How is it ironic? You missed the point. The argument that it will make pedos stop abusing children is totally different than what you're talking about.
Your argument boils down to money. So make selling/purchasing child porn illegal, great. Why waste resources on people who are downloading free images on 4chan? You think there's a market created by 14 year olds who have, at most, fake credit cards? Or wait, do you think only old men download child porn, that when those old men were teenagers they had no interest in it?
It's sad that we're busy going after downloaders who never pay a cent for anything, sharing pictures from 5, 10, 20 years ago, when there are actual child smuggling operations operating in our own backyard. Just shows that politicians care only for appearance. Nothing else.
The risk assessment has to change because of this paper. If it's correct, we can have a much easier CO2 target than we currently have. With the new model, the risk of high CO2 concentrations leading to runaway warming is lowered. Maybe risks like economic harm are more significant.
This is the key, from the article:
International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2C.
Things don't always cost more at other sites. For instance, a new Xbox game at Amazon is the same price as a new Xbox game at Newegg. I buy from Amazon out of familiarity and habit. It's my default. I kind of hope Amazon suffers because of their behavior over this. And certainly I would never, ever use EasyDNS after this. You'd have to be crazy to.
Why is it that for some, every time something negative happens for Wikileaks, there must be a conspiracy that is behind it.
Because this is the kind of thing that is highly embarrassing for the government but they can't openly do anything about it due to the Constitution. Their only options are 1) do nothing or 2) do things secretly.
Since odd things are happening to Wikileaks, it's hard to believe that they are doing nothing. So they are doing secret things to harm Wikileaks.
I don't think it's possible for you to be paying $200k in taxes with an income of $400k and deductions of $100k for insurance premiums and another positive amount for supplies. Assuming $50k in supplies, and living in California with a 9.3% state income tax, your total income tax burden (including self-employed SS/Medicare) is about $110k, not even close to $200k. That would make take-home, after-tax pay $140k. If you live in Florida with no state income tax, your take home pay is about $165k. If you can't get rich off of that over the course of your career, you are doing it wrong, simple as that. Marry someone who is better at handling money than you.
Maybe your doctor friends are so rich that you have lost track of what "modest lifestyle" means to most people vs you?
Now you know that's not true. How do you think congress became a millionaires' club? Who do you think finances elections?
Doesn't matter. Once you're elected you have a choice in every vote you make. Someone did you a favor and if you don't repay it you won't get *re*elected? Okay, so what. It's still the politician who is saying "I personally choose to support so-and-so corporation over the interests of the people, for my own gain in the future."
We now have corporations that are bigger and more powerful than all but a handful of countries. When a corporation that has more money than the GDP of Belgium comes calling, a politician will jump to its tune.
The corporations you're referring to are bigger than any person or small group of people, and they do nobody's bidding. Sure GE is bigger than many countries... so... what is their agenda? Who does it benefit? You think Big Shareholder #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,..., #1449, #1450 (all still richer than me and you put together) are alllll in agreement and all getting the same kickbacks and special deals in exchange for some sort of inefficiency? (And if it's not an inefficiency then it's not hurting anybody..) There's a natural balance right there. If the top dog is getting a kickback, it's at the expense of everybody else.
Now that the limits have been removed from corporate money in elections, it cannot be said that "it's the politicians that enable the corporations" rather than the other way 'round.
Who put those limits in the law in the first place? Who removed them? Who has the power to raise taxes, pass laws, make today' legal actions tomorrow's crimes?
The only hope we have to avoid disaster is public funding of, and strict limits on, election financing.
Of course it's not a conflict of interest to have the government be the sole financier of government elections.
In the context I'm using it, "absolute" doesn't mean how many dollars you have. It just means what you can afford, without relation to what others can afford. If I'm in the bottom 1% of the population and I have a tv, that's an absolute asset. If 20 years later the bottom 1% has an hdtv, that's another absolute asset. One is better than the other, even though the relative wealth (bottom 1%) is the same.
