It seems more appropriate applied to the EU Parliament or the US Congress. "We will not ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a popular referendum." - "We will have more open government watchable on CSPAN, not hidden behind doors."
>>>There's no filibuster with reconciliation, and amendments and debate are limited by a strict timeline
True but reconciliation doesn't apply here, because reconciliation is limited to budget bills ONLY, not other bills. So they will have to hold another vote in the Senate to pass the House bill, and that means the potential for a filibuster. It also requires a 60% senate majority to pass, just like every other bill.
Of course if Pelosi can "deem" a bill passed in the House without actually holding a vote (her original plan), then I suppose the Senate can do similar tricks..... like ignoring their own laws.
>>>And I do plan on my annual checkup, which would be several hundred dollars without insurance.
It would be more logical to simply pay Cash, and only use insurance for very expensive costs. Like I have. My insurance only kicks in when my annual bill exceeds $20,000..... it's like a safety net.
>>>Should your health depend on your body's liability? Of course not
My answer is: "Of course."
Your body has one ultimate destination - failure of the machine (what we call death). Even in France where healthcare is paid by government, the human body reaches that ultimate destination. Therefore a value can be assigned based upon how likely your body is to die within the next year, typically based on age. The lower that likelihood, the lower the liability (cost) to whoever is paying the bill to repair those bodies.
Given that, I find your message message confusing. I find it odd you presume people are entitled to an unlimited amount of money to fix a human body, as if the government has an unlimited amount of funds.
IE won because it had been included, for free, with Windows 95 Plus and Windows 98. Many users didn't even realize their was an alternate choice, so Netscape gradually disappeared as people upgraded to this new OS and simply clicked on the icon marked "Internet".
And that was why Microsoft found itself drug before the U.S. DOJ for antitrust violations. If the DOJ had come-up with the "browser choice" window like the EU did, maybe Netscape would have survived the onslaught rather than going nearly-bankrupt, and becoming just another division of AOL.
>>>This bill tries to get the people who earn more help the people who earn less get a healthy life.
What is this? The year 1000? It sounds like the same moral dictatorship the Roman Church imposed on everybody. "Help the poor voluntarily, or else we'll simply TAKE your money and do it for you. Oh and you'll also be inquisitioned." - While I think it's a good idea to help people, I don't think holding a gun to their heads (or vacuum to their wallets) is the way to do it. They are free citizens, not Serfs to be ordered around. .
>>>If i understand the US-founders correctly they had a country in mind where everybody is equal and even the poorest have right to a respectable life in America.
"The best thing that can be done for a poor person is to make being "poor" painful, so they will seek to be industrious rather than slothful, as I did when I was a poor man." - Benjamin Franklin.
I would also add, no matter how poor you are, you don't have a right to your neighbors' money. THEY earned it, not you. They are not your serfs who work for your benefit. Do I think a safety net is a good idea? Yes, but safety nets are for a last resort: To prevent starvation or to help those who can't help themselves (mentally or physically handicapped).
Safety nets are NOT for you to smoke/drink/eat yourself into illness, runup an expensive doctor bill for lung or heart surgery, and then expect your neighbors to pay for it. YOU chose your destructive lifestyle; now it's your responsibility to pay the cost. Not mine. Not your neighbors.
Let me share MY viewpoint of the situation: - The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever. In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial. Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate, and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.
Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote. Pelosi said she could just "deem" it passed without a rollcall vote! Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality. ----- Now the bill has passed the House, which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill, per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition. The Democrats say 51 is enough, but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass, PER THE RULES which require 60.
The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate, while the Democrats seem intent upon "deeming" the laws unnecessary (like they deem the Constitution as non-existent) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure, including not taking votes (Slaughter rule). It reminds me of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&feature=related - Ignore the vote, ignore the law, just shove it through.
Anyway that's my view from the sidelines.
Bottom Line: I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it.
>>>Your life wasn't thrown into utter turmoil, you didn't have to short-sale your home or default on your mortgage, your family didn't go hungry >>>
Even without unemployment that would not have happened. Unlike most Americans I sacrifice (slow internet, cheap $5 cellphone, no cable TV, seven-year-old computer) and save every dollar. I had half-a-million in my account on layoff day, and still do even now. So I could have survived just fine w/o government assistance.
I'll admit this isn't completely altruistic. I set a goal to retire when I'm 40, and even though that has now been pushed back to 45, I'm still keeping my eye on having enough money to quit working (unless I want to). I'm following Ben Franklin's example.
