The location isn't determinable from the file on the phone... But when your phone sees a cell tower it can query the database file ON THE PHONE, without telling Apple or anyone else, and determine a more close approximation.
helping the phone to identify its more exact location (within a few meters)
So yes, the phone does contain everything it needs to determine a 'close approximation' of your location.
That file, by definition, will never be "city block resolution". Also, Apple is addressing this by encrypting the file, culling it more quickly, and if you're really paranoid, you can just turn off location services, and the phone will delete the file.
So *now* Apple is encrypting the info, first admission of guilt, then culling it more quickly, 2nd admission, and oops, turning off location tracking does *not* turn off the location tracking. That's just 'a bug'.
The police can't just read it from your phone without either a search warrant or your consent.
Might want to talk to Michigan about that statement. They specifically now allow troopers to read data from your phone. Google 'michigan troopers reading cell phone' and enjoy reading. How long do you suspect before other states follow that lead?
The locations are cached because your phone was 'nearby' that location. And they are cached with a timestamp *when* you were nearby. So yes it does imply you've been at the locations in the cache at the time specified.
There is absolutely no way to derive the nine (your location) from the data set stored in the phone other than "somewhere in this general part of town", at most.
You might want to tell that Apple selling 'location based services'. If the location isn't determinable, those services aren't going to be very valuable...
And perhaps it isn't city block resolution 'yet'. If the cop pulls you over on one side of town, and there was a robbery on the other side of town in a cars similar to yours and your phone shows you withing a 'few' blocks of that robbery at that time?
They 'triangulate' your location based on nearby towers and wifi signals. It isn't the tower locations or you'd have the same data recorded hundreds of times.
And yes, keeping a history of where I've been even if it isn't 'down to the square foot, and doing it *secretly* in a way that cops can readily access when they pull me over? Yeah that's so *totally* not 'Apple's fault... just wow.
And how exactly do you plan to pay $0 for electricity?
Because the fuel is literally free? Of course there are infrastructure costs, but those exist with any power system.
The sea change in utility pricing when they *only* have to deal with infrastructure maintenance and not trucking/piping in daily loads of fuel will be staggering on the price.
Pricing on just supplementing our power usage with a home solar array is crazy. Upwards of $8,000 plus the cost of batteries every few years
Then you are pricing a larger system than you need. Residential solar doesn't need *any* batteries, it feeds power directly to the grid. By design it also doesn't work at all when the power is out (safety issue for line workers). Building a system that can run off grid on batteries is always going to be more expensive and isn't needed for the vast majority of residential systems.
You know what also would be expensive? everybody having their own generators. If you're comparing putting in a solar panel array of your own, you have to compare it to installing a generator AND paying for it's fuel. Then the cost is comparable. I'm talking about grid scale solar, so that the power plants themselves are solar, not individual system installations. That's a different type of thing, still viable and useful, but fundamentally different.
Lowering consumption is the way to a greener future
2 billion Chinese might beg to differ with you. Yes you can lower your usage 30%, but if population goes up 50%, it's still a net increase in usage.
Why pay for massive amounts of new infrastructure that will cost you more money when what you have is acceptable?
Because what we have *isn't* acceptable, that's the whole point. What we have now, coal/oil/gas, is destroying the very environment we need to survive.
I'm not saying efficiency isn't good, but when the fuel you're using is free, it simply doesn't matter as much (see my 50s car example earlier).
Because bureaucracies around the world are known for their lack of paperwork.
The response was for paperwork by the consumer which would be reduced since you don't have to 'justify' your sniffles.
And how the hell could it possibly be cheaper when you have the added friction for administrators and paper-pushers of the single-payer system?
Billion dollar profits? Sales costs? The list goes on. A 'private' insurance company has incentives, hell their fiduciary *duty*, to reduce the costs and make more money. There is no such requirement to provide 'better' service. Sure it's nice and maybe counterproductive to provide bad service, but when you have a gov't granted monopoly like health insurance co's, what's the downside? No one can compete against you.
You can regulate such monopolistic markets, but the GOP clearly doesn't like any regulation because it hurts companies profits.
Medicare is far cheaper per person than private industry because they simply don't have the overhead costs a private company does.
from the people who have actually 'studied' this issue:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.html
"Our best guess is that the location is determined by cell-tower triangulation, and the timing of the recording is erratic, with a widely varying frequency of updates that may be triggered by traveling between cells or activity on the phone itself."
