a flying fuck about (X% * mean income * population) / ((X% * mean income * population) + military spending + medicare + discretionary spending) ? Why would the value of that expression matter in the slightest? It's obviously going to be driven by several factors that have nothing to do with the program itself.
The answer is around 22%, by the way. If that number, in and of itself, is what scares you, let's just triple military spending. That'll "fix" it. Or you can admit that that number is meaningless, and a distraction from any actual issues.
You're lying. Or perhaps just regurgitating lies you heard on Fox or AM radio. Not a big difference, either way.
Here's an official Senate report showing that removing the tax cap would ensure the solvency of Social Security for over 75 years (the maximum duration in their calculations).
Do you see how I keep citing numbers and figures? I'm able to do that because I'm telling the truth.
And what portion of the total federal budget is taken up by SS today?
Negative 85.6 billion dollars.
Social Security has a net surplus right now. That will over the course of the next couple decades as the boomers retire, but that can be fixed by (for example) allowing the tax ceiling to be adjusted with inflation.
It's funny that you would claim our ideology thrives on misinformation and lies. Perhaps you're doing a bit of projecting?
Anyways, find a way to get the patient to actually care about the cost of their medical services, and you'll see the prices go down.
No, you won't. In fact, you'll see prices rise.
There are two cases in which someone would seek medical help -- life-threatening situations, and non-life-threatening.
In the vast majority of life threatening situations, people aren't going to care about the cost. You've heard about the stages of grief, right? Well bargaining's a big one. Most people will do ANYTHING to get just a few more years, or months, or days. They'll throw money away on homeopathic crap and colloidal silver and psychic voodoo. People don't generally go gently into that good night, and shifting more of the cost on to them won't change that.
But in non-life-threatening situations, people will look at the price tag, and decide that they don't need to see the doctor so bad after all. And so curable illnesses go untreated, and become far more dangerous. They might be contagious and spread their illness. They might lose a limb and end up unable to work and on the public dole. They might die. That might reduce costs in the short term, but in the long run the cost to society is far higher.
Like I said, if they're really interested in finding scandalous stuff, they can dig for it. It'll still be there. But should it really be the first thing that comes up?