If you're lucky and you're really good at either farming or killing people, you might be able to weather it out.
I suspect in that scenario you would have to be good at both. Other than that, I liked your response. Even though you were being serious, I laughed very hard.
A monopoly retards growth in business just as much as over-regulation because a monopoly can cause a form of regulation by itself. Hence the need for a balance between regulation and free market. If there were no regulations, you could not even start a business in most industries because you would get stomped out by big corporations through unfair business practices.
Sure thing. So cutting revenue had nothing to do with it at all? Regardless of if spending increased faster than GDP the problem was accelerated by reduced revenue. Cuts on capital gains, the top 10% dodging taxes (legally), people losing jobs, etc. You need a two pronged approach to get out of this problem and that is increased revenue and decreased spending.
Having an opinion on gay rights or abortion doesn't mean you will stomp over everyone else's rights or right to choose. Im not going to force people to say nice things to gay people just because I think gay people should have all the rights of straight people. That is against a person's right to free speech. Assuming he gets the presidency, he can't even make laws anyway since that is under the purview of Congress. Sure, he can veto the hell out of bills, but Congress can still over-ride. If you believe he will remove federal protection for gay rights and abortion he is much more dangerous in the House or Senate. The Tea party was around before Ron Paul, he is just trying to ride it to the top by winning over the fiscal conservative individuals. He is quoted as saying that prostitution and drugs should be legalized since it does more harm than good to make them illegal, and its not in the spirit of liberty to outlaw them. I don't see this as being the opinion of a person who wants to stifle your liberties.
I see nothing wrong with leaving more things up to the states. It allows the people of that state to have some level of self determination in their governments and laws rather than giving everyone a cookie cutter "American" lifestyle they must uphold. This is precisely what is happening right now and one reason there aren't as many pro-gay-marriage laws in many states.
Local government was what was intended anyway when the states formed a union. If you don't like the lack of gay rights in Alabama, move to California or Colorado. In a States Rights type Republic, If anything, you will see the most bigoted and religious nimrods flocking to the most socially conservative states, and all the scientists and rational thinkers will flock to the more liberal states leaving the states run by morons to implode on themselves, meanwhile eating their own medicine and having no Federal bail outs.
I am just sick and tired of a government run by Republicans that cater to the rich and stomp on the poor while manipulating people through religion, and Democrats that give way too much to the poor no-strings-attached and never stick up for the common man (like me) they try to win over. Obama was a big disappointment, and Bush was a moron sycophant to the wealthy. Id rather have someone that ran on a Libertarian platform before in the presidents office than another Obama or Bush.
Reminds me of Deus Ex, the video game. There was an Aquinas hub being built to control all network traffic across the world. Its an awesome game if you enjoy believable conspiracies.
NASA spends money in every state on contractors for their science research missions, and in general they must pick US contractors over foreign ones. This DOES create jobs, regardless of if you think its pissing the money away. At least its pissing it away to teams of engineers and manufacturing plants (thus to workers who weren't replaced by robots on the assembly line). We need money flow to keep the economy alive, so that the little guy can continue to afford to buy products. I understand its not so simple when we import everything from China thus bleeding wealth out over the border, but the point is taxes on the highest earners can funnel back down to the little guy and keep their families fed and their mortgages paid.
Yes. The "owners" of the robots and technology will become richer, while the people without assets will not be able to build assets. Right now we are in a shift towards this unemployed poor class growing. As it is the younger generation, in spite of being more educated than the previous, has no assets, no jobs, no income and less chances to get them. It is time to dust off Karl Marx.
Im just arguing its possible for solar technology to out-compete current cheap sources, and that government legislation and subsidies CAN actually be a good thing by jump-starting the innovation. Just because solar is not as cheap as coal today doesn't mean it wont be in 15 years without subsidies, or 10 with them. Conservatives always get pissed at government interference in markets and always quote the worst examples or just outright make things up. I quoted the Apollo program as a good example of a government program that created jobs (through gov. contracts as well as in NASA), innovated technologies and even created new technologies.
