The way you think the debt ceiling works is completely backwards. Congress sets the amount of taxes, the amount of spending, and the debt ceiling. The President spends the money, collects the taxes, and borrows if the latter is less than the former. If the country is at the debt ceiling when it comes time to borrow, the government can either default or choose to raise it. Congress was playing chicken with arithmetic, but arithmetic doesn't flinch. Congress creates the crisis, the President just informs them when it's imminent.
You can't reduce the debt without making the deficit a surplus, and you can't make the deficit a surplus without raising taxes or cutting spending. That's just math. I get that Congress is supposed to control the budget, I'm not saying it shouldn't be that way. What I am saying is that since it is that way, blaming the President for the debt is asinine. To reduce the debt all Congress has to do is pass a surplus budget, if the President vetoes it, then we can talk about that.
You also seem to be confused about the Great Compromise... It's the Senate that protects small states from large ones, not the House. The House is proportional (as close as possible given the discrete nature of Representatives): California has ~12% of the population and ~12% (53/435) of the Representatives, Wyoming has ~0.18% of the population, and about ~0.22% (1/435) of the Representatives. In spite of California having over 6000% of the population of Wyoming, they both get 2 Senators. Who's willfully ignorant of what now?
Please quote the exact clause(s) that create that obligation.
The budget is a law passed by Congress. From Article II, Section 3, Clause 5: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"
otherwise the wall along the Mexican border (already funded) would have been built.
I assume you're talking about the Secure Fence Act (2005), which authorized 700 miles of fence to be built. It was all but finished years ago. Subsequent plans to expand it have died in Congress.
The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That would include preventing the spending of money for unConstitutional purposes.
The President can't refuse to enact the budget simply because it runs a deficit.
It's not about prejudice. You're putting the cart before the horse. Evidence first, then conclusion. If you do the opposite, there's no limit to what you can think is true.
Moon is no egg, Khaleesi. Moon is goddess, wife of sun. It is known.
It wasn't long ago that "the numbers" were indicating Trump wouldn't do well at all during the primaries. And what happened? He exceeded all initial expectations and polls to become the leader!
Trump has almost never exceeded his polls. In fact, he usually under performs them. What the analysts got wrong was that Trump supporters didn't peel away to other, more mainstream candidates. While his supporters are incredibly loyal he hasn't really managed to pick up any more, even as other candidates have dropped out. He's stuck at ~35%, it's both his floor and his ceiling.
Even if left-leaning folks, like the submitter and perhaps the editors here, don't like Trump, they're going to have to accept that Trump is very likely going to be the next President of the United States of America.
You're delusional, Trump isn't even popular among Republicans, he's gotten an average of 35% of the vote across all primaries. His favorability rating among the general electorate is the lowest of any potential nominee in the last 9 Presidential elections.
A majority of Americans do support him now, and will support him during the election, even if they can't publicly admit it at this time.
I love this kind of argument: "The fact that the evidence doesn't support me shows that I'm right." If a majority of Americans support him, then who the hell are the people stopping them from publicly admitting it?
As with most theoretical ethics problems, it only seems as if there is a conflict because the proposed scenario is too vague. This is why I find philosophy irritating sometimes, once you define enough details (as you would have in a real world scenario) you'll often find that the "right" thing to do is less ambiguous than it seems.
How do we know there is a nuke that is about to go off at all, if we don't know where it is? How did we locate the person who delivered the bomb in the first place? We were tracking them closely enough to know that they planted the bomb, but not closely enough to know where? How do we know that the location and the disarming codes are on the iPhone at all? What kind of guarantees do we have that if we do get into the iPhone we can stop the bomb going off in time anyway?
If we have a 100%, no bones about it, guarantee that gaining access to this one particular iPhone will prevent a nuke going off somewhere, then by all means, break into this particular iPhone. But you'll never have that kind of guarantee, so people will always argue that we need to be able to get into all the iPhones just in case.
This is always the problem with this kind of reasoning, it leads inexorably to mass surveillance: "We have to watch everybody because somebody, somewhere, at some time will do something dangerous, and this is the only way to stop them." How about: most people are good, so let them be free.
I'd rather die in a nuclear blast in a free country, than live a long life in a police state. The real fight is not to prevent deaths due to terrorism, the real fight is to prevent terrorists from changing who we are. They can only win that fight if we let them.
"Are you ok to oppress 50% of the population to make 1% happy? You really want to stand by that?"
See, that's the strawman. The majority of the population isn't being oppressed by this change. This is the typical bullshit bigoted argument that always comes up when equality is extended to a new group; that it will somehow "upset the natural order" and "violate the freedoms of those who already had them".
As always, this argument holds no water. Come up with something new.
I don't think it's about them being overdesigned, but being overpriced. A Macbook with the same specs as that Asus is probably going to cost twice as much.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget about Aeris... I'm still upset about Biggs, Wedge, and Jessie!
You can expect hell to freeze over too.
The way you think the debt ceiling works is completely backwards. Congress sets the amount of taxes, the amount of spending, and the debt ceiling. The President spends the money, collects the taxes, and borrows if the latter is less than the former. If the country is at the debt ceiling when it comes time to borrow, the government can either default or choose to raise it. Congress was playing chicken with arithmetic, but arithmetic doesn't flinch. Congress creates the crisis, the President just informs them when it's imminent.
You can't reduce the debt without making the deficit a surplus, and you can't make the deficit a surplus without raising taxes or cutting spending. That's just math. I get that Congress is supposed to control the budget, I'm not saying it shouldn't be that way. What I am saying is that since it is that way, blaming the President for the debt is asinine. To reduce the debt all Congress has to do is pass a surplus budget, if the President vetoes it, then we can talk about that.