I thought that's how you were using it too when you said "The poor now have access to things that a billionaire couldn't get 20 years ago." Phrases like "the poor" are relative -- they are poor compared to people who are rich, both today and 20 years ago. But "things" is absolute -- the poor now have HDTV, 20 years ago nobody had HDTV.
Public services disappeared and now we have to pay for many things we had for free.
What are some of the public services you're referring to? 20 years ago I was in elementary school so I'm not sure. I find it hard to believe that there were many more free things than we have today. Certainly the major public services (school, roads, libraries, parks, etc) haven't changed.
You're probably right about the speed, but I wonder about the dollars per berry as opposed to berries per second. Electricity is pretty cheap, I wonder how expensive the robots are and how long they last.
Some degree of government secrecy has always been needed. Government secrecy was as essential during the revolutionary war, as it is today.
Having read a number of the cables, I haven't seen a single one that I would say "yeah that was legitimately classified as 'secret'".
I know it won't happen but one result of this leak should simply be that every ambassador and embassy staffer in the government should be fired, just for abusing their powers in marking documents as secret. Let alone the disgusting recommendations they make for government policy.
The only secrecy being taken away is secrecy from the public, i.e. the people the government is *supposed* to be accountable to anyway.
Have you read the cables? Most of them are about dealings with representatives from other countries. Those representatives already know what the cables are about because they were at the same meetings. The purpose in classifying these cables is largely to keep the public unaware of the dirty games our politicians play. I've been reading cables from the Islamabad embassy in Pakistan.. it's disgusting. I can only imagine the variety of things that don't even get recorded in these cables. Democracy does not work if the government can successfully lie to the people and prosecute/shut down people who expose them.
The question is which group is larger and more meaningful:
1. The guys who reject items designed for women because the design necessarily sacrifices things that appeal to men, making other items more attractive to men.
2. The guys who just happen to like a product designed for women over all the available near-equivalent products designed for men.
I mean you are technically correct with your addition, but let's be honest.. most likely you pointed out that minor group to imply that the OP himself is insecure about his masculinity. I don't get why people do that. It's very immature.
Wow, you're pretty upset. You should read your post again though.. if anything you reinforced OP's assumptions.
Let me spell it out for you: OP said Microsoft and Sony sell a lot more than just a console. The losses on the console are made up by profits on the other items.
You said... GM sells a lot more than just Volts. That's parallel to OP's argument.
See how you are not contradicting OP's assumptions, but actually reinforcing them? Maybe you accidentally deleted a sentence before posting?
The key item that you missed, twice now, is what I said in my post. Sony and Microsoft's profits from other items are tied indirectly to the console. GM does sell more than just the Volt... but they would make the same profit on those other items even if the Volt was canceled.
You are admitting that the poor are better off today than they were 20 years ago.. but then apparently that doesn't matter! All that matters is that the rich are even richer. Like I said, I really don't understand what is motivating you except a grossly inflated sense of pride. Like it's worse for a poor person to suffer insults to their pride than it is to not have access to things that 20 years ago a billionaire didn't have access to.
Your economy is in the shitter because you've spent trillions chasing ghosts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Correction. We've spent trillions trying to "democratize" Afghanistan and Iraq. That's quite different than fighting terrorists as the GP suggested we do.
Is it possible that throughout history, lesser economic divides between rich and poor have led to greater power divides between "rich" and poor, simply because power was all that could be had over your fellow man?
If the claim that the economic divide is larger than ever, even restricted to the 20th century, isn't it also true that we have more regulations than ever (in the 20th century)? We've gone from the abuses described in "The Jungle" to... Wall Street people making big bonuses that make others jealous. When you put it in perspective it's quite minor.
If the income inequality is getting bigger, then we're getting worse. This is definitely a problem and should be stopped.
I don't think that's true for most resources. Assume poor people read 10 books per year and rich people read 100 books per year and reading books pretty much equates to knowledge.
Which situation is better:
1. Poor people start reading 20 books per year, rich people read 1000. Ratio increased (worsened) fivefold. 2. Poor people only read 5 books per year. Rich people only read 10. Ratio decreased (improved) fivefold.
