I don't think that many people would argue that a sign that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" should be allowed at school
WTF? So, we going to raise our children in an environment where they are forbidden by authority to express any unpopular sentiment. Then when they reach the age of 18, we can tranquilizer dart them and remove the tracking tags before releasing them into the wild, fully expecting they will know how to function in a participatory democracy.
That's nutty.
How about this, teach the kids how to handle free speech. If someone doesn't like what the kid is saying, then have a god damn debate about it.
What a silly quiz. Are we to conclude that to be a Libertarian, one must be easily impressed by propaganda almost, but not quite, as sophisticated as a 70s Rush album?
There are plenty of "SKILLED IT WORKERS" who have pursued other careers because of the lack of jobs in IT over the last few years, or because of the long hours and low wages in IT, or any other number of reasons. They could again be convinced to be "SKILLED IT WORKERS" - for a price.
Millions of people graduate from universities every year. They see that wages and employment in IT are flat, and they know that the degrees required for many IT jobs take more work than other degrees. They can be convinced to do that harder work - for a price. But not if they see that any time wages in IT go up, the government will bring in scabs to try to push the wages back down.
There are millions of extremely intelligent, hard-working people in the US who could quickly learn to be "SKILLED IT WORKERS". And they will do that - for a price. Will they make the effort if they see that there is no barrier to entry from foreign workers? No, they won't.
The number of "SKILLED IT WORKERS" in the US is not a fixed number. It changes based on market conditions.
Your non-solution of importing scabs to drive wages down will guarantee that the number of "SKILLED IT WORKERS" in the US continues to diminish. And then, when the population of the US finally turns populist and closes the borders, where will your country be?
I understand the difference between real and nominal. I'm pretty sure you don't, because in the case where interest rates are higher than real GDP growth, but less than nominal GDP growth, your model violates assumption 3. Cuts in spending in real terms are spending cuts.
Keep trying though, maybe if you bash your head against a brick wall long enough, you'll figure out that unless GDP growth - yes nominal GDP growth - is higher than Treasury yields, you can not grow your way out of debt.
Your model does not fit the criteria you gave, then. We were paying so much debt off during the Clinton years that they stopped issuing 30 year Treasuries. We were assuredly not continually rolling current debts into new treasuries - we were being "stupid", as you call it, and paying off debt. We also raised taxes during the Clinton years, which you again claim was "stupid".
You are a fucking moron. Definitely a Republican. Can't do math, can't even comprehend your own writing, can't come up with any reality-based model whatsoever where your claims can even possibly be true.
So, I'll ask again. Show me the math.
1) Country A starts out with $10 in debt. Its GDP is $1000. 2) It ALWAYS rolls over debt into new debt. 3) It NEVER uses increased taxes or spending cuts to pay down that debt. 4) The growth rate of GDP always remains below the interest rate on the debt. 5) The debt/GDP ratio does not rise over time.
Show me how these facts can be consistent. If it is so clear, it should be quite simple to come up with a mathematical model that fits your criteria, instead of your increasingly incoherent posts.
Here is what the OP said, and which I quoted twice already before: current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities
Notice how that invalidates just about everything in your post?
Notice how if current debts are rolled into new treasury securities, Treasury yields are relevant to this discussion?
Notice how the costs of servicing that interest will contribute to future debt?
Notice how you haven't paid a god damn bit of attention to the assumptions being made by the OP?
Notice how you haven't been able to come up with a model where current debts are rolled into new treasury securities, taxes aren't raised and debt isn't paid off early, where GDP grows more slowly than the yield on Treasuries, and debt/GDP doesn't grow?
Do you know why you haven't provided that model? Because you can't.
How about this. After repeatedly wasting the entire planet's time, why don't you go back and read the fucking post that was being responded to?
If you think torture is bad, check D. If you think torture is good, check R. If you think war is a last resort, check D. If you think war is a business opportunity, check R. If you think molesting pages is bad, check D. If you think revealing that someone is molesting pages is bad, check R. If you think science is a valuable tool, check D. If you think science is biased against Republicans, check R. If you believe in individual liberty, check D. If you prefer a king to a president, check R. If you put the rights of individuals before the rights of corporations, check D. If you put the rights of corporations before the rights of individuals, check R. If you believe all Americans should benefit from their growing productivity, check D. If you believe those gains should be reserved for those with incomes in the top 1/10th of 1%, check R. If you believe in getting the facts and then making a decision, check D. If you believe in making a decision, then making up the facts, check R. If you believe in taxing and spending, check D. If you believe in borrowing and spending, check R. If you believe in massive government programs to provide decent health care, check D. If you believe in massive government programs to provide crappy health care, check R. If you believe Big Brother watches people too much, check D. If you believe Big Brother needs to watch people more, check R. If you believe child labor, unsafe workplaces, and pollution are bad, check D. If you believe we need more of these things, check R. If you believe in Social Security, unemployment insurance, and aid to children in poverty, check D. If you believe we need less of these things, check R. If you believe in the separation of church and state, check D. If you prefer a state religion, check R. If you believe the only thing to fear is fear itself, check D. If you only believe in fear, check R.