Consumers are buying green products all the time. Energy efficient heating/air conditioning, high km / liter cars, sustainable paper products, sustainable agricultural products, etc. They do this out of their own principals. Of course there is money to be made in green tech.
Well, our congressmen and other executive branch officials are committing fraud on a regular basis. How many times do you see politicians favor companies they are linked to with their wallet in government contracts or pass legislation that favors those that donate the most money to their campaign? I see nothing hypocritical about con men doing the same as government officials. In fact, they are taking a larger risk (hence deserve higher reward) since the American people rarely punish politicians.
Unfortunately, if you favor the producers it creates a small, elite class of wealthy people while the rest of society is poor and lives by subsistence.
Solar is not a pipe-dream. Its entirely possible to make it cheaper than nuclear energy. Its just that it takes time to get the technology to catch up. Subsidies and legislation will help push the technology to greater levels. Government subsidies/programs are not always bad, sometimes they help innovate. The prime example is the Apollo program and all the numerous technological advances it produced we use today and don't even think about it. Had a private entity controlled the entire Apollo program, most innovations would be locked up as trade secrets or intellectual property.
generating over 4 million jobs by 2030 with aggressive energy efficiency measures
This quote is from the description of the article. Yes, how many jobs do the energy efficient measures cost? Im all for solar power since its almost free after it pays for itself, but these measures will undoubtedly cost some jobs.
Antibiotics don't do anything for cold, because cold is caused by a virus (actually a lot of different viruses with similar symptoms, which is why you'll never develop an immunity to them all), and antibiotics only work against bacteria.
Your immune system will develop an immunity to any foreign substance it encounters, it simply takes some time (and developing immunity means it will moun the immune response faster the next time, with any luck before you have a chance to develop symptoms). This is entirely unrelated to how hard it has to work, which is why vaccines work.
Stupid or not, they have been educated on medicine while Joe Average hasn't been. Add the fact that hysteric over-reaction is all the rage nowadays, and it's Joe you shouldnt put any faith in
Upper respiratory infections are caused by bacterial infection or by a viral infection. Furthermore, I am keenly aware of what antibiotics do so your patronizing tone suggests a superiority complex, since you assumed immediately that I am not educated on this subject. Vaccines work because your immune system is fed a weakened virus and it left to remove the foreign body and build immunity without having to endure the symptoms at the same time. I am also irritated at the anti-vaccine crowd as you seem to have suggested in your response.
Antibiotics on the other hand, if abused, depress your immune response to bacteria and leave you more vulnerable. Im not saying that antibiotics are bad all the time, I am saying it is common for doctors to abuse them since it makes their patients happy. My wife had an abscess in her tooth, and I completely understand the application of antibiotics in this case. However, you don't need to resort to antibiotics for every single symptom they are know to treat when you have no idea what is causing the symptom, which is what many doctors do.
Furthermore, you should educate yourself on your own health problems, treatments for them, and possible alternative treatments and make decisions for yourself. You cannot rely on doctors to be infallible, as you suggest I do, since they are also human beings and capable of making mistakes, and/or prone to opinions which may or not be rational.
If it were true that antibiotics are not helpful for "the cold" since it is viral and thus antibiotics do nothing for them, then why did my doctor as a kid as well as the last several doctors I had prescribe them every single time I got a runny nose? After all, he never tested me for what particular virus or bacteria I had at the moment. I thought he was more educated than the average Joe?
