There is an interesting proposal in an essay in the latest Scientific American: allow differential charges on the basis of quantity of traffic, but not on the basis of content.
That would all the (IMO) reasonable approach of charging the heaviest users more and/or throttling their bandwidth, but wouldn't allow Comcast to put competing Netflix out of business.
I liked this article better. Not very technical, but it does show what kind of person Aaron Barr really is. The greatest part is that he tried to play Anonymous just to drum up government business and seemed to think there would be no repercussions.
He also got caught managing a dirty tricks campaign to smear Wikileaks and critics of the US Chamber of Commerce. He was disseminating personal information about the people he wanted smeared, but threw a crybaby fit when his name came out in connection with it.
Much as the politicians would have you think so, Social Security isn't part of "the budget". It's a separate revenue stream.
Look at the numbers on your check stub sometimes. That's whey they call it "entitlement" - you're entitled to get yours back.
There is no entitlement to Social Security or "to get yours back". See: US Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor (1960).
You're right: I'm wrong about 'entitlement'.
Regardless of how it is sold to the masses, if you strip away the political theater and posturing your Social Security payments are essentially a welfare tax that can be redistributed as the government sees fit at any particular time. The government has no obligation pay a person Social Security no matter how much they have paid in.
Of interest to this discussion is: What really happens? Ignoring the fact that Congress, the courts, foreign or alien invaders, or Acts of God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster can change the rules at any time, how does the system actually work?
AIUI - which may be wrong again - the FICA tax is a separate revenue stream that goes into a separate pool, and the outgoing payments come from that same kitty. How isolated is that pool from other flows? Lots of people claim that Congress has been dipping into it for other purposes, but on an earlier Slashdot discussion someone maintained that that has never yet happened. Anyone know the actual scoop?
They're happy to - so long as no one calls it "taxes".
Fees are higher? Get fewer services while paying the same tax rate? That's a tax hike.
Public employees on furlough or taking pay cuts? That's a tax hike on them. Public employee laid off? That's a 100% tax on their income.
Cut funding for higher education, so colleges jack up tuition to make ends meet? That's a tax hike on one of the demographics least capable of bearing it.
But in the post-Reagan era the work "tax" makes too many knees jerk, so the politicians are afraid to overtly raise taxes. Who gets screwed by the workarounds and how bad isn't a big concern for the politicians, because they just blame it on "hard times".
Such as? Which specific programs and expenditures that should be eliminated? It's real easy to go "Holy shit, we spend a lot on the DoD," much less clear what programs are specifically unnecessary and should be ended.
I suspect we'd be safe with only a tiny fraction of our nuclear arsenal.
Though in the short run, downsizing it might be more expensive than maintaining it.
There's no way to get back to running surpluses (and therefore starting to actually pay down the debt) without massive cuts in all of the big three (social security, medicare, and defense)
Repeat after me: Social Security hasn't got anything to do with our budget deficit.
All of these are arguably Constitutionally mandated functions (providing for the common defense and the general welfare), but the Constitution doesn't say anywhere that we have to fund them to the level that we do.
IIRC, the phrase you're paraphrasing is in the Preamble rather than among the Articles of the Constitution, and therefore doesn't actually have any legal status. (Though - again IIRC - the Articles do spec out defense.)
Invading multiple nations at a time is not Constitutionally mandated either.
Arguably it's constitutionally forbidden, in the absence of a declaration of war by our Congress.
The Congress really wanked away their rights and obligations on the Iraq war. (As they have been progressively doing since the middle of last century.)
But politicians aren't so fast to let the Constitution stand in the way of expediency (political or other).
Now..obamacare is gonna fsck that up..it is already hitting...and I forsee in next years, I'll be paying more and getting much less.
That's because that "liberal" bill had as much (or more) benefits for the insurance companies as it does for public, and didn't close a lot of loopholes that the companies are using to avoid the obligations while jacking up their rates.
The single most useful thing the Congress could do for US insurance rates (and thus indirectly for the public health) is to revoke the health insurance industry's exemption to antitrust laws. If they were competing rather than colluding, everyone (except their executives and stockholders) would be better off.
But how many "free market" advocates want to make companies actually have to compete for their profits?
