I'm not entirely convinced though that there is anything called an intelligent well-informed voter. It seems that each persons reasons for voting differ. While I agree with the Caplan piece about economic myths, I disagree that those are the sole driving force for many voters.
Oftentimes voters will argue for a position based on party identification, but their real issue for identifying with that party is something different. So unless the voter is self-aware enough of their own positions, it is difficult to understand their real motivations.
I tend to agree with Ezra Klein that it's more important to vote, than not vote. Even if you don't have full information, you have some information and a general feel of where things may go.
Wait a minute. You gave me a link which has a debt calculator that shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.
More troubling, the guy seems to be a Hugh Hewitt like person, i.e. someone who establishs a position and then desperately tries to come up with evidence to support it.
A government deficit is a surplus to the private sector (read: you and me). When we (the public) buy treasury securities, it increases our net worth. The private sector is much more effective at investing this surplus into generating economic growth than the government is, provided the right infrastructure is in place.
Exactly how is it a surplus for the government to spend it on stuff, and then borrow the money from us in the form of bonds? This isn't extra money in our pockets in any way shape or form.
Your reasoning scares me. It's hard to believe anybody in this country is this fucking stupid.
Sure, you can keep paying off one credit card with another. But the issue of whether deficit spending actually boosts economic growth is up in the air. On one hand you do have the Keyensian economic effect.(which is interesting considering Republicans supposedly reject Keynes), but on the other hand you have the drain caused by interest payments. Interest ads no value. You're not creating any economic growth by spending $400 billion on interest, and you also have the issue of the $9 trillion which is tied up in federal bonds instead of being available for economic investment into the private sector.
The interesting thing is, we're at a point today where the interest payments on the Federal Debt(about $400 billion) is larger than the amount of the annual deficit(about $250 billion). So we're at a point now where if not for the debt, we'd have a balanced budget. So our debt is actually draining on our budget and making the debt larger. Why is that an issue? Because being in a situation where your debt keeps rising in order to pay off your existing debt is a recipe for bankruptcy.
So unless we do something stupid to stop economic growth, like raise taxes or pay off the debt early, this debt will never have to be paid off. It will be continually rolled into new debt without increasing our total debt burden.
Whoa... Your beyond drinking the kool-aid. Your flat off in la la land. Paying off the debt would not drain the economy, rather quite the opposite. It would free up the $9 trillion plus interest payments for private economic development.
fact, our current debt-to-GDP ratio is 65% and falling, meaning that our economy is growing faster than our debt is. What President Bush should do is a) further cut taxes or b) further increase spending to keep this ratio constant and promote the most economic growth. Personally, I prefer option (a).
It would only be decreasing if the deficit was held to zero, allowing for inflation to decrease the present and future value of the debt. That hasn't happened since the Clinton era.
Your understanding of economics and deficit spending is disturbing. I've encountered it before, and it appears to be a result of a propaganda campaign by some Republicans to prop up their existing power structure. That is, ignore the problems and look at the furry rabbit slight of hand.
I don't know if it's worth responding to you, because I don't think you care about actually educating yourself and understanding the issues.
If this information is easily accessible in the State of Minnesota, please let me know where it is. My current vote is based on what I have gleamed from the newspapers and the campaign websites. Bleh.
Minnesota Public Radio has spent the last month doing interviews with various candidates. If you go out to their website at www.mpr.org, and look at the midday and morning edition shows, you'll find audio clips from the debates they've run, as well as the interviews and such.
I quite honestly don't know how anybody can make an informed decision based on dumb campaign ads. I realize I just happen to be more informed about the issues than most Americans, but generally my mind has already been made up prior to the attack ads coming along as I've followed the candidates from all parties through the nomination process and can give a fair assessment of where they stand and what kind of person they are like.
This is not snake oil. Punchscan is supported by the non-profit Center for Governmental Studies. It is an open system that has been reviewed by a lot of experts. This fact doesn't prove Punchscan's value, but it does make it worthy of careful consideration.
Only if you start with the false premise that we need technology to solve this problem.