Our congress approves the budget and sets social security/medicare policy. They are at fault for giving the Executive branch too much money and dipping into the Social Security/Medicare fund to fund things that are not Social Security/Medicare. I am not so mad at Obama for not doing anything, because Congress is truly at fault for what happened. However, when we needed Obama he didn't do what he said he would do. Maybe that is not entirely his fault, but other more effective presidents have done things before in spite of odds being stacked against them, like FDR. What pisses me off the most, is that Congress gets to pass all these laws that hurt the average person and they are totally shielded by it from their previous wealth and their guaranteed salary (even if the government shuts down). In fact, being a congress-person is almost a conflict of interest these days, since wealthy people will rarely vote to increase taxes on themselves, which is in part needed to get out of this debt problem since the average person cannot bear increased taxes right now and the government needs additional revenue. If I have to pay more taxes I may as well declare bankruptcy since I struggle day to day to pay bills and debts I owe the tax payers (student loans) as well as credit cards I used because I had no money (yes I am aware bankruptcy wont solve the student loan problem). All I see right now is people bitching across the aisle in the Senate and House and not doing ANYTHING to solve the problems. In the end it will only hurt all the average people while the congressmen will just retreat to their estates and live a life of luxury. Both sides need to compromise and no-one is willing when we need them to. Because of this I am not voting for a single congress-person who is in office right now next term, nor am I voting for anyone other than either Ron Paul or a suitable Democratic president that is not Obama. Yeah, I may get flack for Ron Paul as a choice, but at least he is socially liberal (like me) and fiscally conservative, and we need a little of the latter these days.
There is no reason that a child should be put on antibiotics every time they get sick with a cold. Colds work themselves out in a matter of days. The reason some doctors prescribe them for every cold you get is that the antibiotics will work fast. However your immune system doesn't have to work very hard at all and doesn't develop immunities to what you caught. Its like working out a muscle. If you don't use it it atrophies. You put too much faith in doctors. They aren't any smarter than anyone else and some of them are guaranteed to be idiots. In fact, I had a doctor one time that told me she would "pray for me" rather than offer me any other advice or treatments for a medical problem. She was making 120,000 a year at a student health clinic. Go figure.
Uhhh. Well, I have to say that X-men First Class, and Thor were the most recent memorable fun experiences I had at the movies. Movies inspire creativity as well. As a child I used to draw pictures for hours of original ideas after being inspired by movies/cartoons/etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets see, thats enough for 2 trillion wash and dries at 1.25 a wash 1.25 a dry.
If you're lucky and you're really good at either farming or killing people, you might be able to weather it out.
I suspect in that scenario you would have to be good at both. Other than that, I liked your response. Even though you were being serious, I laughed very hard.
Uhh, so increased taxes decreases government revenue? You got to be fucking kidding me.
A monopoly retards growth in business just as much as over-regulation because a monopoly can cause a form of regulation by itself. Hence the need for a balance between regulation and free market. If there were no regulations, you could not even start a business in most industries because you would get stomped out by big corporations through unfair business practices.
Sure thing. So cutting revenue had nothing to do with it at all? Regardless of if spending increased faster than GDP the problem was accelerated by reduced revenue. Cuts on capital gains, the top 10% dodging taxes (legally), people losing jobs, etc. You need a two pronged approach to get out of this problem and that is increased revenue and decreased spending.
I can't really think of a congressman/woman I do like.
Having an opinion on gay rights or abortion doesn't mean you will stomp over everyone else's rights or right to choose. Im not going to force people to say nice things to gay people just because I think gay people should have all the rights of straight people. That is against a person's right to free speech. Assuming he gets the presidency, he can't even make laws anyway since that is under the purview of Congress. Sure, he can veto the hell out of bills, but Congress can still over-ride. If you believe he will remove federal protection for gay rights and abortion he is much more dangerous in the House or Senate. The Tea party was around before Ron Paul, he is just trying to ride it to the top by winning over the fiscal conservative individuals. He is quoted as saying that prostitution and drugs should be legalized since it does more harm than good to make them illegal, and its not in the spirit of liberty to outlaw them. I don't see this as being the opinion of a person who wants to stifle your liberties.
I see nothing wrong with leaving more things up to the states. It allows the people of that state to have some level of self determination in their governments and laws rather than giving everyone a cookie cutter "American" lifestyle they must uphold. This is precisely what is happening right now and one reason there aren't as many pro-gay-marriage laws in many states.
Local government was what was intended anyway when the states formed a union. If you don't like the lack of gay rights in Alabama, move to California or Colorado. In a States Rights type Republic, If anything, you will see the most bigoted and religious nimrods flocking to the most socially conservative states, and all the scientists and rational thinkers will flock to the more liberal states leaving the states run by morons to implode on themselves, meanwhile eating their own medicine and having no Federal bail outs.
