Right now, people aren't suffering enough. When the next economic crisis inevitably hits, or possibly the one after that caused by resource depletion (or both), and cheap food, cheap entertainment and cheap psychotropics are no longer available, this is exactly what will happen in the USA,
The flaw in your logic there is that most poor people as well as most criminals are of Democratic bent. If another economic crisis hit, you'd see Dems rioting long before Republicans.
Rotten Tomatoes uses a different system though. In fact, I really like their system. They look at a review and decide ultimately whether the critic enjoyed the movie enough to recommend it or not. I
How is that a good metric? It's _terrible_ granularity. I count count the number of movies I was so-so about and had no strong opinion one way or another. And Rottentomatoes forces a "HELL YES!" or "HELL NO!" response with the thumbs up/thumbs down. Hell, if I'm just not in the mood one day for an action flick, it could very easily nudge an average action flick towards thumbs down when on another day I might have given it a thumbs up. That's an awful system.
How on earth anyone was allowed to take their 'payment' in shares alone is another fault of GS.
It said in the article that GS wasn't present when the terms were changed to an all-shares deal. It claims they signed the papers without their bankers present. And yes, it was incredibly stupid -- it's very hard to take pity.
So, sure, the people involved were dumb. However, being bad with money isn't a crime. In fact, if you know you're bad with money, isn't that a good reason to hire a professional to help you manage it? GS is in the business of finance and secures fees by claiming to have expertise. They were paid for their services handsomely and messed up. They should be held liable.
The problem is in the penalty amount. A billion dollars is downright insane, because it exceeds even the ~half billion they got in stock,and half of those losses you can chalk up to braindead stupidity when they unilaterally accepted an all-stock deal instead of the half-cash deal originally proposed. Whereas GS certainly seems to have been lax in their due diligence, they are not the reason these fools are bankrupt. Diversity in investment is something even inovice investors know. Hell, the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" phrase is taught to us as children. And these are people that ran a multi-hundred-million dollar business?
If you don't want a 3DTV, please do not purchase one!
If you don't want to see a 3D movie, see the 2D version -
That's like saying "If you don't want a widescreen TV, don't get one". At some point, a bunch of jackass manufacturers decided that 3D will be built into all "high-end" TVs -- such that if you want a bunch of really nice features like local dimming, you're going to be paying the package deal price of 3D to get it.
And in the case of the movies, some theaters don't even show many blockbuster movies in anything but 3D, and when they do, it's normally at non-optimal times in the shittiest theater.
So this is why we rant -- because 3D's existence cheapens all other things.
But that doesn't justify giving corporations a free rein (like Ron Paul would do). Things will get worse if we let them.
And what is your proof for this? That "things will get worse"? Because I frequently hear that argument pitched, but never see any backing data. Without the government to enforce their ridiculous bullshit lobbyist law, corporations would be damn near toothless. Yet you people seem to think it will somehow be worse than the current clusterfuck of government stealing our freedoms at the behest of men with money and power (which you'll note is very common in the history of large central governments).
Also notice the party line votes for 2012, where he voted with his party 100% of the time that he voted (Partisan Votes). This too also trending upwards quite a bit from somewhat independent in the late 90's to lock step with the Republican Party by 2012.
Check the graphs again. Everyone has been trending upwards towards more partisan over the past several decades. This is why aggregates matter. Or do you also think the earth is cooling because we've seen 10 years of temperature declines?
Real internet freedom needs freedom not only from government interference, but also from corporate interference.
That's rather funny, because in the entire history of the internet, no corporate entity has tried to fuck with me regarding its use, with maybe one exception: Comcast. And Verizon rolled FIOS in and promptly stole all their customers they fucked in the ass (including me)
The government on the other hand has on multiple occasions tried to fuck over my internet. SOPA/PIPA/DMCA/online poker ban/etc/etc/etc. They things have resulted in drastic changes to and/or direction of the freedom of the internet.
for a market to be truly free, as in just, a market must be highly regulated so large and small players operate on the same level ground
That's called antitrust, and believe it or not, it's not exactly considered "heavy regulation".. It's in fact a very small subset (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law) of government regulation that I'll agree is necessary to a functioning free market.