Your receipt does NOT show how you voted, but it DOES prove that your vote counted as you cast it. "Impossible," you say? Then why not explain how anyone (including the election authority or someone who hacks its computers) can cheat the system without being detected?
If it's impossible for the election authority to cheat the system... why do you even need this receipt? It seems to me you've already ceded the argument.
I don't need a receipt for my paper ballot. It's right there. I know I marked it, and I know I stuck it in the box, and I know there is a dozen people watching to make sure that box is not tampered with.
If paper is the answer, then why did every recount in the 2000 Florida election produce a different tally?
Because the Florida election didn't use paper. It used computer punch cards. Why punch cards? Because some idiot sold them a system in the 1960s promising how much easier it would be than the existing system, just as you are doing now.
And why do many experts believe that Ohio was stolen in 2004 primarily by stuffing of paper ballots?
I haven't seen that. But if so, why not address that issue instead of going off and arguing an argument that has nothing to do with the initial problem?
I am absolutely baffled at how easily some people are distracted by shiny objects.
If Webb is such a wonderful character, why has Webb not distanced himself from the dailykos and other democrats who are making an issue of his Jewish heritage?
Why does Allen think it's bad to be Jewish?
"Our Constitution, for good reason, bans religious tests for public office. It may nonetheless be legitimate under some circumstances to ask a candidate how his or her religious views might affect decisions (as Mitt Romney no doubt will be asked many times). But what legitimate basis can there be for injecting the religion of a candidate's grandfather into a campaign? And if that is legitimate, what's next -- a question about whether a candidate's forebears include African-Americans?" (because Paul at powerlineblog.com has perhaps said it best.)
Ahh, because the point wasn't the grandfathers religion. The point was that Allen's family was ashamed of it and tried to hide it. That's a valid issue that voters need to be aware of, because it reflects upon the character of George Felix Allen.
It's odd that they claim it's a legitimate to question Romney about how his religion and personal views would impact his place in office, but it's not ok to ask the same question of Felix Allen. Why would that be?
I see you are trying to do the same thing.
No, you see what you want to see.
That's why being a partisan hack is such a bad thing. I think it's just absolutely fascinating that you attack dailykos, but just handidly through out a quote from the hacktacular powerlineblog.
Why haven't you distanced yourself from powerlineblog?
I doubt they're a support group for pedophiles seeking help in avoiding molesting children (the site I mentioned was explicitly supportive of pedophilia), because I doubt such a site would generate the complaints upon which Verizon would act
I wouldn't make that assumption. The US has a lot of batshit crazy people. After all we invaded a country to stop them from having something they didn't have.
I guess I want to find some specific details on what we are talking about before making any assumptions.
Actually, they can't be modified without invalidating the commitments generated *before* the election.
Nope. I just have to modify the CountVotes() method. That's where the important magic occurs anyhow.
But the CheckVoteAgainstCertificate() will always return the right answer.
The issue is that someone could change this code without anybody really noticing. It's not near as obvious as having two guards standing by a ballot box.
that his coworker might secretly be into it. As it seems the louder they protest, the more likely they are to get caught with a gay prostitue and a dose of meth in the closet.
What the hell is a "minor attracted adult", if not a pedophile?
Mark Foley?
I haven't RTFA, or tried to follow any links. But what if they aren't talking about a support group of that sort, but rather a group that works to find psychological help for people with this problem so that they can be stopped. What if a person finds themselves as a "minor attracted adult" and knows this is wrong, and wants to seek help? What options do they have?
Should we castrate them and lock them up in jail? Even if they've committed no crime?
Now if the site in question is one as you say, then I say yeah... hang 'em. But a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and I'm all for "minor attracted adults" to seek help.
I swear, the more technology people try to think about voting the worse their ideas.
" You take half home and can verify later via a Web interface how your particular ballot was counted. "
All this verifies is how the vote was cast. Not how it was counted. Besides that, how does this benefit anybody? Ok, so you know you voted for A, even though B won. So what? What good is it.
As long as the votes are stored in a computer, they can be easily manipulated at various points in the chain. Sure digital data can be very secure. In banking we make sure everything adds up correctly. But that's because if it's not, you are going to get a phone call from one of the two people involved in the transaction. "Why is there $600 less in my checking account?"