I am just sick and tired of a government run by Republicans that cater to the rich and stomp on the poor while manipulating people through religion, and Democrats that give way too much to the poor no-strings-attached and never stick up for the common man (like me) they try to win over. Obama was a big disappointment, and Bush was a moron sycophant to the wealthy. Id rather have someone that ran on a Libertarian platform before in the presidents office than another Obama or Bush.
Well, congressional approval ratings are at about 20 percent, so plenty of people are pissed off.
I disagree. He at least is also socially liberal unlike most Teabaggers.
Reminds me of Deus Ex, the video game. There was an Aquinas hub being built to control all network traffic across the world. Its an awesome game if you enjoy believable conspiracies.
NASA spends money in every state on contractors for their science research missions, and in general they must pick US contractors over foreign ones. This DOES create jobs, regardless of if you think its pissing the money away. At least its pissing it away to teams of engineers and manufacturing plants (thus to workers who weren't replaced by robots on the assembly line). We need money flow to keep the economy alive, so that the little guy can continue to afford to buy products. I understand its not so simple when we import everything from China thus bleeding wealth out over the border, but the point is taxes on the highest earners can funnel back down to the little guy and keep their families fed and their mortgages paid.
My point is why not eliminate the ability for the largest perpetrators of fraud to commit fraud, i.e. Congress and the Executive branch.
Yes. The "owners" of the robots and technology will become richer, while the people without assets will not be able to build assets. Right now we are in a shift towards this unemployed poor class growing. As it is the younger generation, in spite of being more educated than the previous, has no assets, no jobs, no income and less chances to get them. It is time to dust off Karl Marx.
http://1bog.org/blog/what-if-solar-power-had-fossil-fuel-like-subsidies-infographic-b/
Im just arguing its possible for solar technology to out-compete current cheap sources, and that government legislation and subsidies CAN actually be a good thing by jump-starting the innovation. Just because solar is not as cheap as coal today doesn't mean it wont be in 15 years without subsidies, or 10 with them. Conservatives always get pissed at government interference in markets and always quote the worst examples or just outright make things up. I quoted the Apollo program as a good example of a government program that created jobs (through gov. contracts as well as in NASA), innovated technologies and even created new technologies.
The fossil fuel industry receives 10 dollars for every 1 dollar the Solar industry receives.
Consumers are buying green products all the time. Energy efficient heating/air conditioning, high km / liter cars, sustainable paper products, sustainable agricultural products, etc. They do this out of their own principals. Of course there is money to be made in green tech.
Well, our congressmen and other executive branch officials are committing fraud on a regular basis. How many times do you see politicians favor companies they are linked to with their wallet in government contracts or pass legislation that favors those that donate the most money to their campaign? I see nothing hypocritical about con men doing the same as government officials. In fact, they are taking a larger risk (hence deserve higher reward) since the American people rarely punish politicians.
Unfortunately, if you favor the producers it creates a small, elite class of wealthy people while the rest of society is poor and lives by subsistence.
Solar is not a pipe-dream. Its entirely possible to make it cheaper than nuclear energy. Its just that it takes time to get the technology to catch up. Subsidies and legislation will help push the technology to greater levels. Government subsidies/programs are not always bad, sometimes they help innovate. The prime example is the Apollo program and all the numerous technological advances it produced we use today and don't even think about it. Had a private entity controlled the entire Apollo program, most innovations would be locked up as trade secrets or intellectual property.
generating over 4 million jobs by 2030 with aggressive energy efficiency measures
This quote is from the description of the article. Yes, how many jobs do the energy efficient measures cost? Im all for solar power since its almost free after it pays for itself, but these measures will undoubtedly cost some jobs.
Antibiotics don't do anything for cold, because cold is caused by a virus (actually a lot of different viruses with similar symptoms, which is why you'll never develop an immunity to them all), and antibiotics only work against bacteria.
Your immune system will develop an immunity to any foreign substance it encounters, it simply takes some time (and developing immunity means it will moun the immune response faster the next time, with any luck before you have a chance to develop symptoms). This is entirely unrelated to how hard it has to work, which is why vaccines work.