To me situation 1 is better. Why do you care more about the relative level of reading (or wealth) and not more about the absolute level? The only thing I can think of is that you are motivated by pride more than anything else.
Are you suggesting GM currently sells or plans to sell services directly related to the Volt that will generate more revenue? The part you left out of your quote of GP tied the loss on the console directly to increased revenue from games *played on the console*. What's the analogous revenue stream for the Volt? Will GM start getting a share of electricity revenue from power companies?
I just learned today that in the TARP bailouts, the banks were made completely whole.
I read plenty of news about major losses at banks in the last few years. Are you suggesting the losses came only from non-troubled assets?
The surprising part is that they even bother to hold elections or convene congress any more. I understand that it's just theater now, but still, every dollar they spend to make it look like we're a sovereign nation is another dollar that doesn't go into the pockets of the most powerful corporations.
It's weird, I totally agree with you but we seem to hold different groups responsible. You blame corporations? It makes no sense to me. It's the politicians who enable the corporations, not the other way around. And the politicians don't stop there, they sell out to anybody for even the smallest gain, even for their egos. Look at the absolute garbage revealed by wikileaks for instance. There is an international club of politicians who scratch each others' backs, lie outrageously to the public (making it very difficult to even fantasize about holding them accountable), and back each other completely. And the consequences are lives, not just dollars for corporations. It's so much more serious than some companies who made easy money on bailout funds.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."
So yeah, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, except it's not fraudulent because we all know the deal. Not that we have the option of avoiding it..
Actually, the Government want to tax the wages of labor in return for entitlements (the New Deal). The People accepted. If 'Entitlements' are abolished then so must *all* taxes on the wages of labor, that was the original deal and I (and others) are not going to allow a renege. Right now labor is paying for the majority of the Federal Budget, without that revenue...
The deal for the major entitlements (SS and Medicare) are bogus. They are pyramid schemes. Back in the 50s the SS tax was 3% total. Now it's over 12%. Can you explain that? Did the people who started paying into the system in the 50s and 60s really pay their fair share? If so, why is there even a possibility of having a shortfall in SS and Medicare?
And no the answer is not that the government borrowed from the SS "fund". That borrowed money gets counted as an asset to SS, and there is still not enough money.
Fair enough, I don't know. I shouldn't have put that part in. I was reacting to other threads that are very similar, looking at the disparity in federal tax spending/receiving in blue states vs. red states. It's always pointed out that heavily Democratic states like California are "bailing out" the cheap red states, whose people are so stupid that they vote against their own interests, etc. Didn't really fit in with this thread now that I've reread it.
What is the correct tax rate for the rich then so that they only pay for the service they actually receive? How do you calculate this number?
It's not nice to bite. I don't think many people (and certainly not me) are pushing for a 100% pay as you go government. I suppose it could be done by charging taxpayers for services as they use them, like toll roads and stuff.
If you can't make a supportable estimate then you are blowing smoke when you imply the rich are "over taxed". Note the simple existence of a progressive tax system in which those who have more pay more (the rule everywhere in the world - ours is one of least progressive) does not demonstrate this supposed "over-taxing".
Fair enough, but while I can't provide a solution, I think it's reasonable to point out that lumping federal taxpayers together into state-based groups like California and Utah is silly. Federal taxes aren't paid by states, so saying that one state is "bailing out" another because they pay more taxes doesn't make sense.
So why is it reasonable to treat the rich as an exploited demographic group and not a state? "Ridiculous" is not an argument.
Ah because we are talking about groups of people who pay more than they receive, and other groups that pay less than they receive. It's not meaningful to divide them geographically. Since our tax system is progressive, based on income, the most meaningful way to divide people is also based on income.
Or would you rather hear arguments like "white people pay more taxes, we are BAILING OUT black people." That is as true as the contention that California is bailing out Utah. Forget that rich people in Utah pay more taxes than middle income Californians, or that poor white people pay less taxes than Michael Jordan... it's irrelevant right?? Ignore income, look at arbitrary divisions instead!
Slashdot Mirror
How is it ironic? You missed the point. The argument that it will make pedos stop abusing children is totally different than what you're talking about.
