And yet the MPG didn't go up that much, even though by the 1990s it did go up some without any revolution in technology. Meanwhile the auto company engineering departments were busy building lower mileage SUVs and other trucks. The average MPG in 2011 America is 22.5MPG. My 1989 BMW 325i got 22MPG - in 2009.
So "bull" is the right call, but not on the right player. Regardless of this "grandfather" story, Detroit's lack of interest in MPG improvements is blatantly obvious.
Belgium has merely not replaced its old government with a new one. It's not an anarchy, it's the opposite: the same government retaining power without feedback from the people changing it.
Your military spending numbers don't include all the wars, veterans benefits, military portion of debt interest, or the other expenses that cost over a $TRILLION in 2010. And then there's the "intelligence" expenses, which are secret but probably well over $100B.
Entirely whacking the military is not anyone's proposal. But cutting it to $300B and intel to $20B would save $780B+. Taxing banks and other corporations that don't pay taxes but consume lots of public expense would raise most of the remaining $520B. And taxing the of the richest people more of their excess income would pay the rest. While reducing much of what the government spends so much on managing with the legal system and various investigations, and too often bailing out.
The social programs are expensive, but they are mostly investments in a peaceful and productive society. The rest is mostly waste or worse.
Military spending, not even including "intelligence" spending, is over $1T a year. The GDP is $15T a year. That is about 7% of GDP, or more. It is the beast that continues to grow, and it costs about 1/3 of the Federal budget.
The Cold War nearly bankrupted the US. It didn't only because of the US power to borrow; it bankrupted the Soviet Union. The Cold War cannot be the benchmark of acceptable military spending.
Rather than worry about what will eventually bankrupt us, we should constructively reassign money from low-growth or destructive investments like most of the military and "intelligence" budgets. Investing in NASA and other R&D (especially in energy and information science), and giving every child unencumbered education would do the most for the country and everyone in it, while saving enough to reverse deficits into paydowns of the existing debt.
The 2011 Federal budget is $3.83 trillion. The cuts just made to pass it are $38 billion. It doesn't get much easier to do the math and realize that the cuts are just about exactly 1%, not 0.025%.
Interest on the debt in the 2011 budget is $240 billion. That's 6.3% of the $3.83 trillion budget. But the projected receipts are only $2.627 trillion. The average effective tax rate of Americans in 2010 was 26.9%. The percentage of the average American's income spent on taxes paying debt interest was about 1.7%.
You should see an exorcist to get Glenn Beck's voices out of your head. Or just shut off the TV and do some research for yourself.
So Obama both spent a billion dollars in 2008 (liar), and is a cheap whore? You're not just a liar, you're insane.
The kind of insane that thinks that any programme can run at all with no idea whether it will be funded next year. The kind of insane that thinks the government of a third of a billion people, plus its global effects over six billion people, can be audited and rebudgeted every year. The kind of insane that thinks that each budget can stand alone, rather than being packged for strategic effect with other programmes.
So insane that you don't notice that spending $TRILLIONS invading countries for no reason other than spending $TRILLIONS on cronies and keeping the power to do so, while exempting corporations and their rich owners from paying for the benefits that stream to only them, is the reason we have to borrow money to fund it.
You're the insane mayor of Sim City. Who evidently thinks that sharia law is coming soon to the US. Who thinks that "The Media" has "lefty masters" - like Rupert Murdoch, GE, Disney and Viacom, I suppose.
Unless oil drillers are required by law to pay someone for devices like this one. In that case, there'll be lots of people making them in quantity, especially without the intellectual "property" obstacles and costs.
And if they're not required by law, it doesn't matter how closed or proprietary they are: oil driller will never spend a cent on them, no matter in whose interests (including their own) it would be.
could help prevent the tragedy of the next oil spill.
The slick on the surface isn't "the tragedy" of these oil spills. Most of the tragedy is below the surface, where TV cameras and congressmembers won't see it.