You are now equipped to make a more informed decision than at least 51% of the voters in the 2004 election.
You understand neither math nor English. Must be a Republican. I will go over this one more time, for the short bus crowd. Here is the claim being made:
As long as the economy keeps growing, current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing.
This claim is not true. There are situations where the economy keeps growing, and current debts can not be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing. I have demonstrated one of these situations.
Now, either put up or shut up, dumbfuck. Come up with a model where
1) The government has debt. 2) The government neither raises taxes nor pays off the debt early - because the OP says those things would be "stupid". 3) GDP grows more slowly than Treasury yields. 4) Debt/GDP does not increase.
Here is what the parent post said, as you apparently either didn't read or didn't comprehend it:
As long as the economy keeps growing, current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing
Notice that in my example, the economy keeps growing. Notice that in my example, current debts can not be rolled into new treasury securities without the debt to GDP ratio increasing. Notice that one of us doesn't understand what is going on here. Notice that I understand what is going here.
boolean idiot = false; while( idiot == false ) { debt = debt + ( debt * treasuryYield ); GDP = GDP + ( GDP * gdpGrowthRate ); if ( debt > GDP ) { idiot = true; System.out.println( "Debt=" + debt + " GDP=" + GDP + " debt/GDP=" + ( debt/GDP ) ); System.out.println( "Stop voting Republican you god damn retard!" ); System.out.println( "And stop talking about things you don't understand!" ); /* And don't start with some bullshit about how GDP is going to grow at a rate higher than the treasury yield. Hasn't happened since 1966, isn't going to start happening now. Except maybe in China. */ } } }
You won't write secure programs because it takes an extra line of code? Jackasses like you almost make me want to quit my job as a developer and become a script kiddy.
For anyone non-fucktarded that is reading this, yes, it frequently takes more lines to write code that isn't vulnerable to attack than it does to write crappy code that is. You get what you pay for, I suppose.
And, as a sincere question, does anyone out there have a single instance of a SQL injection attack that can work if the programmer is intelligent enough (and kind enough to his DBA) to use prepared statements? I have never seen one. If you have, then educate me, I'd love to learn.
Oh but wait, that's an extra line of code. Can't do that! We'll just have a 500 comment article about various ways to check user input because we're too god damn stupid to use prepared statements.
The computer will be used to create secure CAD drawings (Solidworks, OrCAD, etc) and must have, from what I can tell, a removable hard drive and security stickers to prevent tampering
I'll sell you "Do Not Tamper With!" stickers for...wait, this is for the government? $10,000 each.
Equities are just as likely to gain you money as they are to lose you money in this economy
It always cheers me up to hear people make comments like that. It tells me it is time to start buying equities again. Now if people would just start making the same type of comments about real estate, it would be time to buy a house...
You couldn't do it with a savings account, I was assuming investment in either equities, or better yet a small business, where a 1% average monthly return on investments of the amounts above (plus sweat equity) would not be out of the norm.
i = monthly interest rate =.01 x = monthly contribution = ( 45000 *.25 ) / 12 = 937.50 n = total months = 12 * 40 = 480 p[k] = principal after k months
The 1% monthly return may be unrealistic, but then again living on $33,750 after taxes isn't the way most bums live, either. The bums here make $30 a day begging on the corner. So if you were really to live like a bum, and only get, say an 8% annual return, you would still end up with $10,996,674.66...
That would be an illegal/copyright infringing source of the book
You are making a pretty big assumption there. I have no reason to believe the person posting the text of the novel does not have legal permission to do so. If this is the case, would the correct term for your post be libel or slander or something else?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that many people would argue that a sign that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" should be allowed at school
WTF? So, we going to raise our children in an environment where they are forbidden by authority to express any unpopular sentiment. Then when they reach the age of 18, we can tranquilizer dart them and remove the tracking tags before releasing them into the wild, fully expecting they will know how to function in a participatory democracy.
That's nutty.
How about this, teach the kids how to handle free speech. If someone doesn't like what the kid is saying, then have a god damn debate about it.
Start acting like Americans, mkay?
What a silly quiz. Are we to conclude that to be a Libertarian, one must be easily impressed by propaganda almost, but not quite, as sophisticated as a 70s Rush album?
You are an idiot.
The set of "SKILLED IT WORKERS" is not static.