But there's no way to get that kind of verification with voting, because the net result of your one vote is nothing. It's when it is taken in aggregate. So what are you expecting? 300,000 people show up at the election offices with their ballot stubs proving they voted for A? Doubt it.
Call me a luddite, but paper is the answer. The only reason technology comes up is because we can count ballots faster, but you know what? I don't give a shit about speed. I care about being able to monitor the whole process.
I went to a sold out showing of Borat on tuesday, here in my nice safe midwestern flyover city. Now maybe we all found it funny because most of the reactions were from southerners. But I can assure you, that the laughs were not from what Borat said but from what the people he's talking to said and did.
But I do think you raise an interesting point, and this is even applicable to The Daily Show. People are so afraid to really talk about what they mean, that the only way we see an honest glimpse into what's going on is via comedy. But then, maybe this is the way it has always been? Even William the Conqueror spun why he invaded England in 1066.
George Felix Allen used standard old fashioned email to call his opponent James Webb a pedophile.
There was no youtubing involved at all, he just cut and pasted a few sentences out of a war novel Webb wrote many years ago that is considered recommended reading by the US Marine Corps.
Isn't that good old fashioned mudslinging? Just because he used email doesn't make it particularly new.
What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.
- From the GNU Manifesto.
It's not hard to see where Forbes might have gotten that idea, considering Stallman has articulated it himself.
Many of my fellow Americans lack self-confidence in their own country, that they feel a need to whine about the Europeans criticizing our culture.
It seems to me that if someone accuses you of being fat, the best response is not to prove them right by eating a bag of oreos. But that is the response of someone with low self confidence.
Why are you putting up a strawman? He said it was better, he didn't say it was perfect.
Strawman? The main concern users have with regards to viruses or worms is the impact on THEIR WORK. That's what the computer is for, after all, to get work done.
... and the OS can be recovered relatively easily compared to the average home M$ windows restore, doubly so if she's backed up her pictures and documents as most home users are trained to do these days.
Well that's a ridiculous point.
M$ windows security has been a joke for years and they've mainly got themselves to blame. When they finally install user mode by default and remove some of the more egregarious examples of executing data as code then they might be able to claim some moral high ground. Until then it's the usual marketing lies.
Right. I'm supposed to take seriously the word of someone who thinks user data is unimportant?
It'd be nice if you guys would get a clue instead of spouting your preconceived notions all the time.
This phrase is a wonderful thing, being so flexible that it can be applied almost without limitation. Today it's used against people who are pro-life, against racial and gender quotas, practice or identify their faith publicly, or oppose illegal immigration.
Not to mention those who oppose the War in Iraq.
Those who oppose the policies of the Bush administration.
Those who oppose the grinding of our Constitution and it's Bill of Rights into gerbil litter.
I've been called a Hater so many times now, I've lost track of it's meaning.
Today, it will also be used to justify modding down this post. Tomorrow, it will be used against you to place you in prison.
Playing the part of a victim may get you sympathy from your mom, but it's fucking pathetic. Grow up already and take responsibility for your mistakes in life instead of whining whenever people point them out to you.
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting. Thanks for the link.
I'm not entirely convinced though that there is anything called an intelligent well-informed voter. It seems that each persons reasons for voting differ. While I agree with the Caplan piece about economic myths, I disagree that those are the sole driving force for many voters.
Oftentimes voters will argue for a position based on party identification, but their real issue for identifying with that party is something different. So unless the voter is self-aware enough of their own positions, it is difficult to understand their real motivations.
I tend to agree with Ezra Klein that it's more important to vote, than not vote. Even if you don't have full information, you have some information and a general feel of where things may go.
More troubling, the guy seems to be a Hugh Hewitt like person, i.e. someone who establishs a position and then desperately tries to come up with evidence to support it.
Exactly how is it a surplus for the government to spend it on stuff, and then borrow the money from us in the form of bonds? This isn't extra money in our pockets in any way shape or form.
Your reasoning scares me. It's hard to believe anybody in this country is this fucking stupid.
