There was a documented case where a flight attendant survived a fall of about 20,000 without a parachute from an airplane, although I don't know the details of that.
Her name was Vesna Vulovic. It happened in 1972, and it was 33,333 feet (10,160 m) not 20,000 feet.
Even better: Get rid of payroll taxes, and switch to a consumption tax. Americans should be rewarded when they work more, invest more, and consume less.
That's even more regressive than the taxes we've been talking about. People with lower incomes tend to spend all of it, so all of it will get taxed. Not so for rich people. So I for one would argue to retain (progressive) payroll taxes.
Sounds to me that part of the solution would entail making Social Security and Medicare taxes progressive, which they are not, as you point out. Also, raise or eliminate the Social Security wage base limit. There is a slightly progressive adjustment to Medicare taxes for those who make over $200K, but it's only 0.9%.
However, I would like to see whether the rich recoup their contributions to the program in time-adjusted dollars, even allowing for their longer lifespan. I would guess the answer is no, and I'm fine with that BTW.
Also, the tax is progressive not regressive, because those with larger incomes pay more. And while Social Security benefits are based on contribution amounts, Medicare is not.
But the most important thing to address is why poor black males have such a shorter life expectancy than other groups. I suspect it's because of a disproportionate exposure to societal risks (violence, etc.) and that's disturbing.
Didn't we try that already? Didn't it just make it harder for the poor to keep a car because it took millions of cars off the road that otherwise would have been useable on the cheap for another couple of years?
Not harder to keep a car, but harder to buy one, because it reduced the secondary market inventory.
Charities also complained about the program, because it diverted cars that otherwise would have been donated to them.
The program had good intentions but got mixed results.
I thought of adding something similar to what you did, but it seemed to distract from the main point -- which was that, in more absolute terms, Trump didn't move the needle all that much with these two groups.
Since when has anyone who is not an Obama critic been concerned with a Constitutional crisis?
For crying out loud, our current President negotiated a treaty with a hostile foreign power with no consent from the Senate! He just created it out of thin air, and worse, the Senate just rolled over and let him do it!
If a President negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, that is not a Constitutional crisis. Quite the contrary: under the constitution, that's his job. And it's the job of the Senate to ratify such a treaty with a supermajority. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Senate is not in the picture.
And, in case you want to point to peer-reviewed journals, I give you one of the newer/. submissions on the front page:
Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash
You fail to recognize the crucial word in the headline:
Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash
Also, if you bothered to read the articles, you would see that these were formerly-respectable journals that were bought up and exploited by a company that does either perfunctory or nonexistent peer-review, then turns around and agrees to publish the author's paper, provided they pay up of course. Almost all journals charge authors to publish their papers. But these journals are in it for the money, not the science.
This story has nothing to do with the failure of peer-review. It's exposes the failure caused by a lack of it.
That's hardly pocket-change, but it seems cheap for what would be the world's fastest-known supercomputer.
For comparison, Tianhe-2 (in number 2 spot) cost about $390M to build, and Sunway TaihuLight, the current number 1, went live in June of this year at a cost of $273M.
Actually, the relationship between intelligence and political leaning is complicated. One study indicated that conservatism is associated with cognitive rigidity and therefore difficulty with intellectual challenges. Another indicated that intelligence tends to be associated with a stronger tendency to weigh more factors when rendering an opinion about something, and therefore it tends to make people more moderate (i.e., centrist.) In other words, that cognitive rigidity tends to steer people towards more extreme ends of the spectrum. And yet another showed intelligent people can display mixed tendencies in both directions. Also, cultural and historical context can have an influence.
Slashdot Mirror
I intended to reply to this but instead replied to the comment below, which see.
Oh man, forget it. It must be too late in the day for me to keep my replies straight. Sorry.
Yes, the famous Karl Marx quote.
Keep in mind that, in context, Marx was referring to opiates as something that relieves pain, rather than something that gets you high.
[I posted this erroneously to another comment below.]
Oops, disregard. replied to the wrong post. Should be the one above.
Yes, the famous Karl Marx quote.
Keep in mind that, in context, Marx was referring to opiates as something that relieves pain, rather than something that gets you high.
There was a documented case where a flight attendant survived a fall of about 20,000 without a parachute from an airplane, although I don't know the details of that.
Her name was Vesna Vulovic. It happened in 1972, and it was 33,333 feet (10,160 m) not 20,000 feet.
Have you ever been out of work? Sometimes you take what you can get.
Even better: Get rid of payroll taxes, and switch to a consumption tax. Americans should be rewarded when they work more, invest more, and consume less.
That's even more regressive than the taxes we've been talking about. People with lower incomes tend to spend all of it, so all of it will get taxed. Not so for rich people. So I for one would argue to retain (progressive) payroll taxes.
Fair points, and thanks for them.
