If the richest 20% had all their annual incomes confiscated (100% tax rate at all levels) it would fund the government by itself for a year and a half.
In other words, the rich are not the potential piggy banks Hollywood makes them out to be.
If you want to fund just our existing government programs (not counting the welfare pipe dreams, etc) the non-rich are going to have to pay dearly.
"This was entirely predictable as soon as Apple allowed user expectations to settle on buying any app, no matter how useful or entertaining, for almost no money."
Sounds like you're saying Apple made the mistake of letting consumers make their own choices.
Would you like to walk into a restaurant and have the cashier or waiter tell you what to order?
1) Spying on outsiders, as their job
2) Spying on their own citizens *when they have a warrant for that individual*
If you take away the case-by-case warrants in (2), you will have governments spying for political purposes (see IRS, Lois Lerner, Obama, etc).
If you skimp on (1) you make yourself too vulnerable (see Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc).
Part of the determination to prosecute will probably based on whether or not the executive branch (i.e. the White House) is of the same party as the Senate.
It is very hard for one part of the government (e.g. half of Congress) to attack a different branch when they're controlled by the same party.
But they should...
Ultimately, I think that if the Senate doesn't go after the spy depts on this, the voters will lose trust in whatever party is not helping to fix it. As a tea party guy, I respect Pelosi for "draining the swamp" (Weiner, etc), but for Harry Reid to go after Obama... I don't see that happening.
Even though he killed a lot of his own citizens, this doesn't undermine (to me) his value as a US president.
What do you think of Lincoln? My opinion isn't necessarily any better than yours, but the "own citizens" criteria by itself isn't enough to persuade me Lincoln and Israel are monsters.
So in the EU if a company said, "We don't want to re-hire employees who have been let go within X period of time or work with contractors who use these employees." The EU would balk?
How is this any different than saying, "I don't want to consider eating at restaurants I've decided to pass on in the last 6 months."? Should the EU get involved in that?
How does government provide this? I interpret "a market" as individuals wanting an operating system. I own a copy or two of Windows. How did the government make me want Windows? Or anyone?
A large part of the reason individuals buy Windows is because they have an awareness of what it can do and decide for themselves they'd rather use that than the alternative. You are entitled to disagree with that decision, sure, but individuals base that on Microsoft's past investments and accomplishments (or failures depending on whether you participate in that market).
(2) Microsoft gets a shop physically
I guess you're talking about their campus in Redmond. I'm pretty sure they paid for that. In the US we have something called "fee simple" real estate. It means the land legally belongs to the government, but for a small "fee" you can stake it out as property of which you have ownership rights, responsibilities, etc.
We are straying from this due to things like Kilo, but the government didn't just "give" Microsoft land that came out of tax payers pockets. Microsoft paid for the land in addition to the taxes it paid to the government (and the taxes its employees paid to the government).
See the first year of the pilgrims at Plymouth...
See the socialist communes of American in the 19th century...
See the hippie communes of America in the 20th century...
When Cuba runs low on resources it allows more people to work in a regulated semi-free market. This is a tacit acknowledgement that free markets produce more wealth. The Soviets instituted the New Economic Agenda for the same reasons and it acknowledged the same thing.
The line "Not your problem, so sleep well friend" looks like he is intentionally trying to caricature the old communist promise that punishing business will not come back to sting you in the end.
But something tells me pla is being unintentionally funny.
A lot of implicit appeals to herd movements here...
1) "a general expectation that..."
2) "there definitely wouldn't be the same call for..."
To me the general population is very unhappy, and has become very unhappy since the days the US gained independence. There's a lot of anecdotal indicators, but the strongest one is that the suicides rates (either attempted or succeeded) have climbed steadily since then. Divorce has gone up. School shootings have gone up, etc.
Also, you should have enough confidence in your own opinion to have to varnish it with the opinion of other people.
"or admit that you're okay with America not being a place where all people who work can afford food, shelter and health care (i.e., perhaps not The Greatest Country On Earth (tm))."
A small percentage of people in the US are paid minimum wage. In that group, very few keep that wage for longer than a year before they get a raise (or look elsewhere or get promoted, etc).
To me, the greatest country in the world is one where people have the opportunity to eventually get to a job that pays enough to provide for themselves and their families. Student workers don't have all the responsibilities/goals you mentioned, but they shouldn't be excluded from positions that provide what they want.
Slashdot Mirror
If the richest 20% had all their annual incomes confiscated (100% tax rate at all levels) it would fund the government by itself for a year and a half.
In other words, the rich are not the potential piggy banks Hollywood makes them out to be.
If you want to fund just our existing government programs (not counting the welfare pipe dreams, etc) the non-rich are going to have to pay dearly.
"This was entirely predictable as soon as Apple allowed user expectations to settle on buying any app, no matter how useful or entertaining, for almost no money."
Sounds like you're saying Apple made the mistake of letting consumers make their own choices.
Would you like to walk into a restaurant and have the cashier or waiter tell you what to order?
In Hawaii pretty much 100% of the environmental assessments are nonsense.
... let natural selection take its course.
The burden of proof should be on the person who claims this is not shenanigans.