Your argument boils down to money. So make selling/purchasing child porn illegal, great. Why waste resources on people who are downloading free images on 4chan? You think there's a market created by 14 year olds who have, at most, fake credit cards? Or wait, do you think only old men download child porn, that when those old men were teenagers they had no interest in it?
It's sad that we're busy going after downloaders who never pay a cent for anything, sharing pictures from 5, 10, 20 years ago, when there are actual child smuggling operations operating in our own backyard. Just shows that politicians care only for appearance. Nothing else.
The risk assessment has to change because of this paper. If it's correct, we can have a much easier CO2 target than we currently have. With the new model, the risk of high CO2 concentrations leading to runaway warming is lowered. Maybe risks like economic harm are more significant.
This is the key, from the article:
International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2C.
Things don't always cost more at other sites. For instance, a new Xbox game at Amazon is the same price as a new Xbox game at Newegg. I buy from Amazon out of familiarity and habit. It's my default. I kind of hope Amazon suffers because of their behavior over this. And certainly I would never, ever use EasyDNS after this. You'd have to be crazy to.
Why is it that for some, every time something negative happens for Wikileaks, there must be a conspiracy that is behind it.
Because this is the kind of thing that is highly embarrassing for the government but they can't openly do anything about it due to the Constitution. Their only options are 1) do nothing or 2) do things secretly.
Since odd things are happening to Wikileaks, it's hard to believe that they are doing nothing. So they are doing secret things to harm Wikileaks.
I don't think it's possible for you to be paying $200k in taxes with an income of $400k and deductions of $100k for insurance premiums and another positive amount for supplies. Assuming $50k in supplies, and living in California with a 9.3% state income tax, your total income tax burden (including self-employed SS/Medicare) is about $110k, not even close to $200k. That would make take-home, after-tax pay $140k. If you live in Florida with no state income tax, your take home pay is about $165k. If you can't get rich off of that over the course of your career, you are doing it wrong, simple as that. Marry someone who is better at handling money than you.
Maybe your doctor friends are so rich that you have lost track of what "modest lifestyle" means to most people vs you?
Now you know that's not true. How do you think congress became a millionaires' club? Who do you think finances elections?
Doesn't matter. Once you're elected you have a choice in every vote you make. Someone did you a favor and if you don't repay it you won't get *re*elected? Okay, so what. It's still the politician who is saying "I personally choose to support so-and-so corporation over the interests of the people, for my own gain in the future."
We now have corporations that are bigger and more powerful than all but a handful of countries. When a corporation that has more money than the GDP of Belgium comes calling, a politician will jump to its tune.
The corporations you're referring to are bigger than any person or small group of people, and they do nobody's bidding. Sure GE is bigger than many countries... so... what is their agenda? Who does it benefit? You think Big Shareholder #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, ..., #1449, #1450 (all still richer than me and you put together) are alllll in agreement and all getting the same kickbacks and special deals in exchange for some sort of inefficiency? (And if it's not an inefficiency then it's not hurting anybody..) There's a natural balance right there. If the top dog is getting a kickback, it's at the expense of everybody else.
Now that the limits have been removed from corporate money in elections, it cannot be said that "it's the politicians that enable the corporations" rather than the other way 'round.
Who put those limits in the law in the first place? Who removed them? Who has the power to raise taxes, pass laws, make today' legal actions tomorrow's crimes?
The only hope we have to avoid disaster is public funding of, and strict limits on, election financing.
Of course it's not a conflict of interest to have the government be the sole financier of government elections.
In the context I'm using it, "absolute" doesn't mean how many dollars you have. It just means what you can afford, without relation to what others can afford. If I'm in the bottom 1% of the population and I have a tv, that's an absolute asset. If 20 years later the bottom 1% has an hdtv, that's another absolute asset. One is better than the other, even though the relative wealth (bottom 1%) is the same.
I thought that's how you were using it too when you said "The poor now have access to things that a billionaire couldn't get 20 years ago." Phrases like "the poor" are relative -- they are poor compared to people who are rich, both today and 20 years ago. But "things" is absolute -- the poor now have HDTV, 20 years ago nobody had HDTV.