OK, so we make murder illegal. And kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, etc. It's no longer a free market. But I don't think anyone minds.
I'm so sick and tired of seeing the Somalia "anarchy" bullshit trotted out as if it's in any way indicative of libertarianism. By the same logic, minimum wage increases is Socialism and Communism of the worst kind!
Solyndra is no big deal
No, Solyndra is in fact the EXACT example of where government has no business involving itself. Or do you think it was a good use of taxpayer dollars investing in a market that generates solar panels when there is an ever-increasing glut of said panels?
A corporate entity would and has cut back on production in response to cost pressures bourne by excess supply. The government, however? Not so much. Full steam ahead. Though in the grand scheme, Solyndra was a drop in the bucket from a deficit perspective -- but it IS evidence of the kind of issues indicative in government overreach.
No, he doesn't. Ron Paul is for the "freedom" of an ISP to fuck with your traffic however they see fit. That is not freedom in any sense of the word, unless you believe someone has the "freedom to oppress".
And the opposing ideology is for the "freedom" of the government to fuck with your traffic however they see fit. That is not freedom in any sense of the word, unless you believe someone has the "freedom to oppress".
Because him and most of his followers are too stupid to realize that the private sector can oppress you just as easily. In fact, following their rhetoric, they can do it much more efficiently.
Because you and most of your followers are too stupid to realize that the public sector can oppress you just as easily. In fact, following your rhetoric, they can do it much more efficiently.
Could you explain the difference between abuse cases? (other than the government having WAY more dogs/weapons/money/power at their disposal to have their way). Or do you believe the government really does care about you? You do? Aww, how adorable.
Likewise with the "Internet Freedom" - in his view, the freedom isn't on the part of the user, but the freedom of carriers and monopoly/oligopoly ISPs to do what they want, including abusing their position to restrict the individual's freedoms and stifle competition.
Yup, just like that SOPA bill he was against. It's a good thing he empowered the corporations by shooting that down.
Fine, you see it different, but then would you please put out there the accomplishments of the republican congress, positive laws that has helped this country?
Would you settle for things accomplished by a previous Republican Congress that are being undone by Obama?
Welfare reform has been an overwhelming success. Since 1996, welfare caseloads have decreased 70 percent, which translates into 8.8 million fewer people dependent on government. Child-poverty rates dropped, particularly among blacks and Hispanics. Teen pregnancies have (until recently) decreased, and child-support collections have increased.
Hard to argue with that kind of success (and deficit reduction as well).
The Congressional Budget Office begs to disagree with you, with an approximately 7% reduction in healthcare costs compounded over time.
But don't let that influence your thinking -- mathematics is known for its liberal bias.
Disingenuous much? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-twice-as-much-as-estimated/2012/03/26/gIQACSZncS_blog.html)
But that figure was pretty misleading. The CBO had merely offered a tentative guess, with significant caveats, that the health care law would reduce the deficit within a âoebroad range of around one-half percent of GDP [gross domestic product].â
Democrats simply took that percentage, multiplied it against the predicted size of the GDP 20 years from now (itself a pretty fuzzy figure) and presto, they had a number. But it is a fairly meaningless one. ... The gross-cost figure, as calculated by CBO, was actually $940 billion for the years 2010-2019. But it was a bit of a low-ball number because the law takes four years to fully implement. So it really only measured six years of major costs. ... "The simple reality is that the cost of their bill has gone up dramatically -- as Republicans predicted it work -- and this latest news just highlights that the number they used to sell the bill was rigged," he said. "It was a budget shell game."
