How in the hell does someone get coke all over their face while snorting it? Coke is difficult to obtain and expensive. Cokeheads, even rich cokeheads, do not waste coke by getting it on their face.
Wealth inequality did not build this country. I'm pretty sure the constitution says nothing about your right to screw over your fellow man in order to accumulate the most wampum. What built this country is the hard work of the poor and middle class, not wealthy investors who never lifted a finger or broke a sweat. The idea that a man will work harder for a billion than for ten million is just absurd. If you aren't working your hardest for that ten million, you hardly deserve a billion. You don't need inequality to spur development, in fact, just the opposite is true: when everyone feels as if their hard work will be rewarded fairly, they work hard. When they see parasites living off of their hard work, they will not work hard.
I did not say a blanket increase in taxes, I said, TAX THE RICH! I would be happy to see the barrier to becoming reasonably wealthy lowered, and the only way to do that is to TAX THE RICH! You see, they have stolen all our wealth and they are not about to reinvest it back into the place they just ripped off. The ultra wealthy elites already own most of the resources, THAT is the barrier to becoming like them. They don't want the competition.
They already took all our wealth, why would they invest in the place they just robbed? People invest money into businesses when those businesses need to expand. We're in a recession. Businesses are laying people off, not hiring more people. And yet, somehow, Wall Street has rebounded back to pre-depression levels. Yet unemployment is still soaring. So what's your explanation?
Of course they do, but they should pay far, far more than they do. I have nothing against the rich in general, but I do have something against then owning class ultra wealthy elite that own ninety percent of the wealth in this country. If you aren't an evil white titan, I have no problem with you. But the elites DO want to keep you poor, there's even a term for it "cheap labor conservative." Every single policy of the cheap labor conservative is aimed at making you poor and desperate, so that you will gratefully accept the crappiest jobs for the lowest pay. The ruling class elites have been waging this kind of class warfare against the rest of us for eternity. We did not start this war, but we will finish it.
Take a dollar away from the rich man and use it to actually fund jobs in the US, instead of letting him invest it overseas. If the rich weren't rich, everyone would have money to provide jobs for the less fortunate. You act as though taking a dollar away from the wealthy means the dollar disappears. It doesn't work that way. Most of our resources are owned and controlled by a very small percentage of people, and those people do have more in common with Saudi Arabian sheiks than they do with you or I. The rich won't invest in the Us because nearly everyone here is poor and we can't afford to buy anything. We are rapidly becoming a banana republic, in fact, our levels of wealth inequality and income disparity have far surpassed most banana republics.
Of course it won't affect hiring. The rich invest all their money overseas, because no one here has any money to buy anything. We had closer to full employment back when the top marginal tax rate was near ninety percent. Wall Street is tipping back the Champagne in celebration of their full recovery, funded by us, meanwhile, Americans are having to choose between food and medicine. Like the group of German millionaires who demanded that the highest tax rate in Germany be raised, I would be happy to pay more in taxes if society rewarded me at that level. It's a fair bargain.
The rich get more from society, they should give more back. They are engaged in class warfare against us, they have taken all the gains in GDP over the last forty years for themselves. All they did was "risk" their money, while workers risked their lives and livelihoods. Workers produce all value in society, yet money-lenders take all the profits. I say we fight back, or we will go back to the gilded age and be nothing more than serfs in our own country.
In this economy, the last thing we want to do is cut government funding to anything. Maybe we could wait until unemployment has dropped back down to reasonable levels before we start cutting everything to the bone. Or we could bump the highest tax bracket back up to fifty percent or so, still on the right side of the Laffer curve so government funding goes up, and we could stop worrying about this manufactured debt crisis.
Seriously, who thinks "Hmm, recession, unemployment, you know what will fix this? Fewer jobs." Don't Republicans get it? The deficit can wait. There is no real funding crisis. Social security is fine until 2035. People are out of work and starving. Fix that first! But if you really, really want to cut something, how about military spending?
You still feeling smugly correct in your assessment of the issue, or have unfolding events shown you the error of your overconfidence and lack of concern? And if you answer in the affirmative, even given the burning spent fuel and third explosion, what would it actually take for you to be concerned? This isn't about "green points" asshole. I'm both pro environment and pro nuclear power in general, in fact you'd have to be the dumb sort of environmentalist not to embrace nuclear, but this isn't a game, where the pro nuclear side wins if nothing bad happens, this is a very serious nuclear accident. People can be concerned and have honest questions without being eco-terrorists. The stupid points went to both sides.