Public services disappeared and now we have to pay for many things we had for free.
What are some of the public services you're referring to? 20 years ago I was in elementary school so I'm not sure. I find it hard to believe that there were many more free things than we have today. Certainly the major public services (school, roads, libraries, parks, etc) haven't changed.
You're probably right about the speed, but I wonder about the dollars per berry as opposed to berries per second. Electricity is pretty cheap, I wonder how expensive the robots are and how long they last.
Some degree of government secrecy has always been needed. Government secrecy was as essential during the revolutionary war, as it is today.
Having read a number of the cables, I haven't seen a single one that I would say "yeah that was legitimately classified as 'secret'".
I know it won't happen but one result of this leak should simply be that every ambassador and embassy staffer in the government should be fired, just for abusing their powers in marking documents as secret. Let alone the disgusting recommendations they make for government policy.
By that logic it seems like every person serving in a foreign military is committing treason..
To me it's kind of obvious that a country's laws are going to apply only to that country and its residents.
The only secrecy being taken away is secrecy from the public, i.e. the people the government is *supposed* to be accountable to anyway.
Have you read the cables? Most of them are about dealings with representatives from other countries. Those representatives already know what the cables are about because they were at the same meetings. The purpose in classifying these cables is largely to keep the public unaware of the dirty games our politicians play. I've been reading cables from the Islamabad embassy in Pakistan.. it's disgusting. I can only imagine the variety of things that don't even get recorded in these cables. Democracy does not work if the government can successfully lie to the people and prosecute/shut down people who expose them.
The question is which group is larger and more meaningful:
1. The guys who reject items designed for women because the design necessarily sacrifices things that appeal to men, making other items more attractive to men.
2. The guys who just happen to like a product designed for women over all the available near-equivalent products designed for men.
I mean you are technically correct with your addition, but let's be honest.. most likely you pointed out that minor group to imply that the OP himself is insecure about his masculinity. I don't get why people do that. It's very immature.
Wow, you're pretty upset. You should read your post again though.. if anything you reinforced OP's assumptions.
Let me spell it out for you: OP said Microsoft and Sony sell a lot more than just a console. The losses on the console are made up by profits on the other items.
You said... GM sells a lot more than just Volts. That's parallel to OP's argument.
See how you are not contradicting OP's assumptions, but actually reinforcing them? Maybe you accidentally deleted a sentence before posting?
The key item that you missed, twice now, is what I said in my post. Sony and Microsoft's profits from other items are tied indirectly to the console. GM does sell more than just the Volt... but they would make the same profit on those other items even if the Volt was canceled.
You are admitting that the poor are better off today than they were 20 years ago.. but then apparently that doesn't matter! All that matters is that the rich are even richer. Like I said, I really don't understand what is motivating you except a grossly inflated sense of pride. Like it's worse for a poor person to suffer insults to their pride than it is to not have access to things that 20 years ago a billionaire didn't have access to.
Your economy is in the shitter because you've spent trillions chasing ghosts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Correction. We've spent trillions trying to "democratize" Afghanistan and Iraq. That's quite different than fighting terrorists as the GP suggested we do.
Is it possible that throughout history, lesser economic divides between rich and poor have led to greater power divides between "rich" and poor, simply because power was all that could be had over your fellow man?
If the claim that the economic divide is larger than ever, even restricted to the 20th century, isn't it also true that we have more regulations than ever (in the 20th century)? We've gone from the abuses described in "The Jungle" to... Wall Street people making big bonuses that make others jealous. When you put it in perspective it's quite minor.
If the income inequality is getting bigger, then we're getting worse. This is definitely a problem and should be stopped.
I don't think that's true for most resources. Assume poor people read 10 books per year and rich people read 100 books per year and reading books pretty much equates to knowledge.
Which situation is better:
1. Poor people start reading 20 books per year, rich people read 1000. Ratio increased (worsened) fivefold.
2. Poor people only read 5 books per year. Rich people only read 10. Ratio decreased (improved) fivefold.
To me situation 1 is better. Why do you care more about the relative level of reading (or wealth) and not more about the absolute level? The only thing I can think of is that you are motivated by pride more than anything else.