It's not the tower locations, and is probably related to Assisted GPS used on iPhones
Such fine details are going to be dealt with by lawyers. *After* you are arrested. IANAL, but me thinks it's pretty standard logic that if a person's cell phone was tracked, likely it was that person who was in possession. It's not 'proof' but if it corroborates a suspicion, you will be detained.
There's a chasm of difference between proving in court and the standards an enforcement officer has to meet to decide it's reasonable to detain you.
BTW, in case you didn't know, every CELL CARRIER keeps this same information for EVERY cell phone, by LAW, in perpetuity
Yes I do know that. The cop pulling you over for speeding does *not* have access to that information and needs a damn warrant to get it. (not getting into whether the warrant thing is even true anymore (thanks GWB!).
Apple isn't using this information. The phone is.
Really? You don't see this data being misused in *any* way going forward? That its stored in plain text on PCs when you sync?
I'm not worried (much) about Apple using this data, I'm worried about other people using this data that Apple has so conveniently collected for them on *my* phone.
That and the friction from the atmosphere at ground levels would likely melt the thing anyway. So far the vast majority of our systems are going zero miles per hour when they leave the ground. They don't hit significant speeds until they are well up into the now less dense atmosphere.
Hybrid systems might be doable, but at some point you can't make it go faster at ground level due to the thick atmosphere and it's friction.
That said, all Apple is doing is making it *easier* to do. Phones have long tracked your location, they just didn't store it in a readily available format that an officer could read while standing next to your car.
Based on the articles, it's pretty clear you were traveling along a highway. That's more than enough to say you were in that area.
There is some debate over how accurate it is, since it isn't 'true' GPS. The fewer the towers the less accurate it is apparently. But in congested cities? Might be able to pin you down to a block at a certain time. And that's *plenty* to hold you for further questioning if they want too.
Same difference, or did mean something positive with that statement?
The rich already pay a higher percentage
Utter bullshit. They may have a higher 'rate', which frankly surprised me, but they don't actually pay that much. E.x. General Electric, billions in profits, ZERO in taxes. The rich also have much more access to cap gains 15% since they have more money in which to invest.
The poor should be uncomfortable in poverty, to encourage them to try again to reach their full potential.
If you think living on unemployment is in any way 'comfortable' or not an incentive to actually find a job, not sure what else can be done.
Frankly, this is a difficult issue. Because I, like you, do not want to see people starve, and live in the streets and to despair to the point that they feel their life is worthless. But I feel dependency perpetuates this state. There is no dignity in dependence! There are also those that will take advantage of the system, and expend all their energy in obtaining "something for nothing", avoiding having their talents and abilities judged at any cost, even that of their own self-esteem.
Here is where the brass tacks come home to roost. How do you deal with these situations? You acknowledge the problem but don't offer any solution. THAT is exactly what we're dealing with as a country right now. I offer them a helping hand, you seem to want to wave at them from across the street and keep moving.
These are valid and reasonable concerns. Fertility in space may quite literally not be traditional couple based, but IVF mix/max of the best DNA for diversity and then adoption by a couple. Best DNA mix and our standard pair bond society together.
This however is not.
until bodies evolve to reproduce naturally in the target environments (which will take eons)
If left to nature, sure, but genetic modification is likely going to be able to 'adapt' us a lot faster.
I appreciate that you're willing to postulate that lowering access to health care would increase mortality and other negative health care outcomes. Most commentators aren't willing to do that.
So many people think they should put $100 into their Health Insurance and get $10,000 in benefits out. If we all thought that, it wouldn't be sustainable - kind of like Social Security or Medicare.
Not quite. Medicare and Social Security are different animals and need to be treated as such. Your example of $100 in $10000 out is applicable to Medicare as it is to any insurance program. Not everybody is going to need expensive health care solutions. So everybody pays $100 and the small percentage that need the $10000 out can get it. Everybody is covered for it, but simple probability dictates that not all will need it so the model does work. The $100 buys you piece of mind that you'll be covered. It's what every insurance policy is really about at its heart. I pay a small monthly price so that I get a large payout under the proscribed conditions.
