Well I for one want a bill to kill everyone who disagrees with me. You can put any amendments you want to the bill but just don't change the basic premise. Sounds Bi-partisan doesn't it?
If there was no money there either way then the cost is the same. FDIC insurance is to pay out deposits that the banks can't cover. TARP was to pay for the bad investments that hold the deposits the banks can't cover. The difference is that with TARP the banks that caused the mess are still around. Sure there would have been more chaos, but at least at the end of the day the losers would have lost. We just paid off the gambling debts of a lot of banks, what makes you think they won't gamble again?
It amazes me that so many Americans are so thoroughly confused and ignorant as to the truth about politics, and politicians. They are confused and ignorant about issues, and completely willing to drink the kool aid spewed by either side of the proverbial "aisle".
Agreed. Both sides spin issues however they can to get support. Anyone who trusts a politicians mouth while ignoring their record is a fool.
The world is full of grayness. Each issue has a multitude of variables, each with significance. The electorate at large is comprised mostly of a bunch of clueless, mindless drones unable to reason and unable to see through the bullshit.
Agreed as well, everyone has a different opinion which is why we are a republic of individual states. If you want your government to be a certain way then move to the state most like it and push for your change. The problem is when the politicians try to move the whole nation in a direction without understanding the differing opinions/needs within the nation.
"Freedom" means I can do whatever I want and you should just leave me alone. Snake oil salesmen love freedom.
"Maintaining Principles" means that they know your arguments are morally right, but they do not give a damn, for accepting the change means bad things for them.
"Reaching across the aisle" means get on board with me.
Freedom is subjective, but the trick is to maintain a level of freedom for everyone without bullying anyone.
"Maintaining Principles" hinges on what the principles are, and although you may believe your side is morally right I may disagree. We are both maintaining our principles by voting with our own morality.
Reaching across the isle means either slapping the crap out of the other side (across the isle) or bribing the other side into agreement. I disagree with it in both cases. If you believe in something stand by it. Disagreement and discussion is important for everyone's rights to be maintained.
You CANNOT have ANYTHING for free. You MUST pay for it. One way or another. This is NEVER in doubt. The ONLY questions are HOW and WHO.
Again agreed. The problem is what about the things we have paid for and never received. Social Security is a prime example, for years it was the government's piggy bank. Now they want more money for this and that, but they don't even pretend to know where it's going or how it's used. Just a little example:
Schools need more money, they currently get $2 in funding. The politicians push for a tax to fund the schools, the tax collects $3. How much money do the schools now get?
$3
How's that you ask: The $2 that was going to the schools before now gets spent on other things. They didn't lie, the tax goes to the schools, but don't you feel like you just got taxed an extra $2 for nothing? I don't trust the government with any more money because they haven't been trustworthy with what they have.
I can't believe people are STILL buying into trickle down...
People still believe trickle down, because in concept it works. In reality, if you only apply tax cuts to your buddies then they are the only ones that have growth at the expense of their enemies. Without people starting businesses and changing the status quo we have no growth, but squashing them by giving tax breaks to their bigger competitors only leads to stagnation and more corruption.
I just cannot believe that at this point in history, with so many "enlightened" and "educated" people in this country that we're willing to:
- Force Grandma into the street because SS is not keeping up with inflation because these damn people raided the funds so many time throughout history!!
- Or refusing to pay for her heart meds, so an company's investors can make more cash. It should NOT EVEN BE AN ISSUE!
- Force lil Timmy to die, because some young healthy guy in TX doesn't want to
They should have let the failing banks fail. TARP was a get out of jail free card for the worst offenders on Wall Street. Yes loans would have dried up for a while until they reached sanity again, but what would be the difference today other than banks being afraid to make stupid loans in the future?
Forcing people to buy health insurance is a win/lose proposition. Some will buy it, others will pay the fine. If the issue is that some people truly can't afford health insurance then the problem is not with the insurance companies but with the cost of treatment. I'm all for lowering health care costs, but this reform doesn't do that. Nobody wants to lower health care costs because a huge burden of cost is litigation and lawyers run the government. Another huge cost is treating patients without health insurance which the government forced on hospitals but never funded. Fix these two things and health care comes back down to reasonable levels. I'd much rather the government fund ER visits by those that don't have insurance, then at least we would be able to see in writing the impact that has on the system.