You also seem to be confused about the Great Compromise... It's the Senate that protects small states from large ones, not the House. The House is proportional (as close as possible given the discrete nature of Representatives): California has ~12% of the population and ~12% (53/435) of the Representatives, Wyoming has ~0.18% of the population, and about ~0.22% (1/435) of the Representatives. In spite of California having over 6000% of the population of Wyoming, they both get 2 Senators. Who's willfully ignorant of what now?
I find the idea of generating electricity from water (as opposed to hydrogen and oxygen) as pretty dodgy.
Hydroelectric, yo.
Please quote the exact clause(s) that create that obligation.
The budget is a law passed by Congress. From Article II, Section 3, Clause 5: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"
otherwise the wall along the Mexican border (already funded) would have been built.
I assume you're talking about the Secure Fence Act (2005), which authorized 700 miles of fence to be built. It was all but finished years ago. Subsequent plans to expand it have died in Congress.
The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That would include preventing the spending of money for unConstitutional purposes.
The President can't refuse to enact the budget simply because it runs a deficit.
The problem is that the wealth is held by so few. The pie gets bigger, but only so many people get a decent slice.
Helium is the second most abundant element, so why is it so expensive and rare? Because it's all in the Sun.
Man, you're all over this thread. We get it, you're a curmudgeon! Now, it's time for your nap...
This thread be all "Fuck your side because it's intolerant," without the slightest hint of irony.
It's great! :D
He doesn't give a shit because he's mentally ill. You got lucky, schizophrenia (e.g.) *chooses* you, not the other way around.
Yep, homeless people are a liberal conspiracy to bring down the rich. This guy gets it.
The President does not control the budget, Congress does. The President is Constitutionally obligated to spend the money that Congress allocates.
Makes sense. We pay for theirs.
It's not about prejudice. You're putting the cart before the horse. Evidence first, then conclusion. If you do the opposite, there's no limit to what you can think is true.
Moon is no egg, Khaleesi. Moon is goddess, wife of sun. It is known.
Discounting anything out of hand absent information to the contrary is prejudicial.
This is just about the most unscientific thing anyone can say.
Have you dug into the center of the moon and proved that it's not a giant dragon egg? No? Well then I guess you can't discount that it might be!
It wasn't long ago that "the numbers" were indicating Trump wouldn't do well at all during the primaries. And what happened? He exceeded all initial expectations and polls to become the leader!
Trump has almost never exceeded his polls. In fact, he usually under performs them. What the analysts got wrong was that Trump supporters didn't peel away to other, more mainstream candidates. While his supporters are incredibly loyal he hasn't really managed to pick up any more, even as other candidates have dropped out. He's stuck at ~35%, it's both his floor and his ceiling.
So you cite one single poll of 916 people made 3 months ago and base your entire argument on that.
I'd say don't quit your day job, but...
Even if left-leaning folks, like the submitter and perhaps the editors here, don't like Trump, they're going to have to accept that Trump is very likely going to be the next President of the United States of America.
You're delusional, Trump isn't even popular among Republicans, he's gotten an average of 35% of the vote across all primaries. His favorability rating among the general electorate is the lowest of any potential nominee in the last 9 Presidential elections.
A majority of Americans do support him now, and will support him during the election, even if they can't publicly admit it at this time.
I love this kind of argument: "The fact that the evidence doesn't support me shows that I'm right." If a majority of Americans support him, then who the hell are the people stopping them from publicly admitting it?
If what you're saying is true, then thanks.
Also, sorry about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. :(
you are not the decider here
Lol. Ok dubya, you got me there!
As with most theoretical ethics problems, it only seems as if there is a conflict because the proposed scenario is too vague. This is why I find philosophy irritating sometimes, once you define enough details (as you would have in a real world scenario) you'll often find that the "right" thing to do is less ambiguous than it seems.
How do we know there is a nuke that is about to go off at all, if we don't know where it is? How did we locate the person who delivered the bomb in the first place? We were tracking them closely enough to know that they planted the bomb, but not closely enough to know where? How do we know that the location and the disarming codes are on the iPhone at all? What kind of guarantees do we have that if we do get into the iPhone we can stop the bomb going off in time anyway?
If we have a 100%, no bones about it, guarantee that gaining access to this one particular iPhone will prevent a nuke going off somewhere, then by all means, break into this particular iPhone. But you'll never have that kind of guarantee, so people will always argue that we need to be able to get into all the iPhones just in case.
This is always the problem with this kind of reasoning, it leads inexorably to mass surveillance: "We have to watch everybody because somebody, somewhere, at some time will do something dangerous, and this is the only way to stop them." How about: most people are good, so let them be free.
I'd rather die in a nuclear blast in a free country, than live a long life in a police state. The real fight is not to prevent deaths due to terrorism, the real fight is to prevent terrorists from changing who we are. They can only win that fight if we let them.
"Are you ok to oppress 50% of the population to make 1% happy? You really want to stand by that?"
See, that's the strawman. The majority of the population isn't being oppressed by this change. This is the typical bullshit bigoted argument that always comes up when equality is extended to a new group; that it will somehow "upset the natural order" and "violate the freedoms of those who already had them".
As always, this argument holds no water. Come up with something new.
I should have said ferromagnetic. Anyway, the point is, the quench itself likely didn't cause the injury, but was initiated as a result of it.
I don't think it's about them being overdesigned, but being overpriced. A Macbook with the same specs as that Asus is probably going to cost twice as much.
Plus it's a Mac... eww.
Why not save sperm/eggs and then vasectomy/tubectomy before the treatment?
Soon? We have lot's of redundant organs! Two lungs, two kidneys, two testicles/ovaries...