I welcome anything good at cleaning up our messes. Especially a device this open and energy efficient. But let's not pretend that cleaning up the surface could possibly "prevent the tragedy". By the time this thing is out there cleaning up, most of the tragedy has already gone down. And pretending it's OK is exactly what the oil drilling biz depends on people thinking so the oil drillers don't have to invest anything in actually preventing the next tragedy.
I'm surprised they didn't throw the idea of Net Neutrality out ages ago,
Yet Democrats haven't thrown it out. Which proves your entire post meaningless. Indeed, you started out saying that "Republicans always look out for business" is in error because Democrats always do, too. Which is also meaningless: even if Democrats always did, that wouldn't mean saying Republicans always do is in error.
The fact is that Republicans always look out for business interests over the people's interests, no matter what. Democrats sometimes do, sometimes don't. That's a big difference. Not big enough, not as big as it should be. But it's big, and it matters.
If you stick to actual logic and real politics instead of meaningless nihilist handwaving, you have a chance of being right.
Money is taken from everyone to fund the government. Except not from corporations, or often from the people who own them.
But the point here is that "Conservatives" don't say "more government is the answer to government problems". Brewer, like her fellow "Conservatives", say "less government is the answer", and then always make more government. For poorer people, anyway. For richer people, it's minimal government. Except for the bailouts, but even there it's minimized to a handout.
It's clear what you're doing on Slashdot: making baseless, arrogant assertions about the world, especially about Slashdot, especially about meaninglessly split hairs like "Slashdot is for digital EEs, not analog".
Corporations should just have to pay sales tax on everything, just as everyone else should. Equity sales that transfer control (ie. >= 50%+1) would pay the sales tax on the cumulative equity purchased by the buyer - as would any subsequent equity purchases by that majority owner. At about 25%, that would be $1.625B (non-control equity sales tax could be 0.01-1%, depending on how much the equity industries cost the public to manage that year). Which could pay for the public's government services that are consumed to protect these two merging corporations, and the public from the merger.
1. Pelosi and Obama never promised "free health care for all". They never promised "free" anything. Indeed, they never promised anything "for all", either - just "for more".
2. Whatever "Liberals" like Pelosi and Obama promise or deliver, that changes nothing about the lies "Conservatives" tell, that you Republicans vote for.
You just cited reasons why this "Conservative" is reaching the government deeper into people's lives instead of another way that would reduce government intrusion. The fact that "more government intrusion is rational" is the point: fake "Conservatives" just talk about less government intrusion, but when they occasionally actually govern, they do "more intrusion" like anyone else. Because that's rational. It's just the opposite of the nonsense lies "Conservatives" tell to get elected, and that their voters believe - no matter the rational reality.
Taxing everyone obese doesn't promote personal responsibility, because there are plenty of obese people on Medicaid whose fatness never causes increased medical costs.
Most people on Medicaid don't simply choose to be deadbeats. Being poor and/or old is usually not a choice. Even if you're a "Conservative" too you have to admit there are plenty of people for whom it's not a choice.
Indeed, obesity is a disease that is often not a choice by the fat people. Being poor and/or old brings conditions that cause obesity in plenty of people.
Every smoker is represented at multiple levels of government. As are the tobacco corporations that are finally charging taxes related to the costs they create, after a half millennium of free rides. Just because you're represented doesn't mean you always win.
Is there a market for fat Arizonans? Seems to me that if the market is the god of all things you portray it as, then it's the reason so many Arizonans are so fat.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet the MPG didn't go up that much, even though by the 1990s it did go up some without any revolution in technology. Meanwhile the auto company engineering departments were busy building lower mileage SUVs and other trucks. The average MPG in 2011 America is 22.5MPG. My 1989 BMW 325i got 22MPG - in 2009.
So "bull" is the right call, but not on the right player. Regardless of this "grandfather" story, Detroit's lack of interest in MPG improvements is blatantly obvious.
It makes no sense? When your "market models" conflict totally with easily observed reality, its the models that have to go.