Read the "cheap labor conservative" article when it first came out. Yes, we need more cooperation, and 'competition' of the form where at least one entity must lose for another to win, is a bad way to run an economy overall. I was using the term to speak of 'global competitiveness,' as in, how well our country can do in relation to other countries, not just in GDP but quality of life. The competition being, in my mind, who can do the most for their citizens.
Interesting stuff. "Private niche welfare state" nearly threw me, but in the article (you wrote? Nice.) you contrast that with the more desirable actual State welfare state.
IMHO, economic insecurity and economic flexibility and innovation are mutually exclusive. A country can not be agile enough to stay competitive unless its citizens are free to let go of old outmoded forms of work, and they can't do that unless they feel economically secure. Socialism does more to foster real competitiveness than capitalism does.
Why'd you need so many words, sentences, paragraphs and things to repeat what it took me one sentences to say in the first place?
"Luckily for Billy, foresight and technical expertise account for very little, while marketing and image mean everything, and THAT, at least, he is very good at."
Mesopotamia? Gold leaf? Naked napalm children of the PC revolution?!? Dude, too much verbiage! Try, "Marketing rulez, technology droolz" and skip the masturbatory prose novella, okay?
You don't know any security guards that make that? Maybe that's because "security guard" is not the private sector equivalent: "bodyguard" is a better analogy, as the levels of danger are more equivalent. Most professional bodyguards make more than $54k per year, and they do have better pensions. Police can retire from the force after a given number of years, but still face a penalty for early retirement before the age of 65, just like anyone else. Do you really think $54k is a lot of money? That's barely middle class. Shouldn't police officers be able to afford a home and college for their kids?
The rich want us to fight each other to the death over the scraps they cast off, and you seem only too happy to side with them. Stop looking greedily at the meager compensation public sector workers make, if you want to blame someone, blame the ultra-wealthy ruling elites. They stole your pay and pension, and now they want you to blame someone who still has theirs. Well, if you want what the public sector has, stand up to the greedy bosses and UNIONIZE!
Ah, nope, you're right, that was a bad translation, everyone seems to have gotten the update now, only two explosions, not three. Major concern now seems to be, what's happening with the spent and new fuel pools at those reactors? Apparently, they are now exposed to the environment, but now one knows how bad things are because they can't get anywhere near them. Are they still holding water? No one knows. This, at least, was never a problem at TMI.
Still, two explosions, the US Navy running scared from the nuclear fallout, fuel pools shattered and exposed, gantry cranes knocked down, this is not a definition of "safe" I was previously aware of.
Legislative runners: gophers, secretaries, executive assistants. Score 1 for the private sector Congressmen: Wall Street CEOs. Score 2 Teachers: Teachers. Score 3 to 0 for the private sector. Police Officers: Private Security: Score 4 to 0. Fire Fighters, okay, there isn't much like a fire fighter in the private sector. I wonder why? Aides: didn't we cover this in 'runners?'
Anyway, I took a look on google. Wow is there a lot of propaganda out there. It's funny how many news outlets seem to be skewing the truth, and saying that public sector workers make more, yet, when you look on actual jobs site, it really depends on the job. If you are a microbiologist, take the government job. If you are an attorney, take the private sector job. And if you are high up in management, obviously, take the private sector job AFTER you work in government and get lots of contacts.
Government DOES produce things, like educated citizens, roads, extinguished fires, national parks, and other types of things known as 'externalities' that the free market simply fails to provide, because, outside of government taxes, there is no way to make everyone who benefits pay for said benefits.
Clinton's budget proves you wrong, we can cut wasteful government fat without cutting the meat. Mismanagement is one thing. Cutting teachers' salaries is another. Don't complain about the greedy public sector workers (full disclosure, I am one, and making considerably less than in the private sector, but with more security.) making more than you do. It's not our fault we held on to our unions while private sectors ditched theirs and let their bosses anally rape them for the last forty or fifty years. Go after the bosses, they are the ones who took your money, not government workers.
They are trying to misdirect you, to keep you from looking at the real source of the problem: them.
In light of further developments and news, things are obviously not going as well as the rosy picture painted by some nuclear proponents here. However, they couldn't possibly go as poorly as detractors are hoping for. Yeah, I said it. They are "hoping for the best" in the same way one "hopes for the best" when a rich relative one never liked becomes terminally ill. Still, proponents should back the hell off until we have the full story, when you downplay things that are later shown to be far more dangerous than you made out, you are only adding fuel to the fire. This was, in fact, the third explosion. The US Navy is moving ships away from the fallout. Things have gone wrong, in spite of what you thought. Perhaps if you hadn't thought anything until you knew more, the anti nuke crowd couldn't point at you as an example of lies and misinformation from the pro-nuke lobby.