Not to mention the consistent ability of the CBO to wildly underestimate. Remember this? http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_exaggerates_cost_of_war_in_iraq.html
"The CBO produced three hypothetical "scenarios" for the future, and their ten-year price tag. A pullout starting next year and leaving no US forces in Iraq by October of 2008 would still add $52 billion to the total cost of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," not counting costs of reconstruction or "undistributed" costs shared among Iraq and other operations. Gradually reducing the current 160,000 US forces to 54,000 and leaving them there indefinitely would cost $233 billion through the year 2014, beyond what's already been spent."
Ron Paul also is happily cashing his social security checks. Not even a token effort to prove to us that he don't need no bootstraps.
And let's not forget, he banked most of that social security income in his government job. In my opinion he's double-dipping. That is, if I judge him by his own standards (which he couldn't stand).
OK straw man, I judge you by the same standards then.
Against the Bush tax cuts? Do you mail the government back the difference between the old tax rate and the new one? No? Hypocrite.
Shall we continue this foolish game, or would you like to grow up and join us in the world of reasonable arguments?
No, he was very truthful. He said led one bill to execution, not simply sponsored, which takes no effort whatsoever.
It's a bit disingenuous to call that lazy when he's making an effort and a bunch of partisan assholes are simply blocking him at every corner. Or are the democrats to blame this year for failing to execute on budgets as well?
No, only the Ron Paul fans fawn over what he says. The rest of us see what the evidence provides and I've seen nothing of substance to prove otherwise. A republican in libertarian shoes. He's all about personal liberty and whatnot, unless it goes against his personal social views, which puts him right in line with the rest of their ilk.
Across 20+ years of voting history, he routinely votes around 70% or less in line with party (69.3% actually). The house average is 90+% in line with EITHER party (just look at the chart). If you don't see the difference because he happens to be a libertarian that leans Republican, then I'm sorry for you, but I don't want to live in your extreme twisted hyperbolic world. I'm a moderate. Find me ANY other politician voting with a 20+ year record voting against the party status quo. Let's take a counter example with a look at an accused "DINO" (Democrat in name only):
Simply saying everything should be a state right does nothing but turn one system into 50 feudal systems of government, with the citizens being the unfortunate homeowners in each, subject to a new 'ruler' every few years.
Not exactly ideal.
Once again, I'm sorry you don't see the critical difference here. Nothing is perfect, but it WOULD be "better".
See all the generating plants being built to solve this problem? It takes about five years to build a large coal-fired plant and more like ten years to build a nuclear plant. We probably should not be building new coal plants today but there is little choice.
The future is in natural gas (which is enviro-friendly and cheaper than coal), followed by solar (which is rapidly growing closer to cost-feasible, but not there yet). I'm not too concerned, personally. I also think the overreaction to nuclear will subside somewhat.
After all, if the incentives actually worked the way you think they should, the U.S. should not have the highest rate of obesity in the developed world.
We currently have no incentives for healthy living. All we have are "sin taxes" (like on cigarettes) that discourage certain behaviors. There are no "positive reinforcements" for being healthy. That's coupled with the "you're not responsible, government has your back" mentality of the US government. Of course obesity is going to run amok. Heck, even people with insurance don't really pay their bills -- they pay some pittance of a copay and the insurance company masks the massive actual cost behind it. So what motivation would that person have to take a serious look at their lifestyle?
Furthermore as a counter-example to your hypothesis, you should note the difference between the U.S. and Canada. Canada has single-payer public health care
I actually rather like Canada's implementation -- it's a state-level (or province in their case) universal healthcare. But there's also single-payer systems (take Kuwait) where obesity is rampant as well.
Thus since a single payer system reduces costs through economies of scale and bargaining power
People always bring this up and I believe it's a red herring. At the end of the day, negotiations and price fixing aside, things cost some amount of money (call it the invoice price). Even if MSRP equals invoice, you aren't getting lower than invoice, ever, without increasing supply (more hospitals, doctors, whatnot). Single payer does NOT fix this problem. It just shifts dollars around. The only way to make healthcare cheaper is to either make people healthier or get more doctors.