There are plenty of "SKILLED IT WORKERS" who have pursued other careers because of the lack of jobs in IT over the last few years, or because of the long hours and low wages in IT, or any other number of reasons. They could again be convinced to be "SKILLED IT WORKERS" - for a price.
Millions of people graduate from universities every year. They see that wages and employment in IT are flat, and they know that the degrees required for many IT jobs take more work than other degrees. They can be convinced to do that harder work - for a price. But not if they see that any time wages in IT go up, the government will bring in scabs to try to push the wages back down.
There are millions of extremely intelligent, hard-working people in the US who could quickly learn to be "SKILLED IT WORKERS". And they will do that - for a price. Will they make the effort if they see that there is no barrier to entry from foreign workers? No, they won't.
The number of "SKILLED IT WORKERS" in the US is not a fixed number. It changes based on market conditions.
Your non-solution of importing scabs to drive wages down will guarantee that the number of "SKILLED IT WORKERS" in the US continues to diminish. And then, when the population of the US finally turns populist and closes the borders, where will your country be?
You are an idiot.
People don't make major choices about their broad vocations simply on money.
The hell they don't.
I understand the difference between real and nominal. I'm pretty sure you don't, because in the case where interest rates are higher than real GDP growth, but less than nominal GDP growth, your model violates assumption 3. Cuts in spending in real terms are spending cuts.
Keep trying though, maybe if you bash your head against a brick wall long enough, you'll figure out that unless GDP growth - yes nominal GDP growth - is higher than Treasury yields, you can not grow your way out of debt.
What part of "4) The growth rate of GDP always remains below the interest rate on the debt" do you fail to comprehend?
Once again, my model is the last 150+ years
Your model does not fit the criteria you gave, then. We were paying so much debt off during the Clinton years that they stopped issuing 30 year Treasuries. We were assuredly not continually rolling current debts into new treasuries - we were being "stupid", as you call it, and paying off debt. We also raised taxes during the Clinton years, which you again claim was "stupid".
You are a fucking moron. Definitely a Republican. Can't do math, can't even comprehend your own writing, can't come up with any reality-based model whatsoever where your claims can even possibly be true.
So, I'll ask again. Show me the math.
1) Country A starts out with $10 in debt. Its GDP is $1000.
2) It ALWAYS rolls over debt into new debt.
3) It NEVER uses increased taxes or spending cuts to pay down that debt.
4) The growth rate of GDP always remains below the interest rate on the debt.
5) The debt/GDP ratio does not rise over time.
Show me how these facts can be consistent. If it is so clear, it should be quite simple to come up with a mathematical model that fits your criteria, instead of your increasingly incoherent posts.
Here is what the OP said, and which I quoted twice already before:
current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities
Notice how that invalidates just about everything in your post?
Notice how if current debts are rolled into new treasury securities, Treasury yields are relevant to this discussion?
Notice how the costs of servicing that interest will contribute to future debt?
Notice how you haven't paid a god damn bit of attention to the assumptions being made by the OP?
Notice how you haven't been able to come up with a model where current debts are rolled into new treasury securities, taxes aren't raised and debt isn't paid off early, where GDP grows more slowly than the yield on Treasuries, and debt/GDP doesn't grow?
Do you know why you haven't provided that model? Because you can't.
How about this. After repeatedly wasting the entire planet's time, why don't you go back and read the fucking post that was being responded to?
You can apologize for being a moron later.
If you think torture is bad, check D. If you think torture is good, check R.
If you think war is a last resort, check D. If you think war is a business opportunity, check R.
If you think molesting pages is bad, check D. If you think revealing that someone is molesting pages is bad, check R.
If you think science is a valuable tool, check D. If you think science is biased against Republicans, check R.
If you believe in individual liberty, check D. If you prefer a king to a president, check R.
If you put the rights of individuals before the rights of corporations, check D. If you put the rights of corporations before the rights of individuals, check R.
If you believe all Americans should benefit from their growing productivity, check D. If you believe those gains should be reserved for those with incomes in the top 1/10th of 1%, check R.
If you believe in getting the facts and then making a decision, check D. If you believe in making a decision, then making up the facts, check R.
If you believe in taxing and spending, check D. If you believe in borrowing and spending, check R.
If you believe in massive government programs to provide decent health care, check D. If you believe in massive government programs to provide crappy health care, check R.
If you believe Big Brother watches people too much, check D. If you believe Big Brother needs to watch people more, check R.
If you believe child labor, unsafe workplaces, and pollution are bad, check D. If you believe we need more of these things, check R.
If you believe in Social Security, unemployment insurance, and aid to children in poverty, check D. If you believe we need less of these things, check R.
If you believe in the separation of church and state, check D. If you prefer a state religion, check R.
If you believe the only thing to fear is fear itself, check D. If you only believe in fear, check R.