Sure, you can keep paying off one credit card with another. But the issue of whether deficit spending actually boosts economic growth is up in the air. On one hand you do have the Keyensian economic effect.(which is interesting considering Republicans supposedly reject Keynes), but on the other hand you have the drain caused by interest payments. Interest ads no value. You're not creating any economic growth by spending $400 billion on interest, and you also have the issue of the $9 trillion which is tied up in federal bonds instead of being available for economic investment into the private sector.
The interesting thing is, we're at a point today where the interest payments on the Federal Debt(about $400 billion) is larger than the amount of the annual deficit(about $250 billion). So we're at a point now where if not for the debt, we'd have a balanced budget. So our debt is actually draining on our budget and making the debt larger. Why is that an issue? Because being in a situation where your debt keeps rising in order to pay off your existing debt is a recipe for bankruptcy.
Whoa... Your beyond drinking the kool-aid. Your flat off in la la land. Paying off the debt would not drain the economy, rather quite the opposite. It would free up the $9 trillion plus interest payments for private economic development.
debt-to-GDP is increasing, and has been for several years. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
It would only be decreasing if the deficit was held to zero, allowing for inflation to decrease the present and future value of the debt. That hasn't happened since the Clinton era.
Your understanding of economics and deficit spending is disturbing. I've encountered it before, and it appears to be a result of a propaganda campaign by some Republicans to prop up their existing power structure. That is, ignore the problems and look at the furry rabbit slight of hand.
I don't know if it's worth responding to you, because I don't think you care about actually educating yourself and understanding the issues.
Minnesota Public Radio has spent the last month doing interviews with various candidates. If you go out to their website at www.mpr.org, and look at the midday and morning edition shows, you'll find audio clips from the debates they've run, as well as the interviews and such.
I quite honestly don't know how anybody can make an informed decision based on dumb campaign ads. I realize I just happen to be more informed about the issues than most Americans, but generally my mind has already been made up prior to the attack ads coming along as I've followed the candidates from all parties through the nomination process and can give a fair assessment of where they stand and what kind of person they are like.
Only if you start with the false premise that we need technology to solve this problem.
If it's impossible for the election authority to cheat the system... why do you even need this receipt? It seems to me you've already ceded the argument.
I don't need a receipt for my paper ballot. It's right there. I know I marked it, and I know I stuck it in the box, and I know there is a dozen people watching to make sure that box is not tampered with.
Because the Florida election didn't use paper. It used computer punch cards. Why punch cards? Because some idiot sold them a system in the 1960s promising how much easier it would be than the existing system, just as you are doing now.
I haven't seen that. But if so, why not address that issue instead of going off and arguing an argument that has nothing to do with the initial problem?
I am absolutely baffled at how easily some people are distracted by shiny objects.
Why does Allen think it's bad to be Jewish?
Ahh, because the point wasn't the grandfathers religion. The point was that Allen's family was ashamed of it and tried to hide it. That's a valid issue that voters need to be aware of, because it reflects upon the character of George Felix Allen.
It's odd that they claim it's a legitimate to question Romney about how his religion and personal views would impact his place in office, but it's not ok to ask the same question of Felix Allen. Why would that be?
No, you see what you want to see.
That's why being a partisan hack is such a bad thing. I think it's just absolutely fascinating that you attack dailykos, but just handidly through out a quote from the hacktacular powerlineblog.
Why haven't you distanced yourself from powerlineblog?
I wouldn't make that assumption. The US has a lot of batshit crazy people. After all we invaded a country to stop them from having something they didn't have.
I guess I want to find some specific details on what we are talking about before making any assumptions.
Nope. I just have to modify the CountVotes() method. That's where the important magic occurs anyhow.
But the CheckVoteAgainstCertificate() will always return the right answer.
The issue is that someone could change this code without anybody really noticing. It's not near as obvious as having two guards standing by a ballot box.
I think he was implying something different...
that his coworker might secretly be into it. As it seems the louder they protest, the more likely they are to get caught with a gay prostitue and a dose of meth in the closet.
Mark Foley?
I haven't RTFA, or tried to follow any links. But what if they aren't talking about a support group of that sort, but rather a group that works to find psychological help for people with this problem so that they can be stopped. What if a person finds themselves as a "minor attracted adult" and knows this is wrong, and wants to seek help? What options do they have?