Social Security is a bit different. It is not a pay for benefit insurance plan. It is having current generation workers pay into the plan so that retirees will receive their pensions. Worked fabulously well when there were more workers than retirees. Now it does face the reverse situation of more retirees than workers so it is less and less sustainable over the coming decades. Unrelated, the fed gov't has been taking the yearly surplus of SocSec to make the yearly deficits smaller and putting IOUs in the trust fund. This bad bad bad and both parties have done so, though I think it was Johnson (D) who first unified the budget and started this mess. So we need to reduce the number of recipients of SocSec relative to the available workers. Since we aren't likely to see a vast influx of new workers (not even the Mexican illegals are enough!), that means fewer recipients. One way to achieve this is to make SocSec benefits 'means tested'. Basically we don't need to pay Bill Gates or Warren Buffet their SocSec. They have plenty and fully agree they shouldn't be paid. But they will because it's the law. How about we set a level at which people no longer receive SocSec payments, graduated for income. We do this for every other aspect of the tax code, it's completely doable. That will reduce the number of people to which we have to pay out SocSec benefits.
SocSec may not be balanced entirely in this way so there may be a need to reduce payments or increase the retirement age. Reasonable solutions to the problem that don't require massive reforms.
If you're healthy, why have health insurance?
If you're not healthy, who is fool enough to offer you "insurance" when it's pretty certain you're going to cost more than they bring in? Just us tax payers.
But what if you told an insurance company they had to cover everybody but we'd guarantee the healthy would participate. Now you have the young low cost healthy people subsidizing the older high cost people. As long as everybody participates more people pay in than take out and so it works financially, no suckers required. And yes, this is exactly what ACA does.
But but, everybody gets old! Yes they do. But not every young person gets old. So more pay in than pay out. You also price things based on average life expectancy so that costs even out. More young people paying a higher amount means you can cover more old people. On top of that, universal health care leads to healthier populations since nobody is worried about paying uninsured prices which are heavily inflated before going to the doctor. This means that even when old, these people will cost less money than people who don't take care of themselves.
BTW, don't the rich already pay more in taxes than the poor?
No they don't. Sure they pay more actual dollars but they make more of the money and they pay a
Really? what exactly wrong with the comparison? other than trying to compare something digital with something physical which is at best specious.
The point is that once a physical good is made it has no more manufacturing costs. Digital things require continuous power regardless of whether anybody is using it. You can get into hibernation and other such mechanisms, but the general point is the same.
You know why you want to subsidize Grandma? because you have a Grandma and you will be elderly one day. Go price insurance for 65+ with a few medical problems and you won't be so glib about making people fend for themselves.
The Liberals don't want to pay for the BP cleanup, we don't want them drilling period. GOP gets the blame for gutting regulation on such matters.
You know what would save you all that paperwork? Single Payer Government health care. No paperwork at all, you just get service when you get the sniffles. And it would be cheaper per capita than paying yourself.
Funny how supply side proponents loved it when it endorsed the Bush tax cuts grudgingly (having forced the sunset in that the GOP held the middle class hostage with when it came time to actually sunset them).
We can't TAX enough to solve the problems, either. We have to do both. It's going to be painful for everyone, but some people don't want any pain for themselves, and just want to point fingers.
What part of reforming medicare and social security to offer fewer benefits is not taking 'pain' for the middle class/poor? Asking the rich to actually pay the same rates as everybody else is only fair. As for capital gains taxes, yes make them 'normal' income. What sort of pain are you asking the rich to accept? I don't see that in your answer. And only one side has proposed both cuts and taxes....and it ain't the GOP.
But you want to take all the investment opportunities away and use it to feed and clothe the idle.
Yeah, see here's the difference. You view anyone as being involuntarily unemployed the same as the bum who won't work. They aren't the same. Morever, giving money to these people *will* increase demand because they actually spend a higher percentage of their now reduced income. Sure they can blow through savings, but hey, they don't deserve a future because their lazy idle bums.
By keeping the 10% unemployed actively spending even at reduced rates, you keep jobs that would be lost and create new ones, rather than having the downward spiral of layoffs to reduced demand to more layoffs.
As for your criticisms of the Progressive Caucus' budget, I understand you don't like it. That doesn't mean it won't work.
You still haven't come up with what actually, real assets are supposed to be backing up all that imaginary money that you are going to give away - even if it's true that more imaginary money magically appears as a result.
Here you show your ignorance. Money is not based on actual real assets. Hasn't been for decades. You may like the Gold Standard, but it doesn't work in today's economy.
Slashdot Mirror
The location isn't determinable from the file on the phone... But when your phone sees a cell tower it can query the database file ON THE PHONE, without telling Apple or anyone else, and determine a more close approximation.
helping the phone to identify its more exact location (within a few meters)
So yes, the phone does contain everything it needs to determine a 'close approximation' of your location.
That file, by definition, will never be "city block resolution". Also, Apple is addressing this by encrypting the file, culling it more quickly, and if you're really paranoid, you can just turn off location services, and the phone will delete the file.