Everyone doesn't have health care. Lots of people choose not to have health care. Yeah it's expensive, yeah you have to give up other things to get it, but if you don't have it and can afford it that's not my fault! If you really want to make a difference then focus on what makes health care expensive, not covering everyone with the same expensive health care.
Also:
Or are you just trying to say you want the Health Insurers to be able to drop people when they get sick?
Really?! Is that all you can say to someone who doesn't agree? Might as well tell me that I want little kids to die and want to take away grandma's medicare or maybe I kick puppies too. Ignoring the truth may be less painful but it does make you look like a moron.
I vote for the Republicans not because I believe in them, but because I believe in the Democrats less. How do you fix this? I don't know. GW Bush was not my first choice and he certainly did a lot of things I disagree with, but compared to the alternatives both times he was the only choice. The one thing I do know for sure is that I am not supporting any candidates campaign unless I believe in them, not that it matters much they have enough corporate backing to ignore me and those like me.
Blackwater, Haliburton, and other defense contractors did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress.
FTFY
And of course they didn't under Clinton or Obama? Please make a comparison, or at least make your case for this statement. It seems to me you are just lumping together a group of names that are unpopular in an attempt to make an emotional case instead of making an actual point which is fine for a campaign add but not for a debate.
There's a reason inflation has been tiny to non-existent, despite the "hyperinflation is COMING!!!" chicken littles out there (yourself included).
For now. You can't just unprint money when or "IF" the economy improves. If expanding the money supply does cause growth it will be a bubble not a true gain. Look at all the housing bubbles, too much money chasing too few goods only lasts for so long, the difference is that the extra money injected into the economy is here for good as opposed to easy to get home loans.
Bush had his fair share of blame for the economy. After Sept 11th the fed loosened the money supply to keep the economy up and continued it to this day. Yes, I know it was to avoid a potential crash, but crashes will happen and need to happen for the economy to keep growing. All it did was postpone the inevitable. As for policies that led up to the crash, the biggest was loose lending standards for home loans and both parties have been pushing those for 20 years. Sure congress has made this thing worse in recent years, but do you really think the Republicans would have made things much better? Lifelong politicians in both parties have their hands in the cookie jar and until we have term limits I doubt that will change much.
As is compromise to the Democrats. Also the Republicans can magically block all kinds of legislation while being the minority in the house and senate. Obama loves to blame the Republicans for not getting what he wanted, but in reality he could and did pass any bills the Democrats would approve. The fight he's had is not with the Republicans, but with his own party. The fight with the Republicans happens when the new congressmen get seated.
IANACS but most of what was in the healthcare bill was suicidal for health insurance policies. Covering pre-existing conditions in children? Yeah it allowed you to insure little Timmy after he got Leukemia, but from an insurance company's perspective it let you get home insurance after your house is burning down or car insurance right after a wreck. Insurance only works when the costs of the ill are distributed among the well, if you have only sick people buying it then it gets very expensive very fast because the cost is slightly more than the average cost of treatment for policyholders. Covering children until they are 26 also drives cost up because it increases the number of people covered without increasing the number of policies held. We've already seen insurance companies refuse to accept child only policies because of the cost to them. You can argue all day long that the health care bill had the best intentions, but in reality it only drives the cost up for people who try to do the right thing and buy insurance before they get sick. It seems to me this whole thing was a plan to drive health care costs up even more so that the government would be in a better position to promote a single payer system.
The biggest failure with both high def and 3D is that movies still have the backgrounds out of focus. I know they want us to focus on the foreground, but it really cuts the realism when something is shot in high def. It's doubly frustrating to me when it's done in 3D because my eyes try their darnedest to focus on the background but can't. When the picture is crystal clear in 3D though it is amazing.
The Simpsons has been using absurdity to escape ridicule on political issues for year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cartridge_Family or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing The absurdity is there to avoid a fight not to change the message, the show's commentary is pretty much as you see it minus the unicorn and the kittens. The intro was so horrific I couldn't even chuckle about the absurdity. I think somewhere around season 6 the writers went off the deep end and haven't been back since. I don't mind opposing political viewpoints in my comedy, but I do mind being hammered with politics when I want a laugh.
