So . ..uh. . . why wouldn't you bet on it? A precedent has been set, but you choose to think that the open alternative will support more backward compatibility. . . why?
In 20 years youll end up with a bunch of documents in an obsolete format. Congratulations, you have the source code that wrote them. Now all you will have to do is write you own converter.
First, again, you didnt reply to any points, oh well. And it wasnt a look at repeblicans vs demacrats wealth, it was returns on congressmen and women. They ALL significantly outperformed the market, with the democrats leading the pack. But like I said, not the issue at hand.
Since you havent addressed the moral issue at hand for 2 posts now, and instead you have turned this into a democrats vs republicans argument. . . well, i cant discuss a topic with someone who refuses to.
You didnt address any of my other points, but whatever.
I specifically said this wasnt an issue of spending money on things i dont like, its an issue of spending money directly on people. And the people get to vote whether to get more or less money. Do you not see the difference between a 4 lane interstate and a 2 lane interstate, and a 400$ refund check and a $200 refund check? People cant be expected to act morally if you make the vote about money in their pockets.
If You are going to drag parties into this. . . okay? I believe most politicians are thieves, just look at their earnings than ALL outpack the average market return significantly. (pot shot: Democrats were significantly higher).
But this isnt about parties, its clear both are too corrupt. When it comes time to vote, i am looking for people that are reasonable, and frankly, the Tea Party that actually passed a clean balanced budget amendment seems more reasonable to me than most everything else coming from Washington. But again, this isnt about politics, this is about the morality of government spending on infastructure vs direct cash payments to voters.
Its a common argument, but ill play ball in case you really havent been down this road. (haha)
Poor people are dependent on Walmart as well, without it, with only access to local goods, they are forced to pay more for everything that they use. Yes, the rich walmart owner is dependent on his company, but so are the people buying goods from it. Thats the concept of the free market, it balances around mutual good. Walmart provides the exact right amount of wealth to its owner. Too much and people start shopping elsewhere (prices are too high), too little and they cant pay their employees (owner included).
To say that Walmart is more dependent on highways than you and I is silly. No highways and not only do you not get vacation, you dont get fresh produce or any manufactured good.
Yes, gas taxes arent 100% fair, when you switch from urban to rural and all, but its a pretty good system, in terms of paying for what you use. I suppose a toll road is a better example, but most of those are not federally operated.
Yes, what you are saying is a basic tenant of government, but this situation is different than 10% of people being pacifists. What we are seeing is people voting themselves benefits. That is not pooling money for the greater good, economic development (roads) or defense (military, police). Those things are greater good for everyone, because you realize that even if you dont use the interstate, you benefit from it (walmart). Theses things are people voting for their own good. These things are people that get a check from the government, that others pay, and they vote for the person that will give them more. “When the people find that they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin. Yes, its a quote, but its also an argument. In the last 50 years politicians found out that they can buy voters. They can give money, then threaten that the other guy wants to cut it off. This is not what it used to be, this is not the norm in America.
Yes, i agree that every time the goverment spends money on things that you dont like its not stealing, but I dont accuse the goverment of stealing, i accuse the people that expressly vote with their own monetary self interest, with no shame in taking money from others stealing. Its mob mentality. If three people get together and vote to kill the third, just because its a majority dosent make it moral. Just because people vote for something dosent make it moral. Stealing is a harsh word, but just because the majority is doing it dosent make it any less true.
Your implication here, or at least most peoples implication is that things like the bush era tax cuts are benefiting the top 10% while stealing from the bottom 90. Which is. . . literally true, but a change in benefits does not imply morality. If person A is getting hosed with a 50% income tax, and person B is sitting on a 0% tax, then a change to 45% / 5% isnt -really- stealing from that bottom person, its a step in the direction of fairness and justice.
No, i am not asking everyone to pay the same dollar amount in taxes, but i am asking that a citizen needs to actually pay federal taxes if they are going to decide how the money is spent. Anything less is me deciding how to make you spend your money. ..on me.
Wait, are you implying that roads are used by the wealthy a greater than proportional amount than the increase in property and sales tax that they pay?
Because. ..no?
The gasoline tax to pay for roads, which is what we have here, is a great example of fair. People pay for what they use.
Note the difference in that and the top 5% paying for over half of the government.
My definition of stealing is when someone who dosent pay federal taxes to vote for the candidate that promises them government money, that is to say, that promises to give them someone else's money.
Yay for america, where the bottom 50% have figured out that they can steal from the top 10%, and simultaneously/conveniently government is elected by a majority.
Except they aren't. Several times companies have diped below them. Are they "on average" safer? Yeah. Is it 100%? no.
Look at the people flocking to physical assets, look at the chinese pulling out of US markets, hell, look at the inflation here and tell me that investing in a country with our projected deficit over the next 20 years, and our economy is a safe bet, because the answer is. . ..no / not really
1) Look at the deficit over the next 20 years, defense spending has NOTHING to do with it, its all medicare / social security that is running red. No really, actually look at long term debt in the US and what drives it, (its not wars).
2) The US has been technically over the debt limit three times is the last 20 years, and didn't default any of the times. This isn't Tea Party activists wanting to default, this is political theater for the masses, and the Tea Party trying to get the most they can. Did they call a bluff in order to reduce the debt? Yeah, they did, and yeah, the debt is less that what it would be if they weren't there. How is that bad?
In perspective here, it was the tea party that passed a balanced budget amendment, and the Democratic senate that voted it down. This wasnt a "lets default", which no one wants, or a "lets just inflate our way out of it" (which is basically the same thing as default, creditors get less back than what they gave), this was a "lets only spend what we take in". I dont think that is extreme at all, and it was the Tea Party that passed it.
