We most certainly do NOT "need" a Federal standard for how each state votes. Shit, with attitudes like that, why even bother having states at all?
Also, I think you are way overestimating the politicians who bought into these stupid machines. Marketers are slick, and politicians are clueless re: technology. So no, I think they didn't know how easy the machines are to mess with... or at least, not enough of them knew.
Some I knew, some I didn't, thanks for it all, very concise, considering the many years passed and complex issues involved.
It's really too bad that the founders failed in their attempt to keep the Federal gov't reigned in. A good seccession here and there (perhaps the success of the South in the Civil War even) and who knows what we'd look like now.
I'm curious: Do you know the reason why the U.S. did not go with a proportional style of choosing rep's? (obviously the "President is a single guy" bit means you can't do proportional presidencies, but for the House, and state-level legislatures)
I'm also curious why state legislatures no longer select their Senators. Obviously the "little guy" is going to complain that they dont' get to choose their rep's, but the Senators are supposed to be different, right?
You know a lot for sure (particularly off the top of your head!), so I hope you don't mind a couple questions...
You are reading too much into my comments. The original poster gave us the old "there will be no jobs left" line, and I was merely pointing out the fact (not a statistic) that there are 17 million more jobs in America now (not even counting illegal immigrant workers and some kinds of contract work).
Of course there is more than just the number of people working, but that fact blows the original poster's theory out of the water.
I don't need to take all factors into account when you claim that "all the jobs are leaving!".
All I'm doing is pointing out that, no, not all the jobs are disappearing. Nothing of the sort.
What I quoted are not statistics, they're real numbers. There are more people working now than 10 years ago. One might make the argument that the jobs are shittier, but then one could refute that by looking at total income tax paid: It's way up too!
It's really sad that you see economics and market history as "drizzle".
Hate to break the demographic news to you, but retirees will be living more that "a few years". I also hate to break it to you, but the market headed south well before Enron / WorldCom's exploits.
CEO robbery has little to do with overall market performance, and healthy gains over the life of the market demonstrate that stocks are the way to go, long term.
Given 20, 30, or even 40 years to build equity in the market, use of that money in retirement is easy.
It would be a compartively simple matter for the gov't to say "Okay, you can invest your own money, but only in these 5 choices". And default them into a safe choice (index funds) if a person doesn't want to choose. Or better yet, keep that dope (yes, dope. You're a dope if you don't care to learn something about where your retirement income is coming from) in the current system and make any new system VOLUNTARY.
Yep, that's "drizzle". Voluntary participation in a system that will get me gobs more money in retirement. Terrible idea.
This is typical uninformed demagoguery against the realities of market investment.
The facts are this: $1 in stocks in 1926 (averaged over all stocks!) would have brought you over $2600 as of the end of 2000.
There is no plan currently seriously in consideration that would leave "privatized social security" in any tiny basket of stocks, where your "CEO robbery" scene could play out.
The best bet I see: Let me put all my social security money into a simple S&P index fund. There is very little risk there, comparatively. And when it does go down, it's not some cataclysmic loss.
I hate to tell you that MANY people would trade a meager certain benefit for hte chance to get far, far more. And a great many people definitely choose to own stock.
If someone wasn't bright enough to bank money during their better earning years to take care of themselves in retirement, that's my problem how?
It occurs to me that churches and private organizations could do a much better job of caring for the poor. Social Security should not be consider the end-all in retirement income. Too many people think, "Well hell, the wonderful gov't will care for me when I'm old, I don't have to prepare ahead of time!"
Sorry, that old "I guess old people don't need to eat" argument is old and worn out.
Nice job with the "Sparky" attempt at maginalizing your debating partner there, but you're full of shit.
Let's look at some Dept of Labor statistics, shall we? You can find them just like I did (given 5 minutes and an annoying Liberal cry-baby to spank).
Here's a hint, look under Employment Situation: Jan 94: 121,971,000 employed. 65,286,000 not in workforce. Jan 04: 138,566,000 employed. 75,298,000 not in workforce.
While there are significantly more people not in the workforce, I submit to you that most of those are retired! (baby boomers getting older, that sort of thing)
So, contrary to your whining, there are 17 MILLION MORE PEOPLE WORKING now that there were 10 years ago. There is no impending doom!