Unfortunately, the cuts would probably trickle down to hurt the lowliest people involved, probably "the troops", though it really needn't. I'm sure there's a lot of fat that could be cut out of the defense budget.
Yeah, like stuff the 'fiscal conservatives' insist on spending even when the Pentagon hasn't requested it.
The problem is that all the politicians want money spent in their own district, whether it's an Air Force base or a company that makes widgets for some kind of weapon system.
So yeah, the troops are the ones who get screwed. They're just ordinary folk, and don't merit the consideration of our corporate-owned Congress.
Some of that is obviously ideological (EPA, Clean *, etc.), but the rest is just stupid.
In addition to the long-term hazards of cutting back science (and education), austerity programs are exactly what government's *shouldnt* do when the economy sags. Every dollar they cut from a program is a dollar someone isn't going to be spending next year, so tax revenues will drop even further.
A government with any sense would establish a sustainable cost of operations, borrow money when times are bad, and pay off the loans when times are good.
Unfortunately, a republic (representative democracy) tends to become a 'politicianocracy', and politicians buy votes by spending money on stuff their supporters want. So nobody wants to pay down debt when times are good; they just want to take the opportunity to spend more.
Letting in the UN or any other country or group of countries into Egypt should be a cure of last resort, radical surgery when there's Khmer Rouge-style genocide already taking place.
And that's when people seem least interested in intervening...
The Muslim Brotherhood aren't an islamic hardline fascist group. They are in favour of a secular state. And in any case they are no where near having majority support.
Of course, an actual Fascist group would be secular. The frequent denotation of Islamic extremists as "fascist" is just slander.
Or maybe metaphor, as "grammar Nazi" has come to mean someone who insists on enforcing a prescriptive set of grammatical rules.
The US political dialogue is so screwed up that most people don't seem to know what 'liberal', 'conservative', 'socialist', and 'fascist' mean anymore. So you get people calling others they don't like "sociofascist commynazis".
Its hard to overstate the moronicness of the Isrealis and the others in similar circumstances who are not doing this sort of thing. We could be turning Afghanistan into a decent place and making the locals love us. Instead we waste lives and billions of dollars on chasing cave dwellers and propping up their drug dealer dictator.
The Western powers are intellectually married to a "we've got a right" attitude, rather than a "let's be smart about this" attitude.
That's why our solutions for third-world problems always fare so well.
On May 22, 2000 it was reported that since Operation Desert Fox there had been 470 separate incidents of AAA or surface-to-air missile fire at Coalition aircraft and Iraqi aircraft had violated the southern no-fly zone 150 times (source)
Probably because China doesn't fire missiles at our aircraft which are enforcing UN resolutions due to them invading their neighbors?
Mubarak is hoping for one of two things. Either the protest loses momentum and goes away (yeah right), or it goes out of control and he can convince the military leaders that martial law and massive crackdowns is the only way out. Until then, he will do whatever he thinks is necessary to hold on.
According to some sources, he's courting Western support by trying to portray the revolt as a Jihadist movement.
And one well-known Western media outlet is eating it right up... I'll leave the identity of this outlet as an exercise for the reader.
All he has left at his command is the regular police force, and he likely won't have that for long.
AIUI, the Interior Ministry's massed police essentially lost a battle with the protesters a few days ago. He may not have much by way of police to call on anymore.
UN does not mean it needs to be primarily US troops, in fact, based on proximity to Europe and the US being tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, it makes more sense to use a predominately EU based force.
Unfortunately, some of them visited Egypt uninvited in 1956, and it might not exactly calm things down if they went back again.
Slashdot Mirror
Monopolies need to be regulated Mr. Congresscritter.
Not in the view of the party that now controls the House.
(And increasingly, not in the view of the party that now controls the Senate.)
There is an interesting proposal in an essay in the latest Scientific American: allow differential charges on the basis of quantity of traffic, but not on the basis of content.
That would all the (IMO) reasonable approach of charging the heaviest users more and/or throttling their bandwidth, but wouldn't allow Comcast to put competing Netflix out of business.
Sneaking an amendment into an appropriations bill. Everyone says it's an underhanded cheat, but it's just too *useful* to prohibit.
It's only an underhanded cheat when the other party does it.