Belgium has merely not replaced its old government with a new one. It's not an anarchy, it's the opposite: the same government retaining power without feedback from the people changing it.
Your military spending numbers don't include all the wars, veterans benefits, military portion of debt interest, or the other expenses that cost over a $TRILLION in 2010. And then there's the "intelligence" expenses, which are secret but probably well over $100B.
Entirely whacking the military is not anyone's proposal. But cutting it to $300B and intel to $20B would save $780B+. Taxing banks and other corporations that don't pay taxes but consume lots of public expense would raise most of the remaining $520B. And taxing the of the richest people more of their excess income would pay the rest. While reducing much of what the government spends so much on managing with the legal system and various investigations, and too often bailing out.
The social programs are expensive, but they are mostly investments in a peaceful and productive society. The rest is mostly waste or worse.
Military spending, not even including "intelligence" spending, is over $1T a year. The GDP is $15T a year. That is about 7% of GDP, or more. It is the beast that continues to grow, and it costs about 1/3 of the Federal budget.
The Cold War nearly bankrupted the US. It didn't only because of the US power to borrow; it bankrupted the Soviet Union. The Cold War cannot be the benchmark of acceptable military spending.
Rather than worry about what will eventually bankrupt us, we should constructively reassign money from low-growth or destructive investments like most of the military and "intelligence" budgets. Investing in NASA and other R&D (especially in energy and information science), and giving every child unencumbered education would do the most for the country and everyone in it, while saving enough to reverse deficits into paydowns of the existing debt.
The 2011 Federal budget is $3.83 trillion. The cuts just made to pass it are $38 billion. It doesn't get much easier to do the math and realize that the cuts are just about exactly 1%, not 0.025%.
Interest on the debt in the 2011 budget is $240 billion. That's 6.3% of the $3.83 trillion budget. But the projected receipts are only $2.627 trillion. The average effective tax rate of Americans in 2010 was 26.9%. The percentage of the average American's income spent on taxes paying debt interest was about 1.7%.
You should see an exorcist to get Glenn Beck's voices out of your head. Or just shut off the TV and do some research for yourself.
The IPCC did not do the "shenanigans" you say it did (which you spelled right, though you can't spell IPCC). The "czars" aren't what you say, either.
In fact, none of what you say is true. Or it's just the most standard insanity, like "fluoride is forcibly given to the population".
Glenn Beck, is that you?
Gandhi wrote for public consumption, and so do you, therefore you're Gandhi.
No, you're completely out of your mind. Thanks for finally making that perfectly clear.
Constant Fox and other Murdoch empire cheerleading for the most radical rightwing agendas doesn't make you a "righty"?
Oh, now it's clear. You're from Beckistan. Start talking again when the US attacks Israel like your lunatic prophet has been warning us.
So Obama both spent a billion dollars in 2008 (liar), and is a cheap whore? You're not just a liar, you're insane.
The kind of insane that thinks that any programme can run at all with no idea whether it will be funded next year. The kind of insane that thinks the government of a third of a billion people, plus its global effects over six billion people, can be audited and rebudgeted every year. The kind of insane that thinks that each budget can stand alone, rather than being packged for strategic effect with other programmes.
So insane that you don't notice that spending $TRILLIONS invading countries for no reason other than spending $TRILLIONS on cronies and keeping the power to do so, while exempting corporations and their rich owners from paying for the benefits that stream to only them, is the reason we have to borrow money to fund it.
You're the insane mayor of Sim City. Who evidently thinks that sharia law is coming soon to the US. Who thinks that "The Media" has "lefty masters" - like Rupert Murdoch, GE, Disney and Viacom, I suppose.
The Office Ribbon GUI is one of the worst GUI changes ever forced on a significant number of people.
The problem is that what you just said is one of the stupidest things I've heard about an oil spill.
Unless oil drillers are required by law to pay someone for devices like this one. In that case, there'll be lots of people making them in quantity, especially without the intellectual "property" obstacles and costs.