Yes, they do have equipment to flare off hydrogen built up during an emergency shutdown (the only time it would build up) due to ultra high temperature, high pressure steam reacting with the exposed, nearly melting fuel rods. This is a well known problem with emergency venting. Obviously, things did not go according to plan.
Ah, what bullshit. You say, "Do they make more then what their responsibilities are worth? Arguably, yes, way more.," but that is simply untrue, if you compare their salaries and benefits to those of folks in the private sector doing the same thing. What's more, the CEOs always argue in regards to their pay, if you want the best, you need to pay the most. So why does that "pay for excellence" standard not apply to public sector workers
If 'the money' is owned by 'the people' then it is not YOUR money, which is my point. It is 'the people's' money. You do not have inalienable citizenship rights, try not paying your taxes and see how far that argument gets you.
That's right, it's all about getting the teachers no matter how bad they are more of the hard working tax payers money.
It isn't your money. When you buy a pack of gum, is it still your money? No. The money belongs to the person who sold you the gum. When you live in a society, the money you pay for the privilege is no longer your money. You exchanged the money for your citizenship rights. If you don't like the bargain, shop around and see if you can do any better. If not, that's not our problem.
Teachers make crap money. Government workers make crap money. Instead of coming after the little guy who is just trying to get by, why not go after the people who are really eating your lunch, the corporate CEOs? Here's a little joke for you. A Wall Street CEO, a Teahadist, and a teacher sit down to enjoy a plate of a dozen cookies. The CEO takes eleven cookies. When the Teahadist looks at him, aghast, the CEO says, "Hey! Watch out for that teacher. He wants part of YOUR cookie!"
Slashdot Mirror
By what criteria did you decide that Netflix is not big media?
How in the hell does someone get coke all over their face while snorting it? Coke is difficult to obtain and expensive. Cokeheads, even rich cokeheads, do not waste coke by getting it on their face.
Well, I work better when I'm drunk, too ;) Put six beers in me and I could have come up with that.
Wealth inequality did not build this country. I'm pretty sure the constitution says nothing about your right to screw over your fellow man in order to accumulate the most wampum. What built this country is the hard work of the poor and middle class, not wealthy investors who never lifted a finger or broke a sweat. The idea that a man will work harder for a billion than for ten million is just absurd. If you aren't working your hardest for that ten million, you hardly deserve a billion. You don't need inequality to spur development, in fact, just the opposite is true: when everyone feels as if their hard work will be rewarded fairly, they work hard. When they see parasites living off of their hard work, they will not work hard.
I did not say a blanket increase in taxes, I said, TAX THE RICH! I would be happy to see the barrier to becoming reasonably wealthy lowered, and the only way to do that is to TAX THE RICH! You see, they have stolen all our wealth and they are not about to reinvest it back into the place they just ripped off. The ultra wealthy elites already own most of the resources, THAT is the barrier to becoming like them. They don't want the competition.
They already took all our wealth, why would they invest in the place they just robbed? People invest money into businesses when those businesses need to expand. We're in a recession. Businesses are laying people off, not hiring more people. And yet, somehow, Wall Street has rebounded back to pre-depression levels. Yet unemployment is still soaring. So what's your explanation?
Of course they do, but they should pay far, far more than they do. I have nothing against the rich in general, but I do have something against then owning class ultra wealthy elite that own ninety percent of the wealth in this country. If you aren't an evil white titan, I have no problem with you. But the elites DO want to keep you poor, there's even a term for it "cheap labor conservative." Every single policy of the cheap labor conservative is aimed at making you poor and desperate, so that you will gratefully accept the crappiest jobs for the lowest pay. The ruling class elites have been waging this kind of class warfare against the rest of us for eternity. We did not start this war, but we will finish it.
Wealth inequality is killing our country: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
Take a dollar away from the rich man and use it to actually fund jobs in the US, instead of letting him invest it overseas. If the rich weren't rich, everyone would have money to provide jobs for the less fortunate. You act as though taking a dollar away from the wealthy means the dollar disappears. It doesn't work that way. Most of our resources are owned and controlled by a very small percentage of people, and those people do have more in common with Saudi Arabian sheiks than they do with you or I. The rich won't invest in the Us because nearly everyone here is poor and we can't afford to buy anything. We are rapidly becoming a banana republic, in fact, our levels of wealth inequality and income disparity have far surpassed most banana republics.