This is a concept the young liberalcrat, left wing, econ-morons need to deal with, or they'll get left behind (whining about it all the way, no doubt).
Hopefully someone will see this: I can't use Kopete because it's account password field is, for some incomprehensible reason, limited to 8 characters... while my AIM account pword has 11.
Uhm, there are some massive restrictions on what you can and cannot do with this kind of technology already.
Just try to take it with you when you go overseas and see what happens.
(disclaimer: I don't know the exact nature of this device, so I can't know what it's specific situation is re: USML and other export issues... perhaps this one's already been settled)
Capital gains tax DOES mean something, you nitwit. Someday when you make enough money to invest you'll understand that. A 5% change in the tax rate makes a huge difference in whether or not a particular investment is considered successful or not.
Your arguments make so little sense I don't know where to begin. The world will be hurt if jobs are created in India or the "fantastically booming" Canada?
Well, my argument is not that social issues are not important. It's just that social issues will take a back seat if economic ones are bad enough.
For example, do you think anyone (Joe Q. Public) cared about homosexuality during the Great Depression? I don't.
Your problem is that you're seeing social issues as more important. I'm seeing social issues as irrelevant if people starve to death. (Obviously hyperbole, but the point is valid)
Slashdot Mirror
We most certainly do NOT "need" a Federal standard for how each state votes. Shit, with attitudes like that, why even bother having states at all?
Also, I think you are way overestimating the politicians who bought into these stupid machines. Marketers are slick, and politicians are clueless re: technology. So no, I think they didn't know how easy the machines are to mess with... or at least, not enough of them knew.
You haven't had a blue screen in 8 years? Damn, you must have switched to Linux, or Mac. BeOS?
I don't think you realize how many people used WordPerfect 5.1.
Just because the technology wasn't as cheap back then don't make the mistake of thinking they were any more difficult to use.
It occurs to me that if I ever managed to sell 10, 5 or even 1 million of anything, I'd consider myself pretty damn successful.
Interesting times, I guess...
I'd just like to state for the record that I love the name "Ass rock".
Heheheh. Well I thought it was funny. Nothing better than humor that gets a rise out of the average bible thumper.
Some I knew, some I didn't, thanks for it all, very concise, considering the many years passed and complex issues involved.
It's really too bad that the founders failed in their attempt to keep the Federal gov't reigned in. A good seccession here and there (perhaps the success of the South in the Civil War even) and who knows what we'd look like now.
"Several states"... great concept, if you ask me.
Anyway, thanks again.
Well, I feel your pain. Why is why I have a 04 Prius for riding in the HOV lanes (that my wife drives) and a Mustang for me.
:)
Too bad I know squat about how the innards work so far... no time to monkey with it yet, but someday...
I'm curious: Do you know the reason why the U.S. did not go with a proportional style of choosing rep's? (obviously the "President is a single guy" bit means you can't do proportional presidencies, but for the House, and state-level legislatures)
I'm also curious why state legislatures no longer select their Senators. Obviously the "little guy" is going to complain that they dont' get to choose their rep's, but the Senators are supposed to be different, right?
You know a lot for sure (particularly off the top of your head!), so I hope you don't mind a couple questions...
What is so hard to understand about it is the fact that it no longer works, and as an investment is horrendous. What, 1-2% per year?
All the more reason to privatize it: Let me control my own money. I certainly don't trust the nanny state to do it for me.
You are reading too much into my comments. The original poster gave us the old "there will be no jobs left" line, and I was merely pointing out the fact (not a statistic) that there are 17 million more jobs in America now (not even counting illegal immigrant workers and some kinds of contract work).
Of course there is more than just the number of people working, but that fact blows the original poster's theory out of the water.
I don't need to take all factors into account when you claim that "all the jobs are leaving!".
All I'm doing is pointing out that, no, not all the jobs are disappearing. Nothing of the sort.
What I quoted are not statistics, they're real numbers. There are more people working now than 10 years ago. One might make the argument that the jobs are shittier, but then one could refute that by looking at total income tax paid: It's way up too!
It's really sad that you see economics and market history as "drizzle".
Hate to break the demographic news to you, but retirees will be living more that "a few years". I also hate to break it to you, but the market headed south well before Enron / WorldCom's exploits.