If you want to motivate people to change their behavior you'd better make the costs more directly associated.
Now you're speaking my language. Personally, I believe the solution is transparency -- expose the consumer to the true costs rather than hiding them behind a shroud of negotiation and middlemen. Keep the individual accountable.
The biggest problem will be dealing the with people actually abusing the system, not the people who eat a little more than you.
How do you figure? I doubt the vast majority of people who drive up massive healthcare expenses are doing so out of intent or malice. It's far closer to apathy or irresponsibility. When in comes down to X's and O's, sick people cost more, healthy people cost less. Knowing that, wouldn't it make far more sense to have the government incentivizing ways to encourage people to be healthy? Rather than the opposite? After all, what motivation do you have to change your behavior when no insurance company can ever turn you down and somebody is always going to pay for it?
This burden gets passed onto the society. What Obama care is trying to do is make this burden more transparent.
No, he's trying to make it so that people can continue to burden society without even a thought of trying to lower their own healthcare costs. After all, why try to clean yourself up and lead a healthy lifestyle when you know the government has your back and you can never be turned down for pre-existing conditions?
While this maybe a turd of a piece of legislation, it is clearly a start in the right direction.
Sorry, I don't agree. This legislation just makes it way harder to change the existing shitty way of doing things. And it makes it way easier for people to skirt on their responsibility to lower their own healthcare expenses. It encourages reckless behavior and responsibility shucking. In fact, it is strangely reminiscent of the banking bailout. And that is not the direction I'd like to see this country go.
Slashdot Mirror
The flaw in your logic there is that most poor people as well as most criminals are of Democratic bent. If another economic crisis hit, you'd see Dems rioting long before Republicans.
Because some of us actually want to get from 0 to 60 in less than 10 seconds.
lol, typical groupthink. Enjoy your circle jerk there.
Source?
How is that a good metric? It's _terrible_ granularity. I count count the number of movies I was so-so about and had no strong opinion one way or another. And Rottentomatoes forces a "HELL YES!" or "HELL NO!" response with the thumbs up/thumbs down. Hell, if I'm just not in the mood one day for an action flick, it could very easily nudge an average action flick towards thumbs down when on another day I might have given it a thumbs up. That's an awful system.
It said in the article that GS wasn't present when the terms were changed to an all-shares deal. It claims they signed the papers without their bankers present. And yes, it was incredibly stupid -- it's very hard to take pity.
The problem is in the penalty amount. A billion dollars is downright insane, because it exceeds even the ~half billion they got in stock,and half of those losses you can chalk up to braindead stupidity when they unilaterally accepted an all-stock deal instead of the half-cash deal originally proposed. Whereas GS certainly seems to have been lax in their due diligence, they are not the reason these fools are bankrupt. Diversity in investment is something even inovice investors know. Hell, the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" phrase is taught to us as children. And these are people that ran a multi-hundred-million dollar business?
That's like saying "If you don't want a widescreen TV, don't get one". At some point, a bunch of jackass manufacturers decided that 3D will be built into all "high-end" TVs -- such that if you want a bunch of really nice features like local dimming, you're going to be paying the package deal price of 3D to get it.
And in the case of the movies, some theaters don't even show many blockbuster movies in anything but 3D, and when they do, it's normally at non-optimal times in the shittiest theater.
So this is why we rant -- because 3D's existence cheapens all other things.
And what is your proof for this? That "things will get worse"? Because I frequently hear that argument pitched, but never see any backing data. Without the government to enforce their ridiculous bullshit lobbyist law, corporations would be damn near toothless. Yet you people seem to think it will somehow be worse than the current clusterfuck of government stealing our freedoms at the behest of men with money and power (which you'll note is very common in the history of large central governments).
Check the graphs again. Everyone has been trending upwards towards more partisan over the past several decades. This is why aggregates matter. Or do you also think the earth is cooling because we've seen 10 years of temperature declines?