Evidently you don't know what a distributor is. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distributor Apple is playing the part of a middle man and as such is a distributor. If apple didn't have a store and simply had links to the developers websites where you paid the developers directly then you would be right. Especially with a DRM system that stops all outside apps Apple is a distributor.
99% of users seems a little high, but I do know a lot of people that only have broadband because dialup is too slow for web browsing. Same kinda folks who used or possibly still use AOL. You know 12:00 flashers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be3alRoxkOo
So the Simpsons producers/writers can't tell the difference between China and South Korea? Better not tell the South Korean animators I bet that would be a much bigger insult!
GDP per capita may not indicate development, but when it does not it does indicate social divide. Either a country is not developed enough to produce things in volume, or it does produce things in volume but there are only an elite few who are doing it and everyone else lives like a pauper. Remember GDP includes things like food and covers EVERYTHING made by a country not just things exported. I'm not saying South Korea is a 3rd world country either, just that GDP does mean something.
I could be working in New York City right now for the same salary I am now and be considered poor, where I'm at it's an awesome salary. Cost of living compared to wages means a whole lot more than wages outright. Sure I might not have all the toys I could, but neither can most New Yorkers. Also I doubt that the iPhone is the cool thing in South Korea after all they develop the new cool toys, look at Japan! If I could get a better job that payed half of what I earn now in a place with a quarter of the cost of living I'd jump on it.
Ahh, so it's my fault that the Chinese people are working in factories with crappy working conditions instead of on farms with crappy working conditions. Lets just stop paying to have things made overseas, that will make the lives of the workers overseas so much better.
Well from my college experience reselling books was 50/50 or so. You bought the newest version of the book because that's what the course called for then magically at the end of the semester there was a new revision which the new class had to have. Didn't matter that the revision only changed some of the problems and none of the actual material, if you used the wrong revision you were at the mercy of the writer. Maybe it's different for liberal arts books, but for math/science resale was not always an option nor was buying used. Nowadays I would just have bought a flat bed scanner and borrowed a book off a classmate. E-books is just another kick in the pants for students. Why attend the class at all when you pay so much for the material.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I for one want a bill to kill everyone who disagrees with me. You can put any amendments you want to the bill but just don't change the basic premise. Sounds Bi-partisan doesn't it?
Yup. That's why I'm not sending them any money. But when you can give me a better option to vote for then I'll change how I vote.
If there was no money there either way then the cost is the same. FDIC insurance is to pay out deposits that the banks can't cover. TARP was to pay for the bad investments that hold the deposits the banks can't cover. The difference is that with TARP the banks that caused the mess are still around. Sure there would have been more chaos, but at least at the end of the day the losers would have lost. We just paid off the gambling debts of a lot of banks, what makes you think they won't gamble again?
It amazes me that so many Americans are so thoroughly confused and ignorant as to the truth about politics, and politicians. They are confused and ignorant about issues, and completely willing to drink the kool aid spewed by either side of the proverbial "aisle".
Agreed. Both sides spin issues however they can to get support. Anyone who trusts a politicians mouth while ignoring their record is a fool.
The world is full of grayness. Each issue has a multitude of variables, each with significance. The electorate at large is comprised mostly of a bunch of clueless, mindless drones unable to reason and unable to see through the bullshit.
Agreed as well, everyone has a different opinion which is why we are a republic of individual states. If you want your government to be a certain way then move to the state most like it and push for your change. The problem is when the politicians try to move the whole nation in a direction without understanding the differing opinions/needs within the nation.
"Freedom" means I can do whatever I want and you should just leave me alone. Snake oil salesmen love freedom. "Maintaining Principles" means that they know your arguments are morally right, but they do not give a damn, for accepting the change means bad things for them. "Reaching across the aisle" means get on board with me.
Freedom is subjective, but the trick is to maintain a level of freedom for everyone without bullying anyone.
"Maintaining Principles" hinges on what the principles are, and although you may believe your side is morally right I may disagree. We are both maintaining our principles by voting with our own morality.
Reaching across the isle means either slapping the crap out of the other side (across the isle) or bribing the other side into agreement. I disagree with it in both cases. If you believe in something stand by it. Disagreement and discussion is important for everyone's rights to be maintained.
You CANNOT have ANYTHING for free. You MUST pay for it. One way or another. This is NEVER in doubt. The ONLY questions are HOW and WHO.