>>>Get off my internet, it was invented by the Government in case you've forgotten. I can only imagine what the corporation created internet would look like. AOL but worse? >>>
As per usual with extremists, you take my viewpoint all out of alignment, and setup a Strawman argument. I said your neighbors should not have to pay YOUR bills (for a new car or new computer or doctor's bills or whatever), because they are not your Serfs and you are not their master.
I never said your neighbors should not have to pay for their OWN bills, such as using the net, or the post office, or the army (to protect their home). Although I think taxes should be as close to 0% as possible, there are still some legitimate, constitutional services that need to be paid for (the previously enumerated ones).
Everybody always overexaggerates the expenses of medicine, but it really isn't that bad:
- My dad had heart surgery, and I looked at the bill. It was only $8000 for a 1-day outpatient visit. - My brother's wife had a hysterectomy (sp?) for a 2-day stay. It was only $17,000. - Both of these were less than I spent on my car ($25,000).
>>>I'm curious, do you wait for a cavity before seeing a dentist?
Yes pretty much. Also when I do okay for my annual cleaning, I'll flat-out deny certain procedures she tries to perform on me, like teeth whitening or Xrays or other "preventative" crap. I'm not wasting a bunch of money just so she can fill-in a little tiny scratch on a tooth, and thereby fill her pockets with my money. Forget that.
Also:
I don't consider life so precious that I have to cling to it like Ebenezer Scrooge on a gold coin. If I develop cancer and die next month, then I die. Big deal. It's where I'm going to end up anyway. I don't comprehend people who are so frightened of death that they'll go-out and bankrupt themselves (or the government's treasury) just to stay alive. Life isn't that great.
>>>Any number of debilitating conditions, caught early enough, will cost exponentially less than left alone.
False. If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and it appears you fell for the lie. You can pay $10,000 a year, getting all kinds of tests done by your doctor, trying to prevent stuff. That's almost a million dollars over a lifetime.
Or you can simply wait until you have pain, and then go get the pain fixed for MUCH less than a million dollars. The MAIN reason doctors want you to keep coming back for constant "preventative" testing is for the same reason Comcast wants you to buy digital cable for $150/month, or why your local clothing store wants you to throw-out all your blothes and buy "this year's fashion", or why RIAA wants you to *rent* songs for every playback not buy them..... to pad their paychecks.
Just because someone tells you to spend money doesn't mean you should.
(2) Yes it was buggy because it was actually an America Online product (after AOL bought-out the nearly-bankrupt Netscape). It did eventually evolve into Firefox, so it wasn't complete crap - just released too early (2002).
(3) The *90s* versions of Netscape (4 and earlier) were superior to any IE product of the time. While IE was constantly crashing for me, Netscape 4 and earlier were rock steady, and offered lots of nifty features like frames and scripts. - So why did these superior products drop from the 1st place position they had held.
Because IE was on the desktop by default.
It held a monopoly anti-competitive position. Perhaps if the EU had made its "browser ballot" decision in the 90s, the browser war would have ended differently (with a 50-50 Netscape-IE split, or 33-33-33 NS/IE/Opera split).
It's called a "strawman argument". He's not really debating with you. He's debating an imaginary scarecrow that only exists in his imagination.
And to address the point:
There's a difference between a two week delay for FOSS to make the necessary upgrades/testing, and a two year delay as Microsoft often does. (Or worse, keeps the flaw secret so you don't even know you're vulnerable, because it makes MS look bad to have flaws.)
I always knew the reason Internet Explorer won the 1990s browser war was because it was the default install. NOT because it was superior (it wasn't - IE was shit compared to Netscape), but because newbies equated IE to internet without realizing alternatives like Mozilla or Netscape or Opera existed.
NOW that Explorer is not the default, it's losing ground as consumers are finally being told, "You have a choice". I expect within 3-4 years IE will drop below 50% in the EU. Although I'm currently using Opera for its Dialup Turbo compression, I've always preferred the "Mosaic" way of doing things:
- Mosaic (on my Amiga 500 and Quadra Mac) - Netscape (developed by the Mosaic programmers) (on Quadra and PC) - Mozilla - Firefox or seaMonkey
When was the last the Democrat Congress reduced spending? Almost a century ago during the 1920s? I'll take the party that has a more-recent history of fiscal restraint, and has it as part of their party plank.
>>>If the workshop goes bankrupt, you're screwed, whether you have even more debt or not, so take the risk and try to save it.