Are you suggesting GM currently sells or plans to sell services directly related to the Volt that will generate more revenue? The part you left out of your quote of GP tied the loss on the console directly to increased revenue from games *played on the console*. What's the analogous revenue stream for the Volt? Will GM start getting a share of electricity revenue from power companies?
I just learned today that in the TARP bailouts, the banks were made completely whole.
I read plenty of news about major losses at banks in the last few years. Are you suggesting the losses came only from non-troubled assets?
The surprising part is that they even bother to hold elections or convene congress any more. I understand that it's just theater now, but still, every dollar they spend to make it look like we're a sovereign nation is another dollar that doesn't go into the pockets of the most powerful corporations.
It's weird, I totally agree with you but we seem to hold different groups responsible. You blame corporations? It makes no sense to me. It's the politicians who enable the corporations, not the other way around. And the politicians don't stop there, they sell out to anybody for even the smallest gain, even for their egos. Look at the absolute garbage revealed by wikileaks for instance. There is an international club of politicians who scratch each others' backs, lie outrageously to the public (making it very difficult to even fantasize about holding them accountable), and back each other completely. And the consequences are lives, not just dollars for corporations. It's so much more serious than some companies who made easy money on bailout funds.
It's not a Ponzi scheme.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."
So yeah, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, except it's not fraudulent because we all know the deal. Not that we have the option of avoiding it..
Actually, the Government want to tax the wages of labor in return for entitlements (the New Deal). The People accepted. If 'Entitlements' are abolished then so must *all* taxes on the wages of labor, that was the original deal and I (and others) are not going to allow a renege. Right now labor is paying for the majority of the Federal Budget, without that revenue...
The deal for the major entitlements (SS and Medicare) are bogus. They are pyramid schemes. Back in the 50s the SS tax was 3% total. Now it's over 12%. Can you explain that? Did the people who started paying into the system in the 50s and 60s really pay their fair share? If so, why is there even a possibility of having a shortfall in SS and Medicare?
And no the answer is not that the government borrowed from the SS "fund". That borrowed money gets counted as an asset to SS, and there is still not enough money.
Fair enough, I don't know. I shouldn't have put that part in. I was reacting to other threads that are very similar, looking at the disparity in federal tax spending/receiving in blue states vs. red states. It's always pointed out that heavily Democratic states like California are "bailing out" the cheap red states, whose people are so stupid that they vote against their own interests, etc. Didn't really fit in with this thread now that I've reread it.
Okay, I'll bite.
What is the correct tax rate for the rich then so that they only pay for the service they actually receive? How do you calculate this number?
It's not nice to bite. I don't think many people (and certainly not me) are pushing for a 100% pay as you go government. I suppose it could be done by charging taxpayers for services as they use them, like toll roads and stuff.
If you can't make a supportable estimate then you are blowing smoke when you imply the rich are "over taxed". Note the simple existence of a progressive tax system in which those who have more pay more (the rule everywhere in the world - ours is one of least progressive) does not demonstrate this supposed "over-taxing".
Fair enough, but while I can't provide a solution, I think it's reasonable to point out that lumping federal taxpayers together into state-based groups like California and Utah is silly. Federal taxes aren't paid by states, so saying that one state is "bailing out" another because they pay more taxes doesn't make sense.
So why is it reasonable to treat the rich as an exploited demographic group and not a state? "Ridiculous" is not an argument.
Ah because we are talking about groups of people who pay more than they receive, and other groups that pay less than they receive. It's not meaningful to divide them geographically. Since our tax system is progressive, based on income, the most meaningful way to divide people is also based on income.
Or would you rather hear arguments like "white people pay more taxes, we are BAILING OUT black people." That is as true as the contention that California is bailing out Utah. Forget that rich people in Utah pay more taxes than middle income Californians, or that poor white people pay less taxes than Michael Jordan... it's irrelevant right?? Ignore income, look at arbitrary divisions instead!