This helpful graph illustrates the problem of soaring inequality: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
Of course it won't affect hiring. The rich invest all their money overseas, because no one here has any money to buy anything. We had closer to full employment back when the top marginal tax rate was near ninety percent. Wall Street is tipping back the Champagne in celebration of their full recovery, funded by us, meanwhile, Americans are having to choose between food and medicine. Like the group of German millionaires who demanded that the highest tax rate in Germany be raised, I would be happy to pay more in taxes if society rewarded me at that level. It's a fair bargain.
The rich get more from society, they should give more back. They are engaged in class warfare against us, they have taken all the gains in GDP over the last forty years for themselves. All they did was "risk" their money, while workers risked their lives and livelihoods. Workers produce all value in society, yet money-lenders take all the profits. I say we fight back, or we will go back to the gilded age and be nothing more than serfs in our own country.
In this economy, the last thing we want to do is cut government funding to anything. Maybe we could wait until unemployment has dropped back down to reasonable levels before we start cutting everything to the bone. Or we could bump the highest tax bracket back up to fifty percent or so, still on the right side of the Laffer curve so government funding goes up, and we could stop worrying about this manufactured debt crisis.
Seriously, who thinks "Hmm, recession, unemployment, you know what will fix this? Fewer jobs." Don't Republicans get it? The deficit can wait. There is no real funding crisis. Social security is fine until 2035. People are out of work and starving. Fix that first! But if you really, really want to cut something, how about military spending?
Given that MacAndrew appears to be some species of Moonbat, fixed cameras pointing up are probably the best way to spy on him.
You still feeling smugly correct in your assessment of the issue, or have unfolding events shown you the error of your overconfidence and lack of concern? And if you answer in the affirmative, even given the burning spent fuel and third explosion, what would it actually take for you to be concerned? This isn't about "green points" asshole. I'm both pro environment and pro nuclear power in general, in fact you'd have to be the dumb sort of environmentalist not to embrace nuclear, but this isn't a game, where the pro nuclear side wins if nothing bad happens, this is a very serious nuclear accident. People can be concerned and have honest questions without being eco-terrorists. The stupid points went to both sides.
Looks like I was just prescient. The spent fuel rod fire is more concerning, though.
Still think everything is peachy?
Read the "cheap labor conservative" article when it first came out. Yes, we need more cooperation, and 'competition' of the form where at least one entity must lose for another to win, is a bad way to run an economy overall. I was using the term to speak of 'global competitiveness,' as in, how well our country can do in relation to other countries, not just in GDP but quality of life. The competition being, in my mind, who can do the most for their citizens.
Interesting stuff. "Private niche welfare state" nearly threw me, but in the article (you wrote? Nice.) you contrast that with the more desirable actual State welfare state.
IMHO, economic insecurity and economic flexibility and innovation are mutually exclusive. A country can not be agile enough to stay competitive unless its citizens are free to let go of old outmoded forms of work, and they can't do that unless they feel economically secure. Socialism does more to foster real competitiveness than capitalism does.
Why'd you need so many words, sentences, paragraphs and things to repeat what it took me one sentences to say in the first place?
"Luckily for Billy, foresight and technical expertise account for very little, while marketing and image mean everything, and THAT, at least, he is very good at."
Mesopotamia? Gold leaf? Naked napalm children of the PC revolution?!? Dude, too much verbiage! Try, "Marketing rulez, technology droolz" and skip the masturbatory prose novella, okay?
You don't know any security guards that make that? Maybe that's because "security guard" is not the private sector equivalent: "bodyguard" is a better analogy, as the levels of danger are more equivalent. Most professional bodyguards make more than $54k per year, and they do have better pensions. Police can retire from the force after a given number of years, but still face a penalty for early retirement before the age of 65, just like anyone else. Do you really think $54k is a lot of money? That's barely middle class. Shouldn't police officers be able to afford a home and college for their kids?
The rich want us to fight each other to the death over the scraps they cast off, and you seem only too happy to side with them. Stop looking greedily at the meager compensation public sector workers make, if you want to blame someone, blame the ultra-wealthy ruling elites. They stole your pay and pension, and now they want you to blame someone who still has theirs. Well, if you want what the public sector has, stand up to the greedy bosses and UNIONIZE!