So *now* Apple is encrypting the info, first admission of guilt, then culling it more quickly, 2nd admission, and oops, turning off location tracking does *not* turn off the location tracking. That's just 'a bug'.
The police can't just read it from your phone without either a search warrant or your consent.
Might want to talk to Michigan about that statement. They specifically now allow troopers to read data from your phone. Google 'michigan troopers reading cell phone' and enjoy reading. How long do you suspect before other states follow that lead?
The locations are cached because your phone was 'nearby' that location. And they are cached with a timestamp *when* you were nearby. So yes it does imply you've been at the locations in the cache at the time specified.
There is absolutely no way to derive the nine (your location) from the data set stored in the phone other than "somewhere in this general part of town", at most.
You might want to tell that Apple selling 'location based services'. If the location isn't determinable, those services aren't going to be very valuable...
And perhaps it isn't city block resolution 'yet'. If the cop pulls you over on one side of town, and there was a robbery on the other side of town in a cars similar to yours and your phone shows you withing a 'few' blocks of that robbery at that time?
So it's a set of points that allow it to figure out where it is.
How is that not recording where you are? 3, 3 and 3 are data points. 9 is the calculation. Why is storing 3, 3, 3 ok, but 9 is bad?
So because they're recording 3, 3 and 3 it's ok, but if they recorded 9, that would be bad?
If they have the points to calculate triangulation, they have the triangulated points.
That's assuming it's a 'bug' that it didn't stop recording your location...
They 'triangulate' your location based on nearby towers and wifi signals. It isn't the tower locations or you'd have the same data recorded hundreds of times.
And yes, keeping a history of where I've been even if it isn't 'down to the square foot, and doing it *secretly* in a way that cops can readily access when they pull me over? Yeah that's so *totally* not 'Apple's fault... just wow.
And how exactly do you plan to pay $0 for electricity?
Because the fuel is literally free? Of course there are infrastructure costs, but those exist with any power system.
The sea change in utility pricing when they *only* have to deal with infrastructure maintenance and not trucking/piping in daily loads of fuel will be staggering on the price.
Pricing on just supplementing our power usage with a home solar array is crazy. Upwards of $8,000 plus the cost of batteries every few years
Then you are pricing a larger system than you need. Residential solar doesn't need *any* batteries, it feeds power directly to the grid. By design it also doesn't work at all when the power is out (safety issue for line workers). Building a system that can run off grid on batteries is always going to be more expensive and isn't needed for the vast majority of residential systems.
You know what also would be expensive? everybody having their own generators. If you're comparing putting in a solar panel array of your own, you have to compare it to installing a generator AND paying for it's fuel. Then the cost is comparable. I'm talking about grid scale solar, so that the power plants themselves are solar, not individual system installations. That's a different type of thing, still viable and useful, but fundamentally different.
Lowering consumption is the way to a greener future
2 billion Chinese might beg to differ with you. Yes you can lower your usage 30%, but if population goes up 50%, it's still a net increase in usage.
Why pay for massive amounts of new infrastructure that will cost you more money when what you have is acceptable?
Because what we have *isn't* acceptable, that's the whole point. What we have now, coal/oil/gas, is destroying the very environment we need to survive.
I'm not saying efficiency isn't good, but when the fuel you're using is free, it simply doesn't matter as much (see my 50s car example earlier).
Because bureaucracies around the world are known for their lack of paperwork.
The response was for paperwork by the consumer which would be reduced since you don't have to 'justify' your sniffles.
And how the hell could it possibly be cheaper when you have the added friction for administrators and paper-pushers of the single-payer system?
Billion dollar profits? Sales costs? The list goes on. A 'private' insurance company has incentives, hell their fiduciary *duty*, to reduce the costs and make more money. There is no such requirement to provide 'better' service. Sure it's nice and maybe counterproductive to provide bad service, but when you have a gov't granted monopoly like health insurance co's, what's the downside? No one can compete against you.
You can regulate such monopolistic markets, but the GOP clearly doesn't like any regulation because it hurts companies profits.
Medicare is far cheaper per person than private industry because they simply don't have the overhead costs a private company does.
I was going to say pshaw, *I* can provide "technology for a submersible that could take ocean explorers 36,000 feet deep".
It's called a rock, a big honking rock.
But metal will work too. Kudos to you sir!
from the people who have actually 'studied' this issue:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.html
"Our best guess is that the location is determined by cell-tower triangulation, and the timing of the recording is erratic, with a widely varying frequency of updates that may be triggered by traveling between cells or activity on the phone itself."