Again agreed. The problem is what about the things we have paid for and never received. Social Security is a prime example, for years it was the government's piggy bank. Now they want more money for this and that, but they don't even pretend to know where it's going or how it's used. Just a little example:
Schools need more money, they currently get $2 in funding. The politicians push for a tax to fund the schools, the tax collects $3. How much money do the schools now get?
$3
How's that you ask: The $2 that was going to the schools before now gets spent on other things. They didn't lie, the tax goes to the schools, but don't you feel like you just got taxed an extra $2 for nothing? I don't trust the government with any more money because they haven't been trustworthy with what they have.
I can't believe people are STILL buying into trickle down...
People still believe trickle down, because in concept it works. In reality, if you only apply tax cuts to your buddies then they are the only ones that have growth at the expense of their enemies. Without people starting businesses and changing the status quo we have no growth, but squashing them by giving tax breaks to their bigger competitors only leads to stagnation and more corruption.
I just cannot believe that at this point in history, with so many "enlightened" and "educated" people in this country that we're willing to: - Force Grandma into the street because SS is not keeping up with inflation because these damn people raided the funds so many time throughout history!! - Or refusing to pay for her heart meds, so an company's investors can make more cash. It should NOT EVEN BE AN ISSUE! - Force lil Timmy to die, because some young healthy guy in TX doesn't want to
They should have let the failing banks fail. TARP was a get out of jail free card for the worst offenders on Wall Street. Yes loans would have dried up for a while until they reached sanity again, but what would be the difference today other than banks being afraid to make stupid loans in the future?
Forcing people to buy health insurance is a win/lose proposition. Some will buy it, others will pay the fine. If the issue is that some people truly can't afford health insurance then the problem is not with the insurance companies but with the cost of treatment. I'm all for lowering health care costs, but this reform doesn't do that. Nobody wants to lower health care costs because a huge burden of cost is litigation and lawyers run the government. Another huge cost is treating patients without health insurance which the government forced on hospitals but never funded. Fix these two things and health care comes back down to reasonable levels. I'd much rather the government fund ER visits by those that don't have insurance, then at least we would be able to see in writing the impact that has on the system.
members of Congress are not _that_ stupid.
Have you looked at congress lately?
Everyone doesn't have health care. Lots of people choose not to have health care. Yeah it's expensive, yeah you have to give up other things to get it, but if you don't have it and can afford it that's not my fault! If you really want to make a difference then focus on what makes health care expensive, not covering everyone with the same expensive health care.
Also:
Or are you just trying to say you want the Health Insurers to be able to drop people when they get sick?
Really?! Is that all you can say to someone who doesn't agree? Might as well tell me that I want little kids to die and want to take away grandma's medicare or maybe I kick puppies too. Ignoring the truth may be less painful but it does make you look like a moron.
I vote for the Republicans not because I believe in them, but because I believe in the Democrats less. How do you fix this? I don't know. GW Bush was not my first choice and he certainly did a lot of things I disagree with, but compared to the alternatives both times he was the only choice. The one thing I do know for sure is that I am not supporting any candidates campaign unless I believe in them, not that it matters much they have enough corporate backing to ignore me and those like me.
Blackwater, Haliburton, and other defense contractors did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress. FTFY
And of course they didn't under Clinton or Obama? Please make a comparison, or at least make your case for this statement. It seems to me you are just lumping together a group of names that are unpopular in an attempt to make an emotional case instead of making an actual point which is fine for a campaign add but not for a debate.
There's a reason inflation has been tiny to non-existent, despite the "hyperinflation is COMING!!!" chicken littles out there (yourself included).
For now. You can't just unprint money when or "IF" the economy improves. If expanding the money supply does cause growth it will be a bubble not a true gain. Look at all the housing bubbles, too much money chasing too few goods only lasts for so long, the difference is that the extra money injected into the economy is here for good as opposed to easy to get home loans.
Bush had his fair share of blame for the economy. After Sept 11th the fed loosened the money supply to keep the economy up and continued it to this day. Yes, I know it was to avoid a potential crash, but crashes will happen and need to happen for the economy to keep growing. All it did was postpone the inevitable. As for policies that led up to the crash, the biggest was loose lending standards for home loans and both parties have been pushing those for 20 years. Sure congress has made this thing worse in recent years, but do you really think the Republicans would have made things much better? Lifelong politicians in both parties have their hands in the cookie jar and until we have term limits I doubt that will change much.