CEO robbery has little to do with overall market performance, and healthy gains over the life of the market demonstrate that stocks are the way to go, long term.
Given 20, 30, or even 40 years to build equity in the market, use of that money in retirement is easy.
It would be a compartively simple matter for the gov't to say "Okay, you can invest your own money, but only in these 5 choices". And default them into a safe choice (index funds) if a person doesn't want to choose. Or better yet, keep that dope (yes, dope. You're a dope if you don't care to learn something about where your retirement income is coming from) in the current system and make any new system VOLUNTARY.
Yep, that's "drizzle". Voluntary participation in a system that will get me gobs more money in retirement. Terrible idea.
... And just think of all the transportation-related jobs that are created! :)
So....
Jan 94: 121 million people working.
Jan 04: 138 million people working.
Where is the "fleeting"?
This is typical uninformed demagoguery against the realities of market investment.
The facts are this: $1 in stocks in 1926 (averaged over all stocks!) would have brought you over $2600 as of the end of 2000.
There is no plan currently seriously in consideration that would leave "privatized social security" in any tiny basket of stocks, where your "CEO robbery" scene could play out.
The best bet I see: Let me put all my social security money into a simple S&P index fund. There is very little risk there, comparatively. And when it does go down, it's not some cataclysmic loss.
I hate to tell you that MANY people would trade a meager certain benefit for hte chance to get far, far more. And a great many people definitely choose to own stock.
If someone wasn't bright enough to bank money during their better earning years to take care of themselves in retirement, that's my problem how?
It occurs to me that churches and private organizations could do a much better job of caring for the poor. Social Security should not be consider the end-all in retirement income. Too many people think, "Well hell, the wonderful gov't will care for me when I'm old, I don't have to prepare ahead of time!"
Sorry, that old "I guess old people don't need to eat" argument is old and worn out.
Nice job with the "Sparky" attempt at maginalizing your debating partner there, but you're full of shit.
Let's look at some Dept of Labor statistics, shall we? You can find them just like I did (given 5 minutes and an annoying Liberal cry-baby to spank).
Here's a hint, look under Employment Situation:
Jan 94: 121,971,000 employed. 65,286,000 not in workforce.
Jan 04: 138,566,000 employed. 75,298,000 not in workforce.
While there are significantly more people not in the workforce, I submit to you that most of those are retired! (baby boomers getting older, that sort of thing)
So, contrary to your whining, there are 17 MILLION MORE PEOPLE WORKING now that there were 10 years ago. There is no impending doom!
This is a concept the young liberalcrat, left wing, econ-morons need to deal with, or they'll get left behind (whining about it all the way, no doubt).
You'd think so, but I expect export license controls (given their national security implications) far outstrip any possible copywrite law.
:)
Considering it's the govt that grants both sets of laws, govt can decide which is more important. And I'm certain national security wins.
And for good reason!
Hopefully someone will see this: I can't use Kopete because it's account password field is, for some incomprehensible reason, limited to 8 characters... while my AIM account pword has 11.
What the hell is the point of that???
Uhm, there are some massive restrictions on what you can and cannot do with this kind of technology already.
Just try to take it with you when you go overseas and see what happens.
(disclaimer: I don't know the exact nature of this device, so I can't know what it's specific situation is re: USML and other export issues... perhaps this one's already been settled)
Yeah, why ask for public input on a public project. It's crazy.
I love all the cynical twits around here who can't see the forest because there are republicans standing in front of it...
Capital gains tax DOES mean something, you nitwit. Someday when you make enough money to invest you'll understand that. A 5% change in the tax rate makes a huge difference in whether or not a particular investment is considered successful or not.
Your arguments make so little sense I don't know where to begin. The world will be hurt if jobs are created in India or the "fantastically booming" Canada?
LOL. Well, I guess if you haven't seen it, it isn't true...
At least the grandparent posted some sources, which is better than spouting leftist dire rhetoric like the majority around here.
Well, my argument is not that social issues are not important. It's just that social issues will take a back seat if economic ones are bad enough.
For example, do you think anyone (Joe Q. Public) cared about homosexuality during the Great Depression? I don't.
Your problem is that you're seeing social issues as more important. I'm seeing social issues as irrelevant if people starve to death. (Obviously hyperbole, but the point is valid)