It's not the tower locations, and is probably related to Assisted GPS used on iPhones
using this perhaps?
Such fine details are going to be dealt with by lawyers. *After* you are arrested. IANAL, but me thinks it's pretty standard logic that if a person's cell phone was tracked, likely it was that person who was in possession. It's not 'proof' but if it corroborates a suspicion, you will be detained.
There's a chasm of difference between proving in court and the standards an enforcement officer has to meet to decide it's reasonable to detain you.
BTW, in case you didn't know, every CELL CARRIER keeps this same information for EVERY cell phone, by LAW, in perpetuity
Yes I do know that. The cop pulling you over for speeding does *not* have access to that information and needs a damn warrant to get it. (not getting into whether the warrant thing is even true anymore (thanks GWB!).
Apple isn't using this information. The phone is.
Really? You don't see this data being misused in *any* way going forward? That its stored in plain text on PCs when you sync?
I'm not worried (much) about Apple using this data, I'm worried about other people using this data that Apple has so conveniently collected for them on *my* phone.
That and the friction from the atmosphere at ground levels would likely melt the thing anyway. So far the vast majority of our systems are going zero miles per hour when they leave the ground. They don't hit significant speeds until they are well up into the now less dense atmosphere.
Hybrid systems might be doable, but at some point you can't make it go faster at ground level due to the thick atmosphere and it's friction.
Android is already doing this.
That said, all Apple is doing is making it *easier* to do. Phones have long tracked your location, they just didn't store it in a readily available format that an officer could read while standing next to your car.
Based on the articles, it's pretty clear you were traveling along a highway. That's more than enough to say you were in that area.
There is some debate over how accurate it is, since it isn't 'true' GPS. The fewer the towers the less accurate it is apparently. But in congested cities? Might be able to pin you down to a block at a certain time. And that's *plenty* to hold you for further questioning if they want too.
I don't know what the CBO is smoking
Same difference, or did mean something positive with that statement?
The rich already pay a higher percentage
Utter bullshit. They may have a higher 'rate', which frankly surprised me, but they don't actually pay that much. E.x. General Electric, billions in profits, ZERO in taxes. The rich also have much more access to cap gains 15% since they have more money in which to invest.
The poor should be uncomfortable in poverty, to encourage them to try again to reach their full potential.
If you think living on unemployment is in any way 'comfortable' or not an incentive to actually find a job, not sure what else can be done.
Frankly, this is a difficult issue. Because I, like you, do not want to see people starve, and live in the streets and to despair to the point that they feel their life is worthless. But I feel dependency perpetuates this state. There is no dignity in dependence! There are also those that will take advantage of the system, and expend all their energy in obtaining "something for nothing", avoiding having their talents and abilities judged at any cost, even that of their own self-esteem.
Here is where the brass tacks come home to roost. How do you deal with these situations? You acknowledge the problem but don't offer any solution. THAT is exactly what we're dealing with as a country right now. I offer them a helping hand, you seem to want to wave at them from across the street and keep moving.
You argue that saving money for retirement (including insurance during retirement) sucks money out of the economy and causes it to be weaker.
No I'm saying that removing Social Security and Medicare will cause *more*, lots more, money to go out of the consumer economy and into savings.
Of course it doesn't leave the economy, but like your crazy uncle Bob, it doesn't get out much and there doesn't circulate creating revenue.
That will mean a lot less 'demand' as people reduce their discretionary spending.
This however is not.
until bodies evolve to reproduce naturally in the target environments (which will take eons)
If left to nature, sure, but genetic modification is likely going to be able to 'adapt' us a lot faster.
child porn in the first place. Are people who download kiddie porn known to be heavily armed?
Well just one of them....
Thank you, I'll be hear all week, try the veal!
So many people think they should put $100 into their Health Insurance and get $10,000 in benefits out. If we all thought that, it wouldn't be sustainable - kind of like Social Security or Medicare.
Not quite. Medicare and Social Security are different animals and need to be treated as such. Your example of $100 in $10000 out is applicable to Medicare as it is to any insurance program. Not everybody is going to need expensive health care solutions. So everybody pays $100 and the small percentage that need the $10000 out can get it. Everybody is covered for it, but simple probability dictates that not all will need it so the model does work. The $100 buys you piece of mind that you'll be covered. It's what every insurance policy is really about at its heart. I pay a small monthly price so that I get a large payout under the proscribed conditions.