You are now equipped to make a more informed decision than at least 51% of the voters in the 2004 election.
Good luck, and godspeed.
You understand neither math nor English. Must be a Republican. I will go over this one more time, for the short bus crowd. Here is the claim being made:
As long as the economy keeps growing, current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing.
This claim is not true. There are situations where the economy keeps growing, and current debts can not be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing. I have demonstrated one of these situations.
Now, either put up or shut up, dumbfuck. Come up with a model where
1) The government has debt.
2) The government neither raises taxes nor pays off the debt early - because the OP says those things would be "stupid".
3) GDP grows more slowly than Treasury yields.
4) Debt/GDP does not increase.
Here is what the parent post said, as you apparently either didn't read or didn't comprehend it:
As long as the economy keeps growing, current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing
Notice that in my example, the economy keeps growing.
Notice that in my example, current debts can not be rolled into new treasury securities without the debt to GDP ratio increasing.
Notice that one of us doesn't understand what is going on here.
Notice that I understand what is going here.
Draw appropriate conclusions.
public class Economics101
.03; .05;
/* And don't start with some bullshit about how GDP is
{
public static void main( String args[] )
{
double debt = 10;
double GDP = 1000;
double gdpGrowthRate =
double treasuryYield =
double debtOverGdp = debt / GDP;
System.out.println( "Debt=" + debt + " GDP=" + GDP + " debt/GDP=" + ( debt/GDP ) );
System.out.println( "tick....tick....tick...." );
boolean idiot = false;
while( idiot == false )
{
debt = debt + ( debt * treasuryYield );
GDP = GDP + ( GDP * gdpGrowthRate );
if ( debt > GDP )
{
idiot = true;
System.out.println( "Debt=" + debt + " GDP=" + GDP + " debt/GDP=" + ( debt/GDP ) );
System.out.println( "Stop voting Republican you god damn retard!" );
System.out.println( "And stop talking about things you don't understand!" );
going to grow at a rate higher than the treasury yield.
Hasn't happened since 1966, isn't going to start
happening now. Except maybe in China. */
}
}
}
}
Not enough.
Cumbersome?
You won't write secure programs because it takes an extra line of code? Jackasses like you almost make me want to quit my job as a developer and become a script kiddy.
For anyone non-fucktarded that is reading this, yes, it frequently takes more lines to write code that isn't vulnerable to attack than it does to write crappy code that is. You get what you pay for, I suppose.
And, as a sincere question, does anyone out there have a single instance of a SQL injection attack that can work if the programmer is intelligent enough (and kind enough to his DBA) to use prepared statements? I have never seen one. If you have, then educate me, I'd love to learn.
Oh but wait, that's an extra line of code. Can't do that! We'll just have a 500 comment article about various ways to check user input because we're too god damn stupid to use prepared statements.
Idiots.
And more exclusive video from a training session.
Non-deterministic Turing machines.
Everything else is just implementation details.
The computer will be used to create secure CAD drawings (Solidworks, OrCAD, etc) and must have, from what I can tell, a removable hard drive and security stickers to prevent tampering
I'll sell you "Do Not Tamper With!" stickers for...wait, this is for the government? $10,000 each.
Where the fuck did they get an analog mouse?
Equities are just as likely to gain you money as they are to lose you money in this economy
It always cheers me up to hear people make comments like that. It tells me it is time to start buying equities again. Now if people would just start making the same type of comments about real estate, it would be time to buy a house...
You couldn't do it with a savings account, I was assuming investment in either equities, or better yet a small business, where a 1% average monthly return on investments of the amounts above (plus sweat equity) would not be out of the norm.
i = monthly interest rate = .01 .25 ) / 12 = 937.50
.01 .01 .01
x = monthly contribution = ( 45000 *
n = total months = 12 * 40 = 480
p[k] = principal after k months
p[480] = 937.50 ( ( 1.01)^480 ) - 1 ) /
~= 937.50 ( 117.65 ) /
~= 110296.875 /
~= $11,029,687.50
The 1% monthly return may be unrealistic, but then again living on $33,750 after taxes isn't the way most bums live, either. The bums here make $30 a day begging on the corner. So if you were really to live like a bum, and only get, say an 8% annual return, you would still end up with $10,996,674.66...
Perhaps you are using too strong of words
No, I am being quite charitable with my choice of words (as was realclimate.org when they wrote the phrase you cite).
Crichton's book is a bad joke that has been thoroughly debunked.
That would be an illegal/copyright infringing source of the book
You are making a pretty big assumption there. I have no reason to believe the person posting the text of the novel does not have legal permission to do so. If this is the case, would the correct term for your post be libel or slander or something else?
Cinderella and Fantasia were classics of animation in precisely the way that "Chipmunk Punk" was a classic of the Punk/No Wave movement.