Sounds to me that part of the solution would entail making Social Security and Medicare taxes progressive, which they are not, as you point out. Also, raise or eliminate the Social Security wage base limit. There is a slightly progressive adjustment to Medicare taxes for those who make over $200K, but it's only 0.9%.
You do have a point. (I found your numbers here.)
However, I would like to see whether the rich recoup their contributions to the program in time-adjusted dollars, even allowing for their longer lifespan. I would guess the answer is no, and I'm fine with that BTW.
Also, the tax is progressive not regressive, because those with larger incomes pay more. And while Social Security benefits are based on contribution amounts, Medicare is not.
But the most important thing to address is why poor black males have such a shorter life expectancy than other groups. I suspect it's because of a disproportionate exposure to societal risks (violence, etc.) and that's disturbing.
BTW, the number of cars that were removed from the streets under the program was about 690,000, not millions.
Didn't we try that already? Didn't it just make it harder for the poor to keep a car because it took millions of cars off the road that otherwise would have been useable on the cheap for another couple of years?
Not harder to keep a car, but harder to buy one, because it reduced the secondary market inventory.
Charities also complained about the program, because it diverted cars that otherwise would have been donated to them.
The program had good intentions but got mixed results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Thanks for the improvement.
I thought of adding something similar to what you did, but it seemed to distract from the main point -- which was that, in more absolute terms, Trump didn't move the needle all that much with these two groups.
Thanks for the improvement.
Conflict of interest laws don't apply to the president
That doesn't change the fact that they're conflicts of interest. Or that they should be a concern.
Of course Trump says "the President can't have a conflict of interest." And Nixon said "if the President does it, then it's not illegal."
So we're fine, right? Wrong.
GOP votes by blacks were up 8%, and by hispanics were up 9%. They both turned out more for Trump than they did for Romney or McCain.
It's true that Trump did better than Romney did in 2012 with both of those groups. But your numbers are way off.
Black vote for Romney: 6%
Black vote for Trump: 8%
Latino vote for Romney: 27%
Latino vote for Trump: 29%
So, Trump added 2% to each group, not 8% and 9% respectively. And that 2% is likely within the margin of error of the exit polls.
Since when has anyone who is not an Obama critic been concerned with a Constitutional crisis?
For crying out loud, our current President negotiated a treaty with a hostile foreign power with no consent from the Senate! He just created it out of thin air, and worse, the Senate just rolled over and let him do it!
If a President negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, that is not a Constitutional crisis. Quite the contrary: under the constitution, that's his job. And it's the job of the Senate to ratify such a treaty with a supermajority. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Senate is not in the picture.
Do your calling for the arrest of Hilary Clinton then.
Of course not. Laws don't apply to the left.
There is nothing in that Washington Post article about any law broken by Hillary Clinton or the Clinton foundation.
Interesting definition of lost, with over 2M more popular votes than Buzz had. Well, he warned us the election was rigged.
Only if you count illegals.
Yes, that is Trump's latest tweeted claim, that he would have won the popular vote if millions of illegals hadn't voted.
And where is his evidence for that? Oh wait, here we go.
No matter what you think of Snowden or Manning, they are not traitors. Criminals perhaps, but not traitors.
Treason can only be committed by aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. That hasn't happened since 1942.
And, in case you want to point to peer-reviewed journals, I give you one of the newer /. submissions on the front page:
Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash
You fail to recognize the crucial word in the headline:
Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash
Also, if you bothered to read the articles, you would see that these were formerly-respectable journals that were bought up and exploited by a company that does either perfunctory or nonexistent peer-review, then turns around and agrees to publish the author's paper, provided they pay up of course. Almost all journals charge authors to publish their papers. But these journals are in it for the money, not the science.
This story has nothing to do with the failure of peer-review. It's exposes the failure caused by a lack of it.
Is that the name of the new supercomputer?
If not, learn to write proper titles.
I think you need to learn to recognize the difference between a noun and a verb.
That's hardly pocket-change, but it seems cheap for what would be the world's fastest-known supercomputer.
For comparison, Tianhe-2 (in number 2 spot) cost about $390M to build, and Sunway TaihuLight, the current number 1, went live in June of this year at a cost of $273M.
Actually, the relationship between intelligence and political leaning is complicated. One study indicated that conservatism is associated with cognitive rigidity and therefore difficulty with intellectual challenges. Another indicated that intelligence tends to be associated with a stronger tendency to weigh more factors when rendering an opinion about something, and therefore it tends to make people more moderate (i.e., centrist.) In other words, that cognitive rigidity tends to steer people towards more extreme ends of the spectrum. And yet another showed intelligent people can display mixed tendencies in both directions. Also, cultural and historical context can have an influence.
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
I'm hardly a fan of Glenn Beck, but I must point out that he has been sounding more contrite since he left Fox.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/0...