Slashdot Mirror
If he wont release it to protect informants. . . whats the point? Whats he holding out for?
Surprise surprise? What that wikileaks cant find people to run it that actually believe what they proclaim?
Cue a deluge of phone calls from. . . the people that now have to use a buggy office suite instead of one that isnt.
Organizing things my what they actually do, not some arbitrary file menu system is a step in the right direction.
Waah, Waah. I know baby, mommy changed your UI, but its for the better, stop crying about it.
In 20 years youll end up with a bunch of documents in an obsolete format. Congratulations, you have the source code that wrote them. Now all you will have to do is write you own converter.
Exactly! you hit the nail on the head. Start charging for it and it will become better. ohhh wait. . . .
I said look at the next 20 years, not this year. No really, its in my opening sentence.
Since you havent addressed the moral issue at hand for 2 posts now, and instead you have turned this into a democrats vs republicans argument. . . well, i cant discuss a topic with someone who refuses to.
/sigh
I specifically said this wasnt an issue of spending money on things i dont like, its an issue of spending money directly on people. And the people get to vote whether to get more or less money. Do you not see the difference between a 4 lane interstate and a 2 lane interstate, and a 400$ refund check and a $200 refund check? People cant be expected to act morally if you make the vote about money in their pockets.
If You are going to drag parties into this. . . okay? I believe most politicians are thieves, just look at their earnings than ALL outpack the average market return significantly. (pot shot: Democrats were significantly higher).
But this isnt about parties, its clear both are too corrupt. When it comes time to vote, i am looking for people that are reasonable, and frankly, the Tea Party that actually passed a clean balanced budget amendment seems more reasonable to me than most everything else coming from Washington. But again, this isnt about politics, this is about the morality of government spending on infastructure vs direct cash payments to voters.
Poor people are dependent on Walmart as well, without it, with only access to local goods, they are forced to pay more for everything that they use. Yes, the rich walmart owner is dependent on his company, but so are the people buying goods from it. Thats the concept of the free market, it balances around mutual good. Walmart provides the exact right amount of wealth to its owner. Too much and people start shopping elsewhere (prices are too high), too little and they cant pay their employees (owner included).
To say that Walmart is more dependent on highways than you and I is silly. No highways and not only do you not get vacation, you dont get fresh produce or any manufactured good.
Yes, gas taxes arent 100% fair, when you switch from urban to rural and all, but its a pretty good system, in terms of paying for what you use. I suppose a toll road is a better example, but most of those are not federally operated.
Yes, what you are saying is a basic tenant of government, but this situation is different than 10% of people being pacifists. What we are seeing is people voting themselves benefits. That is not pooling money for the greater good, economic development (roads) or defense (military, police). Those things are greater good for everyone, because you realize that even if you dont use the interstate, you benefit from it (walmart). Theses things are people voting for their own good. These things are people that get a check from the government, that others pay, and they vote for the person that will give them more. “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin. Yes, its a quote, but its also an argument. In the last 50 years politicians found out that they can buy voters. They can give money, then threaten that the other guy wants to cut it off. This is not what it used to be, this is not the norm in America.
Yes, i agree that every time the goverment spends money on things that you dont like its not stealing, but I dont accuse the goverment of stealing, i accuse the people that expressly vote with their own monetary self interest, with no shame in taking money from others stealing. Its mob mentality. If three people get together and vote to kill the third, just because its a majority dosent make it moral. Just because people vote for something dosent make it moral. Stealing is a harsh word, but just because the majority is doing it dosent make it any less true.
No, i am not asking everyone to pay the same dollar amount in taxes, but i am asking that a citizen needs to actually pay federal taxes if they are going to decide how the money is spent. Anything less is me deciding how to make you spend your money. . .on me.
Because. . .no?
The gasoline tax to pay for roads, which is what we have here, is a great example of fair. People pay for what they use.
Note the difference in that and the top 5% paying for over half of the government.
My definition of stealing is when someone who dosent pay federal taxes to vote for the candidate that promises them government money, that is to say, that promises to give them someone else's money.
Yay for america, where the bottom 50% have figured out that they can steal from the top 10%, and simultaneously/conveniently government is elected by a majority.
Look at the people flocking to physical assets, look at the chinese pulling out of US markets, hell, look at the inflation here and tell me that investing in a country with our projected deficit over the next 20 years, and our economy is a safe bet, because the answer is. . . .no / not really
America circa 1940, Right Wing Paulite Libertarian Paradise. America circa 2010, Left Wing America Socialist paradise.
2) The US has been technically over the debt limit three times is the last 20 years, and didn't default any of the times. This isn't Tea Party activists wanting to default, this is political theater for the masses, and the Tea Party trying to get the most they can. Did they call a bluff in order to reduce the debt? Yeah, they did, and yeah, the debt is less that what it would be if they weren't there. How is that bad?
In perspective here, it was the tea party that passed a balanced budget amendment, and the Democratic senate that voted it down. This wasnt a "lets default", which no one wants, or a "lets just inflate our way out of it" (which is basically the same thing as default, creditors get less back than what they gave), this was a "lets only spend what we take in". I dont think that is extreme at all, and it was the Tea Party that passed it.
Tell me, how many dreadfully boring days at your current job does it take you to earn 52k?
Is the point of government to encourage spending? Or is it to protect the Life, Liberty and Property of man from his neighbors?
Straight up wealth taxes are really scary. Ill leave it to you to figure out why.
The top 10% earn 45% of the countries income, yet pay 70% of the income tax.
"The middle gets stuck paying all the actual taxes." nope. flat out wrong.
Wait, so is medicare and social security a joke as well, since we dont have those xxx billion dollars either?
your an idiot. "google" is not one big computer.
The clock can last a century with no solar power.
example: the pyramids and the great wall of china.