Otherwise
That sounds like a lot of work.
...
I would put the remote down to go to the polls, though
I like the idea of governments:
1) Spying on outsiders, as their job
2) Spying on their own citizens *when they have a warrant for that individual*
If you take away the case-by-case warrants in (2), you will have governments spying for political purposes (see IRS, Lois Lerner, Obama, etc).
If you skimp on (1) you make yourself too vulnerable (see Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc).
I'm okay with foreigners spying on me.
Dissatisfaction with the world and the choices it hands to you can often be interpreted as whiney.
I saw Anakin in II and III as whiney and Luke as an individual.
Yes ... but W. didn't reach for the "most transparent administration" banner.
And it's hazy how much of this ramped up during the Obama years.
Part of the determination to prosecute will probably based on whether or not the executive branch (i.e. the White House) is of the same party as the Senate.
...
... I don't see that happening.
It is very hard for one part of the government (e.g. half of Congress) to attack a different branch when they're controlled by the same party.
But they should
Ultimately, I think that if the Senate doesn't go after the spy depts on this, the voters will lose trust in whatever party is not helping to fix it. As a tea party guy, I respect Pelosi for "draining the swamp" (Weiner, etc), but for Harry Reid to go after Obama
And I call that evil.
Right ... so we agree on that, then.
Even though he killed a lot of his own citizens, this doesn't undermine (to me) his value as a US president.
What do you think of Lincoln? My opinion isn't necessarily any better than yours, but the "own citizens" criteria by itself isn't enough to persuade me Lincoln and Israel are monsters.
That sounds nice.
If your code doesn't use any strings.
By that logic Lincoln/Sherman killed millions of their own citizens.
So in the EU if a company said, "We don't want to re-hire employees who have been let go within X period of time or work with contractors who use these employees." The EU would balk?
How is this any different than saying, "I don't want to consider eating at restaurants I've decided to pass on in the last 6 months."? Should the EU get involved in that?
(1) Microsoft gets a market
How does government provide this? I interpret "a market" as individuals wanting an operating system. I own a copy or two of Windows. How did the government make me want Windows? Or anyone?
A large part of the reason individuals buy Windows is because they have an awareness of what it can do and decide for themselves they'd rather use that than the alternative. You are entitled to disagree with that decision, sure, but individuals base that on Microsoft's past investments and accomplishments (or failures depending on whether you participate in that market).
(2) Microsoft gets a shop physically
I guess you're talking about their campus in Redmond. I'm pretty sure they paid for that. In the US we have something called "fee simple" real estate. It means the land legally belongs to the government, but for a small "fee" you can stake it out as property of which you have ownership rights, responsibilities, etc.
We are straying from this due to things like Kilo, but the government didn't just "give" Microsoft land that came out of tax payers pockets. Microsoft paid for the land in addition to the taxes it paid to the government (and the taxes its employees paid to the government).
I'm not sure how you couldn't just do the same thing with QR codes.
That way you always grab (potentially) current data.
Less expensive too.
Sounds prohibitively expensive.
History disagrees ...
... ... ...
See the first year of the pilgrims at Plymouth
See the socialist communes of American in the 19th century
See the hippie communes of America in the 20th century
When Cuba runs low on resources it allows more people to work in a regulated semi-free market. This is a tacit acknowledgement that free markets produce more wealth. The Soviets instituted the New Economic Agenda for the same reasons and it acknowledged the same thing.
So you're claiming the opposite of the study ... but you don't have any data points.
Or a claim about how the results should have been reversed?
If capitalism leads to cheating, etc as well, then why were those with a capitalist/wealthier background less likely to cheat?
The line "Not your problem, so sleep well friend" looks like he is intentionally trying to caricature the old communist promise that punishing business will not come back to sting you in the end.
But something tells me pla is being unintentionally funny.
A lot of implicit appeals to herd movements here ...
..."
2) "there definitely wouldn't be the same call for ..."
1) "a general expectation that
To me the general population is very unhappy, and has become very unhappy since the days the US gained independence. There's a lot of anecdotal indicators, but the strongest one is that the suicides rates (either attempted or succeeded) have climbed steadily since then. Divorce has gone up. School shootings have gone up, etc.
Also, you should have enough confidence in your own opinion to have to varnish it with the opinion of other people.
You're saying government should regulate illegal activity?
Who are you to impose your view of basic human dignity on someone else?
Are you saying those people lack the basic human dignity of being able to choose for themselves?
"or admit that you're okay with America not being a place where all people who work can afford food, shelter and health care (i.e., perhaps not The Greatest Country On Earth (tm))."
A small percentage of people in the US are paid minimum wage. In that group, very few keep that wage for longer than a year before they get a raise (or look elsewhere or get promoted, etc).
To me, the greatest country in the world is one where people have the opportunity to eventually get to a job that pays enough to provide for themselves and their families. Student workers don't have all the responsibilities/goals you mentioned, but they shouldn't be excluded from positions that provide what they want.
That is the perfect comparison.
I was upset when they made his powers stem from technology.
+1: Exactly. Jesus is not a role! Roles do not have values. Roles do not make choices. A role is not an instance of anything.