Should we castrate them and lock them up in jail? Even if they've committed no crime?
Now if the site in question is one as you say, then I say yeah... hang 'em. But a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and I'm all for "minor attracted adults" to seek help.
I swear, the more technology people try to think about voting the worse their ideas.
" You take half home and can verify later via a Web interface how your particular ballot was counted. "
All this verifies is how the vote was cast. Not how it was counted. Besides that, how does this benefit anybody? Ok, so you know you voted for A, even though B won. So what? What good is it.
As long as the votes are stored in a computer, they can be easily manipulated at various points in the chain. Sure digital data can be very secure. In banking we make sure everything adds up correctly. But that's because if it's not, you are going to get a phone call from one of the two people involved in the transaction. "Why is there $600 less in my checking account?"
But there's no way to get that kind of verification with voting, because the net result of your one vote is nothing. It's when it is taken in aggregate. So what are you expecting? 300,000 people show up at the election offices with their ballot stubs proving they voted for A? Doubt it.
Call me a luddite, but paper is the answer. The only reason technology comes up is because we can count ballots faster, but you know what? I don't give a shit about speed. I care about being able to monitor the whole process.
My Russian friends tell me they're descended from Mongol blood, not Turk.
Turks conquered them in the 14th century and as such their language and religion and such changed, but not their blood.
I went to a sold out showing of Borat on tuesday, here in my nice safe midwestern flyover city. Now maybe we all found it funny because most of the reactions were from southerners. But I can assure you, that the laughs were not from what Borat said but from what the people he's talking to said and did.
But I do think you raise an interesting point, and this is even applicable to The Daily Show. People are so afraid to really talk about what they mean, that the only way we see an honest glimpse into what's going on is via comedy. But then, maybe this is the way it has always been? Even William the Conqueror spun why he invaded England in 1066.
"tech friendly" means benefiting tech companies, dummy.
George Felix Allen used standard old fashioned email to call his opponent James Webb a pedophile.
There was no youtubing involved at all, he just cut and pasted a few sentences out of a war novel Webb wrote many years ago that is considered recommended reading by the US Marine Corps.
Isn't that good old fashioned mudslinging? Just because he used email doesn't make it particularly new.
That's probably because the Republicans took it farther than just making a youtube video condemning the behavior.
- From the GNU Manifesto.
It's not hard to see where Forbes might have gotten that idea, considering Stallman has articulated it himself.
Many of my fellow Americans lack self-confidence in their own country, that they feel a need to whine about the Europeans criticizing our culture.
It seems to me that if someone accuses you of being fat, the best response is not to prove them right by eating a bag of oreos. But that is the response of someone with low self confidence.
Giving aid without asking for something in return wouldn't be very Christian of us, now would it?
I'm biased towards demanding facts to support arguments. If that makes me an evil liberal, then so be it.
I'm tired of Faith based Journalism and Government.
Fox more likely tried to pull that video because they realized it was making Wallace look bad, despite their attempts at spinning it the other way.
It'll never end up in "edited highlights", but more likely the trash can.
What do you mean "Why don't we use full disk encryption?"
The company I work for(financial services) has been using this for over a year now. Not just on laptops, but also all desktops in the company.
A long time ago I learned... Short and sweet. Any attempt to clarify your point to someone espousing ignorance is likely to be ignored.
Strawman? The main concern users have with regards to viruses or worms is the impact on THEIR WORK. That's what the computer is for, after all, to get work done.
Well that's a ridiculous point.
Right. I'm supposed to take seriously the word of someone who thinks user data is unimportant?
It'd be nice if you guys would get a clue instead of spouting your preconceived notions all the time.
Not to mention those who oppose the War in Iraq.
Those who oppose the policies of the Bush administration.
Those who oppose the grinding of our Constitution and it's Bill of Rights into gerbil litter.
I've been called a Hater so many times now, I've lost track of it's meaning.
Playing the part of a victim may get you sympathy from your mom, but it's fucking pathetic. Grow up already and take responsibility for your mistakes in life instead of whining whenever people point them out to you.