I liked this article better. Not very technical, but it does show what kind of person Aaron Barr really is. The greatest part is that he tried to play Anonymous just to drum up government business and seemed to think there would be no repercussions.
He also got caught managing a dirty tricks campaign to smear Wikileaks and critics of the US Chamber of Commerce. He was disseminating personal information about the people he wanted smeared, but threw a crybaby fit when his name came out in connection with it.
Much as the politicians would have you think so, Social Security isn't part of "the budget". It's a separate revenue stream.
Look at the numbers on your check stub sometimes. That's whey they call it "entitlement" - you're entitled to get yours back.
There is no entitlement to Social Security or "to get yours back". See: US Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor (1960).
You're right: I'm wrong about 'entitlement'.
Regardless of how it is sold to the masses, if you strip away the political theater and posturing your Social Security payments are essentially a welfare tax that can be redistributed as the government sees fit at any particular time. The government has no obligation pay a person Social Security no matter how much they have paid in.
Of interest to this discussion is: What really happens? Ignoring the fact that Congress, the courts, foreign or alien invaders, or Acts of God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster can change the rules at any time, how does the system actually work?
AIUI - which may be wrong again - the FICA tax is a separate revenue stream that goes into a separate pool, and the outgoing payments come from that same kitty. How isolated is that pool from other flows? Lots of people claim that Congress has been dipping into it for other purposes, but on an earlier Slashdot discussion someone maintained that that has never yet happened. Anyone know the actual scoop?
You could increase taxes.
They're happy to - so long as no one calls it "taxes".
Fees are higher? Get fewer services while paying the same tax rate? That's a tax hike.
Public employees on furlough or taking pay cuts? That's a tax hike on them. Public employee laid off? That's a 100% tax on their income.
Cut funding for higher education, so colleges jack up tuition to make ends meet? That's a tax hike on one of the demographics least capable of bearing it.
But in the post-Reagan era the work "tax" makes too many knees jerk, so the politicians are afraid to overtly raise taxes. Who gets screwed by the workarounds and how bad isn't a big concern for the politicians, because they just blame it on "hard times".
Such as? Which specific programs and expenditures that should be eliminated? It's real easy to go "Holy shit, we spend a lot on the DoD," much less clear what programs are specifically unnecessary and should be ended.
I suspect we'd be safe with only a tiny fraction of our nuclear arsenal.
Though in the short run, downsizing it might be more expensive than maintaining it.
There's no way to get back to running surpluses (and therefore starting to actually pay down the debt) without massive cuts in all of the big three (social security, medicare, and defense)
Repeat after me: Social Security hasn't got anything to do with our budget deficit.
All of these are arguably Constitutionally mandated functions (providing for the common defense and the general welfare), but the Constitution doesn't say anywhere that we have to fund them to the level that we do.
IIRC, the phrase you're paraphrasing is in the Preamble rather than among the Articles of the Constitution, and therefore doesn't actually have any legal status. (Though - again IIRC - the Articles do spec out defense.)
Invading multiple nations at a time is not Constitutionally mandated either.
Arguably it's constitutionally forbidden, in the absence of a declaration of war by our Congress.
The Congress really wanked away their rights and obligations on the Iraq war. (As they have been progressively doing since the middle of last century.)
But politicians aren't so fast to let the Constitution stand in the way of expediency (political or other).
Now..obamacare is gonna fsck that up..it is already hitting...and I forsee in next years, I'll be paying more and getting much less.
That's because that "liberal" bill had as much (or more) benefits for the insurance companies as it does for public, and didn't close a lot of loopholes that the companies are using to avoid the obligations while jacking up their rates.
The single most useful thing the Congress could do for US insurance rates (and thus indirectly for the public health) is to revoke the health insurance industry's exemption to antitrust laws. If they were competing rather than colluding, everyone (except their executives and stockholders) would be better off.
But how many "free market" advocates want to make companies actually have to compete for their profits?
Unfortunately, the cuts would probably trickle down to hurt the lowliest people involved, probably "the troops", though it really needn't. I'm sure there's a lot of fat that could be cut out of the defense budget.
Yeah, like stuff the 'fiscal conservatives' insist on spending even when the Pentagon hasn't requested it.