As is compromise to the Democrats. Also the Republicans can magically block all kinds of legislation while being the minority in the house and senate. Obama loves to blame the Republicans for not getting what he wanted, but in reality he could and did pass any bills the Democrats would approve. The fight he's had is not with the Republicans, but with his own party. The fight with the Republicans happens when the new congressmen get seated.
IANACS but most of what was in the healthcare bill was suicidal for health insurance policies. Covering pre-existing conditions in children? Yeah it allowed you to insure little Timmy after he got Leukemia, but from an insurance company's perspective it let you get home insurance after your house is burning down or car insurance right after a wreck. Insurance only works when the costs of the ill are distributed among the well, if you have only sick people buying it then it gets very expensive very fast because the cost is slightly more than the average cost of treatment for policyholders. Covering children until they are 26 also drives cost up because it increases the number of people covered without increasing the number of policies held. We've already seen insurance companies refuse to accept child only policies because of the cost to them. You can argue all day long that the health care bill had the best intentions, but in reality it only drives the cost up for people who try to do the right thing and buy insurance before they get sick. It seems to me this whole thing was a plan to drive health care costs up even more so that the government would be in a better position to promote a single payer system.
The biggest failure with both high def and 3D is that movies still have the backgrounds out of focus. I know they want us to focus on the foreground, but it really cuts the realism when something is shot in high def. It's doubly frustrating to me when it's done in 3D because my eyes try their darnedest to focus on the background but can't. When the picture is crystal clear in 3D though it is amazing.
The Simpsons has been using absurdity to escape ridicule on political issues for year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cartridge_Family or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing The absurdity is there to avoid a fight not to change the message, the show's commentary is pretty much as you see it minus the unicorn and the kittens. The intro was so horrific I couldn't even chuckle about the absurdity. I think somewhere around season 6 the writers went off the deep end and haven't been back since. I don't mind opposing political viewpoints in my comedy, but I do mind being hammered with politics when I want a laugh.
Evidently you don't know what a distributor is. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distributor Apple is playing the part of a middle man and as such is a distributor. If apple didn't have a store and simply had links to the developers websites where you paid the developers directly then you would be right. Especially with a DRM system that stops all outside apps Apple is a distributor.
99% of users seems a little high, but I do know a lot of people that only have broadband because dialup is too slow for web browsing. Same kinda folks who used or possibly still use AOL. You know 12:00 flashers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be3alRoxkOo
So the Simpsons producers/writers can't tell the difference between China and South Korea? Better not tell the South Korean animators I bet that would be a much bigger insult!
GDP per capita may not indicate development, but when it does not it does indicate social divide. Either a country is not developed enough to produce things in volume, or it does produce things in volume but there are only an elite few who are doing it and everyone else lives like a pauper. Remember GDP includes things like food and covers EVERYTHING made by a country not just things exported. I'm not saying South Korea is a 3rd world country either, just that GDP does mean something.
I could be working in New York City right now for the same salary I am now and be considered poor, where I'm at it's an awesome salary. Cost of living compared to wages means a whole lot more than wages outright. Sure I might not have all the toys I could, but neither can most New Yorkers. Also I doubt that the iPhone is the cool thing in South Korea after all they develop the new cool toys, look at Japan! If I could get a better job that payed half of what I earn now in a place with a quarter of the cost of living I'd jump on it.
Ahh, so it's my fault that the Chinese people are working in factories with crappy working conditions instead of on farms with crappy working conditions. Lets just stop paying to have things made overseas, that will make the lives of the workers overseas so much better.
Around here we call a thousand million something different, it's a billion.
Economics is not a scientific discipline. Those studies are not very credible.
On the other hand nobody would ever dispute a finding by a climatologist.
Well from my college experience reselling books was 50/50 or so. You bought the newest version of the book because that's what the course called for then magically at the end of the semester there was a new revision which the new class had to have. Didn't matter that the revision only changed some of the problems and none of the actual material, if you used the wrong revision you were at the mercy of the writer. Maybe it's different for liberal arts books, but for math/science resale was not always an option nor was buying used. Nowadays I would just have bought a flat bed scanner and borrowed a book off a classmate. E-books is just another kick in the pants for students. Why attend the class at all when you pay so much for the material.