That's rather funny, because in the entire history of the internet, no corporate entity has tried to fuck with me regarding its use, with maybe one exception: Comcast. And Verizon rolled FIOS in and promptly stole all their customers they fucked in the ass (including me)
The government on the other hand has on multiple occasions tried to fuck over my internet. SOPA/PIPA/DMCA/online poker ban/etc/etc/etc. They things have resulted in drastic changes to and/or direction of the freedom of the internet.
Guess which entity I'm more afraid of?
That's called antitrust, and believe it or not, it's not exactly considered "heavy regulation".. It's in fact a very small subset (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law) of government regulation that I'll agree is necessary to a functioning free market.
I'm so sick and tired of seeing the Somalia "anarchy" bullshit trotted out as if it's in any way indicative of libertarianism. By the same logic, minimum wage increases is Socialism and Communism of the worst kind!
No, Solyndra is in fact the EXACT example of where government has no business involving itself. Or do you think it was a good use of taxpayer dollars investing in a market that generates solar panels when there is an ever-increasing glut of said panels?
https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/06/06greenwire-solyndra-bankruptcy-reveals-dark-clouds-in-sol-45598.html?pagewanted=all
A corporate entity would and has cut back on production in response to cost pressures bourne by excess supply. The government, however? Not so much. Full steam ahead. Though in the grand scheme, Solyndra was a drop in the bucket from a deficit perspective -- but it IS evidence of the kind of issues indicative in government overreach.
Wow, human beings aren't black and white ideologically. Go figure.
And the opposing ideology is for the "freedom" of the government to fuck with your traffic however they see fit. That is not freedom in any sense of the word, unless you believe someone has the "freedom to oppress".
Because you and most of your followers are too stupid to realize that the public sector can oppress you just as easily. In fact, following your rhetoric, they can do it much more efficiently.
Could you explain the difference between abuse cases? (other than the government having WAY more dogs/weapons/money/power at their disposal to have their way). Or do you believe the government really does care about you? You do? Aww, how adorable.
Yup, just like that SOPA bill he was against. It's a good thing he empowered the corporations by shooting that down.
Would you settle for things accomplished by a previous Republican Congress that are being undone by Obama?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/26/ending-welfare-reform-as-we-know-it/print/
Welfare reform has been an overwhelming success. Since 1996, welfare caseloads have decreased 70 percent, which translates into 8.8 million fewer people dependent on government. Child-poverty rates dropped, particularly among blacks and Hispanics. Teen pregnancies have (until recently) decreased, and child-support collections have increased.
Hard to argue with that kind of success (and deficit reduction as well).
The only thing that is liberally biased is the tendency to use "projections" and "estimates" and "wild guesses about potential savings" as fact. Eliminate all these "facts" and the cost the bill practically doubles: http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html
Disingenuous much? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-twice-as-much-as-estimated/2012/03/26/gIQACSZncS_blog.html)
But that figure was pretty misleading. The CBO had merely offered a tentative guess, with significant caveats, that the health care law would reduce the deficit within a âoebroad range of around one-half percent of GDP [gross domestic product].â Democrats simply took that percentage, multiplied it against the predicted size of the GDP 20 years from now (itself a pretty fuzzy figure) and presto, they had a number. But it is a fairly meaningless one.
...
The gross-cost figure, as calculated by CBO, was actually $940 billion for the years 2010-2019. But it was a bit of a low-ball number because the law takes four years to fully implement. So it really only measured six years of major costs.
...
"The simple reality is that the cost of their bill has gone up dramatically -- as Republicans predicted it work -- and this latest news just highlights that the number they used to sell the bill was rigged," he said. "It was a budget shell game."
Not to mention the consistent ability of the CBO to wildly underestimate. Remember this? http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_exaggerates_cost_of_war_in_iraq.html
"The CBO produced three hypothetical "scenarios" for the future, and their ten-year price tag. A pullout starting next year and leaving no US forces in Iraq by October of 2008 would still add $52 billion to the total cost of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," not counting costs of reconstruction or "undistributed" costs shared among Iraq and other operations. Gradually reducing the current 160,000 US forces to 54,000 and leaving them there indefinitely would cost $233 billion through the year 2014, beyond what's already been spent."