The problem is that all the politicians want money spent in their own district, whether it's an Air Force base or a company that makes widgets for some kind of weapon system.
So yeah, the troops are the ones who get screwed. They're just ordinary folk, and don't merit the consideration of our corporate-owned Congress.
Some of that is obviously ideological (EPA, Clean *, etc.), but the rest is just stupid.
In addition to the long-term hazards of cutting back science (and education), austerity programs are exactly what government's *shouldnt* do when the economy sags. Every dollar they cut from a program is a dollar someone isn't going to be spending next year, so tax revenues will drop even further.
A government with any sense would establish a sustainable cost of operations, borrow money when times are bad, and pay off the loans when times are good.
Unfortunately, a republic (representative democracy) tends to become a 'politicianocracy', and politicians buy votes by spending money on stuff their supporters want. So nobody wants to pay down debt when times are good; they just want to take the opportunity to spend more.
Defense spending will not be cut because it's *one of the few legitimate and constitutionally required functions of government*.
Surely you don't think our legislature let's that kind of stuff influence what they vote for.
Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget
Much as the politicians would have you think so, Social Security isn't part of "the budget". It's a separate revenue stream.
Look at the numbers on your check stub sometimes. That's whey they call it "entitlement" - you're entitled to get yours back.
The article's server or redtube?
If somebody can find an xkcd about Pinky and the Brain, we can wrap this one right up.
Unfortunately, some of them visited Egypt uninvited in 1956, and it might not exactly calm things down if they went back again.
Isreal != europe
But Britain and France are certainly European.
Letting in the UN or any other country or group of countries into Egypt should be a cure of last resort, radical surgery when there's Khmer Rouge-style genocide already taking place.
And that's when people seem least interested in intervening...
The Muslim Brotherhood aren't an islamic hardline fascist group. They are in favour of a secular state. And in any case they are no where near having majority support.
Of course, an actual Fascist group would be secular. The frequent denotation of Islamic extremists as "fascist" is just slander.
Or maybe metaphor, as "grammar Nazi" has come to mean someone who insists on enforcing a prescriptive set of grammatical rules.
The US political dialogue is so screwed up that most people don't seem to know what 'liberal', 'conservative', 'socialist', and 'fascist' mean anymore. So you get people calling others they don't like "sociofascist commynazis".
Its hard to overstate the moronicness of the Isrealis and the others in similar circumstances who are not doing this sort of thing. We could be turning Afghanistan into a decent place and making the locals love us. Instead we waste lives and billions of dollars on chasing cave dwellers and propping up their drug dealer dictator.
The Western powers are intellectually married to a "we've got a right" attitude, rather than a "let's be smart about this" attitude.
That's why our solutions for third-world problems always fare so well.
Sadly, unless the military get involved the most likely replacement will be some islamic hardline fascist group like the Muslim Brotherhood.
That's not a forgone conclusion, but *any* revolution runs the risk of getting subverted toward unintended ends.
On May 22, 2000 it was reported that since Operation Desert Fox there had been 470 separate incidents of AAA or surface-to-air missile fire at Coalition aircraft and Iraqi aircraft had violated the southern no-fly zone 150 times (source)
Probably because China doesn't fire missiles at our aircraft which are enforcing UN resolutions due to them invading their neighbors?
Yes!!! That's why we invaded Iraq!
I *knew* we'd eventually retcon a good reason.
Mubarak is hoping for one of two things. Either the protest loses momentum and goes away (yeah right), or it goes out of control and he can convince the military leaders that martial law and massive crackdowns is the only way out. Until then, he will do whatever he thinks is necessary to hold on.
According to some sources, he's courting Western support by trying to portray the revolt as a Jihadist movement.
And one well-known Western media outlet is eating it right up... I'll leave the identity of this outlet as an exercise for the reader.
All he has left at his command is the regular police force, and he likely won't have that for long.
AIUI, the Interior Ministry's massed police essentially lost a battle with the protesters a few days ago. He may not have much by way of police to call on anymore.
UN does not mean it needs to be primarily US troops, in fact, based on proximity to Europe and the US being tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, it makes more sense to use a predominately EU based force.
Unfortunately, some of them visited Egypt uninvited in 1956, and it might not exactly calm things down if they went back again.