No. Remember I was comparing the national debt to *personal* debt of $130,000 on credit cards. The solution actually has two possibilities: (1) Sell-off the workshop either as one piece or as pieces (tools) on ebay, use the proceeds to pay off my $130,000 credit card debt, cut unnecessary luxuries like cable/cellphone, maybe rent out the former space, and pay-down that debt to zero as fast as possible. Bottom Line: You're cutting expenses that are wasteful to avoid personal bankruptcy.
(2) Let my workshop go bankrupt. Other, stronger workshops with better finances (i.e. with savings rather than $130,000 debt) will weather the storm, survive the Depression, and thereby rebuild an economy based on strength, not weakness. This is what happened in the Depression of 1920-21, and it worked brilliantly.
True but most of those images are just ads, so no loss as far as I am concerned. And if there really was a blurred image I wanted to see, like some girl in a bikini, I can simply click "load without compression" and it's done.
The KEY point is that I'm getting speeds out of my web surfing equivalent to ~500kbit/s while only paying $7 not ~$40 (like the previous poster), and if the primary goal is saving money because you're poor, well then you make that sacrifice.
Which is another key:
Americans aren't willing to sacrifice. They want to spend ~$2000 a year on cable/internet/cellphone service, AND complain that they can't afford healthcare. Well if they canceled that crap, or downgraded it to cheaper plans, then they could afford it. My "safety net" health insurance is only $1500 a year, and that $2000 from the canceled luxuries could be applied to that bill.
Yes but changing oil doesn't require me to visit a mechanic or doctor, so that's not a good analogy. A better analogy is having your engine "cleaned" every year by having the mechanic take-it-apart, polish each piece, look for potential problems, charge you for the new part, and then put it together. That's what doctors expect us to do with our bodies every year when they discuss "preventative" care. It's a waste of money.
It is cheaper to wait for the engine to breakdown, and THEN have the mechanic fix it. The same is true with your body.
Rather than guessing why don't we just ASK James Madison, the man who authored the Constitution? He knows better than anybody what he meant when he scribed the words on the page:
"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs, was not contemplated by its creators."
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." James Madison as he vetoed a bill.
"There is nothing more natural than to begin with a general statement and then qualify it with specifics. [In other words read the WHOLE sentence, not just the first clause.] If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." James Madison.
And if you still have doubt, just read the Constitution itself:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
>>>No, it's the equivalent of taking out a loan so you can build a workshop and (hopefully) use the profit from stuff you produce there to pay off both debts. >>>
Actually it's more like having a workshop, which has already gone bankrupt, and then trying to save it with an emergency loan. It's like throwing good money after bad, and ultimately won't do anything productive. .
>>>I'm guessing that you're using a purposefully flawed analogue
No. I used the example that came to my head, since I was thinking of *personal* debt it made sense to use a personal example - i.e. an upgrade to my house. No different than Cash for Clunkers or Cash for First-time Homebuyers.
>>>when was the last time the Republicans actually cut spending?
1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 (there was actually a surplus), 2000 (surplus), 2001. They foolishly derailed that fiscal conservatism when the war happened, but prior to that the Republican Congress did a good job of reducing government expenses.
Of course the ideal would be to have a Libertarian congress, who would REALLY cut spending, but since that's not likely to happen I'll just go with choice number 2 - the only party to have a surplus in the last 70 years.
It isn't messed up. Your friend Tom doesn't belong here and should go back to Japan when his Visa expired, instead of living as an unwelcome intruder. Does it suck? Yes but life is not fair. Deal with it.
My turn:
My friend "Huck" is from China. He was not born here, but he and his father were naturalized and lived here the rest of their lives. He met a Japanese girl (let's call her "Becky") on a temporary education Visa, engaged her, she went home when the Visa expired, then came back a few months later and married Huck.
Now both Huck and Becky are both full Americans. Why? Because they followed the rules. Tom, per usual, did not obey the rules, so now he's playing hooky. He should go home rather than continue playing hooky.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems more appropriate applied to the EU Parliament or the US Congress. "We will not ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a popular referendum." - "We will have more open government watchable on CSPAN, not hidden behind doors."
>>>There's no filibuster with reconciliation, and amendments and debate are limited by a strict timeline
True but reconciliation doesn't apply here, because reconciliation is limited to budget bills ONLY, not other bills. So they will have to hold another vote in the Senate to pass the House bill, and that means the potential for a filibuster. It also requires a 60% senate majority to pass, just like every other bill.