Ah, nope, you're right, that was a bad translation, everyone seems to have gotten the update now, only two explosions, not three. Major concern now seems to be, what's happening with the spent and new fuel pools at those reactors? Apparently, they are now exposed to the environment, but now one knows how bad things are because they can't get anywhere near them. Are they still holding water? No one knows. This, at least, was never a problem at TMI.
Still, two explosions, the US Navy running scared from the nuclear fallout, fuel pools shattered and exposed, gantry cranes knocked down, this is not a definition of "safe" I was previously aware of.
Legislative runners: gophers, secretaries, executive assistants. Score 1 for the private sector
Congressmen: Wall Street CEOs. Score 2
Teachers: Teachers. Score 3 to 0 for the private sector.
Police Officers: Private Security: Score 4 to 0.
Fire Fighters, okay, there isn't much like a fire fighter in the private sector. I wonder why?
Aides: didn't we cover this in 'runners?'
Anyway, I took a look on google. Wow is there a lot of propaganda out there. It's funny how many news outlets seem to be skewing the truth, and saying that public sector workers make more, yet, when you look on actual jobs site, it really depends on the job. If you are a microbiologist, take the government job. If you are an attorney, take the private sector job. And if you are high up in management, obviously, take the private sector job AFTER you work in government and get lots of contacts.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2009/01/26/government-salaries-vs-private-sector-salaries/
Government DOES produce things, like educated citizens, roads, extinguished fires, national parks, and other types of things known as 'externalities' that the free market simply fails to provide, because, outside of government taxes, there is no way to make everyone who benefits pay for said benefits.
Clinton's budget proves you wrong, we can cut wasteful government fat without cutting the meat. Mismanagement is one thing. Cutting teachers' salaries is another. Don't complain about the greedy public sector workers (full disclosure, I am one, and making considerably less than in the private sector, but with more security.) making more than you do. It's not our fault we held on to our unions while private sectors ditched theirs and let their bosses anally rape them for the last forty or fifty years. Go after the bosses, they are the ones who took your money, not government workers.
They are trying to misdirect you, to keep you from looking at the real source of the problem: them.
Yes, I have been losing the battle against uninformed idiocy on the Internet for almost two decades. You'd think I would learn by now...
In light of further developments and news, things are obviously not going as well as the rosy picture painted by some nuclear proponents here. However, they couldn't possibly go as poorly as detractors are hoping for. Yeah, I said it. They are "hoping for the best" in the same way one "hopes for the best" when a rich relative one never liked becomes terminally ill. Still, proponents should back the hell off until we have the full story, when you downplay things that are later shown to be far more dangerous than you made out, you are only adding fuel to the fire. This was, in fact, the third explosion. The US Navy is moving ships away from the fallout. Things have gone wrong, in spite of what you thought. Perhaps if you hadn't thought anything until you knew more, the anti nuke crowd couldn't point at you as an example of lies and misinformation from the pro-nuke lobby.
Yes, they do have equipment to flare off hydrogen built up during an emergency shutdown (the only time it would build up) due to ultra high temperature, high pressure steam reacting with the exposed, nearly melting fuel rods. This is a well known problem with emergency venting. Obviously, things did not go according to plan.
Ah, what bullshit. You say, "Do they make more then what their responsibilities are worth? Arguably, yes, way more.," but that is simply untrue, if you compare their salaries and benefits to those of folks in the private sector doing the same thing. What's more, the CEOs always argue in regards to their pay, if you want the best, you need to pay the most. So why does that "pay for excellence" standard not apply to public sector workers
If 'the money' is owned by 'the people' then it is not YOUR money, which is my point. It is 'the people's' money. You do not have inalienable citizenship rights, try not paying your taxes and see how far that argument gets you.
That's right, it's all about getting the teachers no matter how bad they are more of the hard working tax payers money.
It isn't your money. When you buy a pack of gum, is it still your money? No. The money belongs to the person who sold you the gum. When you live in a society, the money you pay for the privilege is no longer your money. You exchanged the money for your citizenship rights. If you don't like the bargain, shop around and see if you can do any better. If not, that's not our problem.
Teachers make crap money. Government workers make crap money. Instead of coming after the little guy who is just trying to get by, why not go after the people who are really eating your lunch, the corporate CEOs? Here's a little joke for you. A Wall Street CEO, a Teahadist, and a teacher sit down to enjoy a plate of a dozen cookies. The CEO takes eleven cookies. When the Teahadist looks at him, aghast, the CEO says, "Hey! Watch out for that teacher. He wants part of YOUR cookie!"