Gotta love that CBO accuracy.
OK straw man, I judge you by the same standards then.
Against the Bush tax cuts? Do you mail the government back the difference between the old tax rate and the new one? No? Hypocrite.
Shall we continue this foolish game, or would you like to grow up and join us in the world of reasonable arguments?
It's a bit disingenuous to call that lazy when he's making an effort and a bunch of partisan assholes are simply blocking him at every corner. Or are the democrats to blame this year for failing to execute on budgets as well?
I'm sorry, but you fail. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/VotingStatistics/
Across 20+ years of voting history, he routinely votes around 70% or less in line with party (69.3% actually). The house average is 90+% in line with EITHER party (just look at the chart). If you don't see the difference because he happens to be a libertarian that leans Republican, then I'm sorry for you, but I don't want to live in your extreme twisted hyperbolic world. I'm a moderate. Find me ANY other politician voting with a 20+ year record voting against the party status quo. Let's take a counter example with a look at an accused "DINO" (Democrat in name only):
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Connecticut/Joseph_Lieberman/VotingStatistics/
86.02% Democrat in-line (zeroes removed from average), and that motherfucker likes to pretend to be an Independent.
Once again, I'm sorry you don't see the critical difference here. Nothing is perfect, but it WOULD be "better".
The future is in natural gas (which is enviro-friendly and cheaper than coal), followed by solar (which is rapidly growing closer to cost-feasible, but not there yet). I'm not too concerned, personally. I also think the overreaction to nuclear will subside somewhat.
We currently have no incentives for healthy living. All we have are "sin taxes" (like on cigarettes) that discourage certain behaviors. There are no "positive reinforcements" for being healthy. That's coupled with the "you're not responsible, government has your back" mentality of the US government. Of course obesity is going to run amok. Heck, even people with insurance don't really pay their bills -- they pay some pittance of a copay and the insurance company masks the massive actual cost behind it. So what motivation would that person have to take a serious look at their lifestyle?
I actually rather like Canada's implementation -- it's a state-level (or province in their case) universal healthcare. But there's also single-payer systems (take Kuwait) where obesity is rampant as well.
People always bring this up and I believe it's a red herring. At the end of the day, negotiations and price fixing aside, things cost some amount of money (call it the invoice price). Even if MSRP equals invoice, you aren't getting lower than invoice, ever, without increasing supply (more hospitals, doctors, whatnot). Single payer does NOT fix this problem. It just shifts dollars around. The only way to make healthcare cheaper is to either make people healthier or get more doctors.
Now you're speaking my language. Personally, I believe the solution is transparency -- expose the consumer to the true costs rather than hiding them behind a shroud of negotiation and middlemen. Keep the individual accountable.
How do you figure? I doubt the vast majority of people who drive up massive healthcare expenses are doing so out of intent or malice. It's far closer to apathy or irresponsibility. When in comes down to X's and O's, sick people cost more, healthy people cost less. Knowing that, wouldn't it make far more sense to have the government incentivizing ways to encourage people to be healthy? Rather than the opposite? After all, what motivation do you have to change your behavior when no insurance company can ever turn you down and somebody is always going to pay for it?
No, he's trying to make it so that people can continue to burden society without even a thought of trying to lower their own healthcare costs. After all, why try to clean yourself up and lead a healthy lifestyle when you know the government has your back and you can never be turned down for pre-existing conditions?
Sorry, I don't agree. This legislation just makes it way harder to change the existing shitty way of doing things. And it makes it way easier for people to skirt on their responsibility to lower their own healthcare expenses. It encourages reckless behavior and responsibility shucking. In fact, it is strangely reminiscent of the banking bailout. And that is not the direction I'd like to see this country go.