And if they're not required by law, it doesn't matter how closed or proprietary they are: oil driller will never spend a cent on them, no matter in whose interests (including their own) it would be.
The slick on the surface isn't "the tragedy" of these oil spills. Most of the tragedy is below the surface, where TV cameras and congressmembers won't see it.
I welcome anything good at cleaning up our messes. Especially a device this open and energy efficient. But let's not pretend that cleaning up the surface could possibly "prevent the tragedy". By the time this thing is out there cleaning up, most of the tragedy has already gone down. And pretending it's OK is exactly what the oil drilling biz depends on people thinking so the oil drillers don't have to invest anything in actually preventing the next tragedy.
There's a difference between "every last Republican" and "some Democrats".
Pay attention to your own words:
Yet Democrats haven't thrown it out. Which proves your entire post meaningless. Indeed, you started out saying that "Republicans always look out for business" is in error because Democrats always do, too. Which is also meaningless: even if Democrats always did, that wouldn't mean saying Republicans always do is in error.
The fact is that Republicans always look out for business interests over the people's interests, no matter what. Democrats sometimes do, sometimes don't. That's a big difference. Not big enough, not as big as it should be. But it's big, and it matters.
If you stick to actual logic and real politics instead of meaningless nihilist handwaving, you have a chance of being right.
Money is taken from everyone to fund the government. Except not from corporations, or often from the people who own them.
But the point here is that "Conservatives" don't say "more government is the answer to government problems". Brewer, like her fellow "Conservatives", say "less government is the answer", and then always make more government. For poorer people, anyway. For richer people, it's minimal government. Except for the bailouts, but even there it's minimized to a handout.
It's clear what you're doing on Slashdot: making baseless, arrogant assertions about the world, especially about Slashdot, especially about meaninglessly split hairs like "Slashdot is for digital EEs, not analog".
Corporations should just have to pay sales tax on everything, just as everyone else should. Equity sales that transfer control (ie. >= 50%+1) would pay the sales tax on the cumulative equity purchased by the buyer - as would any subsequent equity purchases by that majority owner. At about 25%, that would be $1.625B (non-control equity sales tax could be 0.01-1%, depending on how much the equity industries cost the public to manage that year). Which could pay for the public's government services that are consumed to protect these two merging corporations, and the public from the merger.
1. Pelosi and Obama never promised "free health care for all". They never promised "free" anything. Indeed, they never promised anything "for all", either - just "for more".
2. Whatever "Liberals" like Pelosi and Obama promise or deliver, that changes nothing about the lies "Conservatives" tell, that you Republicans vote for.
Just to keep current a basis of disagreement, I'll note that everyone who doesn't suicide has chosen to be old ;).
You just cited reasons why this "Conservative" is reaching the government deeper into people's lives instead of another way that would reduce government intrusion. The fact that "more government intrusion is rational" is the point: fake "Conservatives" just talk about less government intrusion, but when they occasionally actually govern, they do "more intrusion" like anyone else. Because that's rational. It's just the opposite of the nonsense lies "Conservatives" tell to get elected, and that their voters believe - no matter the rational reality.
Taxing everyone obese doesn't promote personal responsibility, because there are plenty of obese people on Medicaid whose fatness never causes increased medical costs.
Most people on Medicaid don't simply choose to be deadbeats. Being poor and/or old is usually not a choice. Even if you're a "Conservative" too you have to admit there are plenty of people for whom it's not a choice.
Indeed, obesity is a disease that is often not a choice by the fat people. Being poor and/or old brings conditions that cause obesity in plenty of people.
Every smoker is represented at multiple levels of government. As are the tobacco corporations that are finally charging taxes related to the costs they create, after a half millennium of free rides. Just because you're represented doesn't mean you always win.
Is there a market for fat Arizonans? Seems to me that if the market is the god of all things you portray it as, then it's the reason so many Arizonans are so fat.