Stupid or not, they have been educated on medicine while Joe Average hasn't been. Add the fact that hysteric over-reaction is all the rage nowadays, and it's Joe you shouldnt put any faith in
Upper respiratory infections are caused by bacterial infection or by a viral infection. Furthermore, I am keenly aware of what antibiotics do so your patronizing tone suggests a superiority complex, since you assumed immediately that I am not educated on this subject. Vaccines work because your immune system is fed a weakened virus and it left to remove the foreign body and build immunity without having to endure the symptoms at the same time. I am also irritated at the anti-vaccine crowd as you seem to have suggested in your response.
Antibiotics on the other hand, if abused, depress your immune response to bacteria and leave you more vulnerable. Im not saying that antibiotics are bad all the time, I am saying it is common for doctors to abuse them since it makes their patients happy. My wife had an abscess in her tooth, and I completely understand the application of antibiotics in this case. However, you don't need to resort to antibiotics for every single symptom they are know to treat when you have no idea what is causing the symptom, which is what many doctors do.
Furthermore, you should educate yourself on your own health problems, treatments for them, and possible alternative treatments and make decisions for yourself. You cannot rely on doctors to be infallible, as you suggest I do, since they are also human beings and capable of making mistakes, and/or prone to opinions which may or not be rational.
If it were true that antibiotics are not helpful for "the cold" since it is viral and thus antibiotics do nothing for them, then why did my doctor as a kid as well as the last several doctors I had prescribe them every single time I got a runny nose? After all, he never tested me for what particular virus or bacteria I had at the moment. I thought he was more educated than the average Joe?
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Our congress approves the budget and sets social security/medicare policy. They are at fault for giving the Executive branch too much money and dipping into the Social Security/Medicare fund to fund things that are not Social Security/Medicare. I am not so mad at Obama for not doing anything, because Congress is truly at fault for what happened. However, when we needed Obama he didn't do what he said he would do. Maybe that is not entirely his fault, but other more effective presidents have done things before in spite of odds being stacked against them, like FDR. What pisses me off the most, is that Congress gets to pass all these laws that hurt the average person and they are totally shielded by it from their previous wealth and their guaranteed salary (even if the government shuts down). In fact, being a congress-person is almost a conflict of interest these days, since wealthy people will rarely vote to increase taxes on themselves, which is in part needed to get out of this debt problem since the average person cannot bear increased taxes right now and the government needs additional revenue. If I have to pay more taxes I may as well declare bankruptcy since I struggle day to day to pay bills and debts I owe the tax payers (student loans) as well as credit cards I used because I had no money (yes I am aware bankruptcy wont solve the student loan problem). All I see right now is people bitching across the aisle in the Senate and House and not doing ANYTHING to solve the problems. In the end it will only hurt all the average people while the congressmen will just retreat to their estates and live a life of luxury. Both sides need to compromise and no-one is willing when we need them to. Because of this I am not voting for a single congress-person who is in office right now next term, nor am I voting for anyone other than either Ron Paul or a suitable Democratic president that is not Obama. Yeah, I may get flack for Ron Paul as a choice, but at least he is socially liberal (like me) and fiscally conservative, and we need a little of the latter these days.
There is no reason that a child should be put on antibiotics every time they get sick with a cold. Colds work themselves out in a matter of days. The reason some doctors prescribe them for every cold you get is that the antibiotics will work fast. However your immune system doesn't have to work very hard at all and doesn't develop immunities to what you caught. Its like working out a muscle. If you don't use it it atrophies. You put too much faith in doctors. They aren't any smarter than anyone else and some of them are guaranteed to be idiots. In fact, I had a doctor one time that told me she would "pray for me" rather than offer me any other advice or treatments for a medical problem. She was making 120,000 a year at a student health clinic. Go figure.
Uhhh. Well, I have to say that X-men First Class, and Thor were the most recent memorable fun experiences I had at the movies. Movies inspire creativity as well. As a child I used to draw pictures for hours of original ideas after being inspired by movies/cartoons/etc.