Of course if Pelosi can "deem" a bill passed in the House without actually holding a vote (her original plan), then I suppose the Senate can do similar tricks..... like ignoring their own laws.
Like this guy says: What's the point of having rules if you're going to ignore them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl5PNUmmfPE
>>>And I do plan on my annual checkup, which would be several hundred dollars without insurance.
It would be more logical to simply pay Cash, and only use insurance for very expensive costs. Like I have. My insurance only kicks in when my annual bill exceeds $20,000..... it's like a safety net.
>>>Should your health depend on your body's liability? Of course not
My answer is: "Of course."
Your body has one ultimate destination - failure of the machine (what we call death). Even in France where healthcare is paid by government, the human body reaches that ultimate destination. Therefore a value can be assigned based upon how likely your body is to die within the next year, typically based on age. The lower that likelihood, the lower the liability (cost) to whoever is paying the bill to repair those bodies.
Given that, I find your message message confusing. I find it odd you presume people are entitled to an unlimited amount of money to fix a human body, as if the government has an unlimited amount of funds.
>>>totally looks sustainable.
Your second link is a self-spawning trap. Every time I click "X" to close the window it spawns two more. And then two more. And so on.
Thanks.
>>>Your life wasn't thrown into utter turmoil, you didn't have to short-sale your home or default on your mortgage, your family didn't go hungry
Bzzz.
I had about half-a million at my time of layoff.
I really didn't need government assistance at all.
Yes in 1999 it was effectively over. IE went above 50% and Netscape fell below 40% (with the remaining 10% being Mosaic, Opera, and other small browsers). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars#The_first_browser_war
IE won because it had been included, for free, with Windows 95 Plus and Windows 98. Many users didn't even realize their was an alternate choice, so Netscape gradually disappeared as people upgraded to this new OS and simply clicked on the icon marked "Internet".
And that was why Microsoft found itself drug before the U.S. DOJ for antitrust violations. If the DOJ had come-up with the "browser choice" window like the EU did, maybe Netscape would have survived the onslaught rather than going nearly-bankrupt, and becoming just another division of AOL.
>>>This bill tries to get the people who earn more help the people who earn less get a healthy life.
What is this? The year 1000? It sounds like the same moral dictatorship the Roman Church imposed on everybody. "Help the poor voluntarily, or else we'll simply TAKE your money and do it for you. Oh and you'll also be inquisitioned." - While I think it's a good idea to help people, I don't think holding a gun to their heads (or vacuum to their wallets) is the way to do it. They are free citizens, not Serfs to be ordered around.
.
>>>If i understand the US-founders correctly they had a country in mind where everybody is equal and even the poorest have right to a respectable life in America.
"The best thing that can be done for a poor person is to make being "poor" painful, so they will seek to be industrious rather than slothful, as I did when I was a poor man." - Benjamin Franklin.
I would also add, no matter how poor you are, you don't have a right to your neighbors' money. THEY earned it, not you. They are not your serfs who work for your benefit. Do I think a safety net is a good idea? Yes, but safety nets are for a last resort: To prevent starvation or to help those who can't help themselves (mentally or physically handicapped).
Safety nets are NOT for you to smoke/drink/eat yourself into illness, runup an expensive doctor bill for lung or heart surgery, and then expect your neighbors to pay for it. YOU chose your destructive lifestyle; now it's your responsibility to pay the cost. Not mine. Not your neighbors.
P.S.
Let me share MY viewpoint of the situation: - The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever. In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial. Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate, and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.
Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote. Pelosi said she could just "deem" it passed without a rollcall vote! Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality. ----- Now the bill has passed the House, which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill, per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition. The Democrats say 51 is enough, but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass, PER THE RULES which require 60.
The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate, while the Democrats seem intent upon "deeming" the laws unnecessary (like they deem the Constitution as non-existent) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure, including not taking votes (Slaughter rule). It reminds me of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&feature=related - Ignore the vote, ignore the law, just shove it through.
Anyway that's my view from the sidelines.
Bottom Line: I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it.
>>>Your life wasn't thrown into utter turmoil, you didn't have to short-sale your home or default on your mortgage, your family didn't go hungry
>>>
Even without unemployment that would not have happened. Unlike most Americans I sacrifice (slow internet, cheap $5 cellphone, no cable TV, seven-year-old computer) and save every dollar. I had half-a-million in my account on layoff day, and still do even now. So I could have survived just fine w/o government assistance.