Social Security is a bit different. It is not a pay for benefit insurance plan. It is having current generation workers pay into the plan so that retirees will receive their pensions. Worked fabulously well when there were more workers than retirees. Now it does face the reverse situation of more retirees than workers so it is less and less sustainable over the coming decades. Unrelated, the fed gov't has been taking the yearly surplus of SocSec to make the yearly deficits smaller and putting IOUs in the trust fund. This bad bad bad and both parties have done so, though I think it was Johnson (D) who first unified the budget and started this mess. So we need to reduce the number of recipients of SocSec relative to the available workers. Since we aren't likely to see a vast influx of new workers (not even the Mexican illegals are enough!), that means fewer recipients. One way to achieve this is to make SocSec benefits 'means tested'. Basically we don't need to pay Bill Gates or Warren Buffet their SocSec. They have plenty and fully agree they shouldn't be paid. But they will because it's the law. How about we set a level at which people no longer receive SocSec payments, graduated for income. We do this for every other aspect of the tax code, it's completely doable. That will reduce the number of people to which we have to pay out SocSec benefits.
SocSec may not be balanced entirely in this way so there may be a need to reduce payments or increase the retirement age. Reasonable solutions to the problem that don't require massive reforms.
If you're healthy, why have health insurance?
If you're not healthy, who is fool enough to offer you "insurance" when it's pretty certain you're going to cost more than they bring in? Just us tax payers.
But what if you told an insurance company they had to cover everybody but we'd guarantee the healthy would participate. Now you have the young low cost healthy people subsidizing the older high cost people. As long as everybody participates more people pay in than take out and so it works financially, no suckers required. And yes, this is exactly what ACA does.
But but, everybody gets old! Yes they do. But not every young person gets old. So more pay in than pay out. You also price things based on average life expectancy so that costs even out. More young people paying a higher amount means you can cover more old people. On top of that, universal health care leads to healthier populations since nobody is worried about paying uninsured prices which are heavily inflated before going to the doctor. This means that even when old, these people will cost less money than people who don't take care of themselves.
BTW, don't the rich already pay more in taxes than the poor?
No they don't. Sure they pay more actual dollars but they make more of the money and they pay a
Really? what exactly wrong with the comparison? other than trying to compare something digital with something physical which is at best specious.
The point is that once a physical good is made it has no more manufacturing costs. Digital things require continuous power regardless of whether anybody is using it. You can get into hibernation and other such mechanisms, but the general point is the same.
You know why you want to subsidize Grandma? because you have a Grandma and you will be elderly one day. Go price insurance for 65+ with a few medical problems and you won't be so glib about making people fend for themselves.
The Liberals don't want to pay for the BP cleanup, we don't want them drilling period. GOP gets the blame for gutting regulation on such matters.
You know what would save you all that paperwork? Single Payer Government health care. No paperwork at all, you just get service when you get the sniffles. And it would be cheaper per capita than paying yourself.
"The CBO is just wrong."
Funny how supply side proponents loved it when it endorsed the Bush tax cuts grudgingly (having forced the sunset in that the GOP held the middle class hostage with when it came time to actually sunset them).
We can't TAX enough to solve the problems, either. We have to do both. It's going to be painful for everyone, but some people don't want any pain for themselves, and just want to point fingers.
What part of reforming medicare and social security to offer fewer benefits is not taking 'pain' for the middle class/poor? Asking the rich to actually pay the same rates as everybody else is only fair. As for capital gains taxes, yes make them 'normal' income. What sort of pain are you asking the rich to accept? I don't see that in your answer. And only one side has proposed both cuts and taxes....and it ain't the GOP.
But you want to take all the investment opportunities away and use it to feed and clothe the idle.
Yeah, see here's the difference. You view anyone as being involuntarily unemployed the same as the bum who won't work. They aren't the same. Morever, giving money to these people *will* increase demand because they actually spend a higher percentage of their now reduced income. Sure they can blow through savings, but hey, they don't deserve a future because their lazy idle bums.
By keeping the 10% unemployed actively spending even at reduced rates, you keep jobs that would be lost and create new ones, rather than having the downward spiral of layoffs to reduced demand to more layoffs.
As for your criticisms of the Progressive Caucus' budget, I understand you don't like it. That doesn't mean it won't work.
You still haven't come up with what actually, real assets are supposed to be backing up all that imaginary money that you are going to give away - even if it's true that more imaginary money magically appears as a result.
Here you show your ignorance. Money is not based on actual real assets. Hasn't been for decades. You may like the Gold Standard, but it doesn't work in today's economy.