I'll admit this isn't completely altruistic. I set a goal to retire when I'm 40, and even though that has now been pushed back to 45, I'm still keeping my eye on having enough money to quit working (unless I want to). I'm following Ben Franklin's example.
>>>Get off my internet, it was invented by the Government in case you've forgotten. I can only imagine what the corporation created internet would look like. AOL but worse?
>>>
As per usual with extremists, you take my viewpoint all out of alignment, and setup a Strawman argument. I said your neighbors should not have to pay YOUR bills (for a new car or new computer or doctor's bills or whatever), because they are not your Serfs and you are not their master.
I never said your neighbors should not have to pay for their OWN bills, such as using the net, or the post office, or the army (to protect their home). Although I think taxes should be as close to 0% as possible, there are still some legitimate, constitutional services that need to be paid for (the previously enumerated ones).
Everybody always overexaggerates the expenses of medicine, but it really isn't that bad:
- My dad had heart surgery, and I looked at the bill. It was only $8000 for a 1-day outpatient visit.
- My brother's wife had a hysterectomy (sp?) for a 2-day stay. It was only $17,000.
- Both of these were less than I spent on my car ($25,000).
>>>healthcare costs in Japan for instance are such more lower per capita.
Japan's been in a depression for almost two decades now. I don't think we should be trying to mirror them. http://www.bing.com/search?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=japan's+lost+decade
.
>>>I'm curious, do you wait for a cavity before seeing a dentist?
Yes pretty much. Also when I do okay for my annual cleaning, I'll flat-out deny certain procedures she tries to perform on me, like teeth whitening or Xrays or other "preventative" crap. I'm not wasting a bunch of money just so she can fill-in a little tiny scratch on a tooth, and thereby fill her pockets with my money. Forget that.
Also:
I don't consider life so precious that I have to cling to it like Ebenezer Scrooge on a gold coin. If I develop cancer and die next month, then I die. Big deal. It's where I'm going to end up anyway. I don't comprehend people who are so frightened of death that they'll go-out and bankrupt themselves (or the government's treasury) just to stay alive. Life isn't that great.
>>>Any number of debilitating conditions, caught early enough, will cost exponentially less than left alone.
False. If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and it appears you fell for the lie. You can pay $10,000 a year, getting all kinds of tests done by your doctor, trying to prevent stuff. That's almost a million dollars over a lifetime.
Or you can simply wait until you have pain, and then go get the pain fixed for MUCH less than a million dollars. The MAIN reason doctors want you to keep coming back for constant "preventative" testing is for the same reason Comcast wants you to buy digital cable for $150/month, or why your local clothing store wants you to throw-out all your blothes and buy "this year's fashion", or why RIAA wants you to *rent* songs for every playback not buy them..... to pad their paychecks.
Just because someone tells you to spend money doesn't mean you should.
>>>Netscape 6 was a buggy piece of shit
(1) I said 1990s. That is not 1990s.
(2) Yes it was buggy because it was actually an America Online product (after AOL bought-out the nearly-bankrupt Netscape). It did eventually evolve into Firefox, so it wasn't complete crap - just released too early (2002).
(3) The *90s* versions of Netscape (4 and earlier) were superior to any IE product of the time. While IE was constantly crashing for me, Netscape 4 and earlier were rock steady, and offered lots of nifty features like frames and scripts. - So why did these superior products drop from the 1st place position they had held.
Because IE was on the desktop by default.
It held a monopoly anti-competitive position. Perhaps if the EU had made its "browser ballot" decision in the 90s, the browser war would have ended differently (with a 50-50 Netscape-IE split, or 33-33-33 NS/IE/Opera split).
It's called a "strawman argument". He's not really debating with you. He's debating an imaginary scarecrow that only exists in his imagination.
And to address the point:
There's a difference between a two week delay for FOSS to make the necessary upgrades/testing, and a two year delay as Microsoft often does. (Or worse, keeps the flaw secret so you don't even know you're vulnerable, because it makes MS look bad to have flaws.)
>>>Why is Mozilla waiting
.
I always knew the reason Internet Explorer won the 1990s browser war was because it was the default install. NOT because it was superior (it wasn't - IE was shit compared to Netscape), but because newbies equated IE to internet without realizing alternatives like Mozilla or Netscape or Opera existed.
NOW that Explorer is not the default, it's losing ground as consumers are finally being told, "You have a choice". I expect within 3-4 years IE will drop below 50% in the EU. Although I'm currently using Opera for its Dialup Turbo compression, I've always preferred the "Mosaic" way of doing things:
- Mosaic (on my Amiga 500 and Quadra Mac)
- Netscape (developed by the Mosaic programmers) (on Quadra and PC)
- Mozilla
- Firefox or seaMonkey
When was the last the Democrat Congress reduced spending? Almost a century ago during the 1920s? I'll take the party that has a more-recent history of fiscal restraint, and has it as part of their party plank.
>>>If the workshop goes bankrupt, you're screwed, whether you have even more debt or not, so take the risk and try to save it.
No. Remember I was comparing the national debt to *personal* debt of $130,000 on credit cards. The solution actually has two possibilities: (1) Sell-off the workshop either as one piece or as pieces (tools) on ebay, use the proceeds to pay off my $130,000 credit card debt, cut unnecessary luxuries like cable/cellphone, maybe rent out the former space, and pay-down that debt to zero as fast as possible. Bottom Line: You're cutting expenses that are wasteful to avoid personal bankruptcy.
(2) Let my workshop go bankrupt. Other, stronger workshops with better finances (i.e. with savings rather than $130,000 debt) will weather the storm, survive the Depression, and thereby rebuild an economy based on strength, not weakness. This is what happened in the Depression of 1920-21, and it worked brilliantly.
>>>you're not receiving the same product
True but most of those images are just ads, so no loss as far as I am concerned. And if there really was a blurred image I wanted to see, like some girl in a bikini, I can simply click "load without compression" and it's done.
The KEY point is that I'm getting speeds out of my web surfing equivalent to ~500kbit/s while only paying $7 not ~$40 (like the previous poster), and if the primary goal is saving money because you're poor, well then you make that sacrifice.
Which is another key:
Americans aren't willing to sacrifice. They want to spend ~$2000 a year on cable/internet/cellphone service, AND complain that they can't afford healthcare. Well if they canceled that crap, or downgraded it to cheaper plans, then they could afford it. My "safety net" health insurance is only $1500 a year, and that $2000 from the canceled luxuries could be applied to that bill.
Yes but changing oil doesn't require me to visit a mechanic or doctor, so that's not a good analogy. A better analogy is having your engine "cleaned" every year by having the mechanic take-it-apart, polish each piece, look for potential problems, charge you for the new part, and then put it together. That's what doctors expect us to do with our bodies every year when they discuss "preventative" care. It's a waste of money.
It is cheaper to wait for the engine to breakdown, and THEN have the mechanic fix it. The same is true with your body.
Rather than guessing why don't we just ASK James Madison, the man who authored the Constitution? He knows better than anybody what he meant when he scribed the words on the page:
"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs, was not contemplated by its creators."
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." James Madison as he vetoed a bill.
"There is nothing more natural than to begin with a general statement and then qualify it with specifics. [In other words read the WHOLE sentence, not just the first clause.] If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." James Madison.
And if you still have doubt, just read the Constitution itself:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
>>>No, it's the equivalent of taking out a loan so you can build a workshop and (hopefully) use the profit from stuff you produce there to pay off both debts.
>>>
Actually it's more like having a workshop, which has already gone bankrupt, and then trying to save it with an emergency loan. It's like throwing good money after bad, and ultimately won't do anything productive.
.
>>>I'm guessing that you're using a purposefully flawed analogue
No. I used the example that came to my head, since I was thinking of *personal* debt it made sense to use a personal example - i.e. an upgrade to my house. No different than Cash for Clunkers or Cash for First-time Homebuyers.
>>>when was the last time the Republicans actually cut spending?
1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 (there was actually a surplus), 2000 (surplus), 2001. They foolishly derailed that fiscal conservatism when the war happened, but prior to that the Republican Congress did a good job of reducing government expenses.
Of course the ideal would be to have a Libertarian congress, who would REALLY cut spending, but since that's not likely to happen I'll just go with choice number 2 - the only party to have a surplus in the last 70 years.
It isn't messed up. Your friend Tom doesn't belong here and should go back to Japan when his Visa expired, instead of living as an unwelcome intruder. Does it suck? Yes but life is not fair. Deal with it.
My turn:
My friend "Huck" is from China. He was not born here, but he and his father were naturalized and lived here the rest of their lives. He met a Japanese girl (let's call her "Becky") on a temporary education Visa, engaged her, she went home when the Visa expired, then came back a few months later and married Huck.
Now both Huck and Becky are both full Americans. Why? Because they followed the rules. Tom, per usual, did not obey the rules, so now he's playing hooky. He should go home rather than continue playing hooky.