Hell, just get rid of the stock market entirely. The way it operates now isn't built to actually invest in the future of a company and thus the economy.
I agree. It wouldn't even have to be huge increases all at once. For me, cutting taxes is equally as bad as spending even more. Keeping taxes low is equally as effective as those $300 checks we got from Bush a while back.
"[...] when in reality they don't want to make the changes necessary to actually balance their budget."
This I think is the core of the problem. We have a pile of men and women in power who aren't working to solve problems so much as to push agendas. This applies to either side.
I know we all love our space projects here and I'm no exception - but the reality is that part of recovering from this unfathomly huge deficit is cutting spending.
If you were looking at your finances and were trying to take care of your debt aggressively you'd cut damned near anything not necessary. I can't really fault the politicians for this per se, but if they're going to make the programs we love suffer they need to continue cutting elsewhere as well (which appears to be happening relatively slowly and painfully). I've heard them mention there'd be sacrifice and thus I'd also like to see them cut their own benefits and salaries; however, I haven't seen such occur yet. (If it has and I've somehow missed it by all means educate me).
My questions to you all: -If we start slashing budgets in this manner how does this affect jobs? Obviously there will be layoffs but will it be on a scale that's more/less devastating to our economy as a whole? -Would you approach this specific funding issue differently? -What else would you cut?
You nailed some very good points there. This one particularly stuck out " I don't think W. did the right thing, but for the life of me I don't know what the right thing was."
How do you approach the next evolution of war? It reminds me of the transition of formal warfare into guerrilla warfare. Those who don't get a clue and adopt similar styles typically end up defeated.
What's interesting is that with every new stage of warfare we take one step further of removing the "humanity" from it. Like the step from knives to guns, now guns to IEDs with our countermeasure being fighting a lot of it remotely with drones - removing the human all but entirely.
So yeah - how on earth do you approach such an animal?
What do you propose we do about said drunk drivers? It's not like it's legal to do so. Should be try prohibition again?
I don't disagree that drunk drivers are assholes but it's an entirely separate matter here.
Also, the events on 9/11 occurred with determination to take as many lives possible. Drunk drivers are typically just trying to get to point A to point B. Comparing the two is just asinine.
Also, WTF, USA? Where are 10 towers in place of those 2, 10 that are 5 times as tall?
Hah - this made me chuckle a little. Thanks.:)
I really don't know what happened. I'm not terribly old but this isn't the America I always heard about. Despite us slinging bullets in what feels like every direction I still feel like our nation is weaker than ever. There doesn't appear to be much focus. No exact mission. And our country is divided in some of the strangest ways (tea party anyone?).
While he wasn't my first choice when there was "change you can believe in" Ron Paul is starting to look pretty good for precisely what you mention. Seems like the only few politicians who give a shit about the constitution and ensuring our freedoms our protected. You know - all the things that were supposed to make America great.
I'll just quote exactly what the poster above you said:
However, the flip side is also true. The blogger did not take it to court. She made a public statement on her blog. Now, that's generally protected under the 1st amendment. But the 1st amendment doesn't cover libel, slander or - more generally - defamation. Obviously the statements made by the blogger stand to have a seriously harmful effect on the TSA employee. However, to make a defamation charge stick, she'll have to prove that it is defamation: to wit, whereas the blogger would have to prove in charging rape that rape did happen, the TSA employee will have to prove that it did not happen. This seems moderately more likely than proving the rape charge, if the TSA employee can show specific TSA requirements or training that would cause her to treat the blogger in such a fashion, but it most likely comes to the same issue: lack of evidence.
Pretty much my immediate thoughts. The claims by the blogger are pretty severe for this agent to just let slide if it's true. And if it's not - well hopefully we'll find out in the court of law. I get that we all don't like the TSA but at the end of the day they're all humans too. Eye for an eye isn't justice in my book - especially when you're just firing wildly into crowds of potentially innocent people.
TSA or not - why should this person allow someone to make such statements if they were blatantly false?
What I don't understand is how this is a "win". Yes, the court slapped SH on the wrist, but they still ruled against them. No beneficial precedent is set that I can see.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, just get rid of the stock market entirely. The way it operates now isn't built to actually invest in the future of a company and thus the economy.
I agree. It wouldn't even have to be huge increases all at once. For me, cutting taxes is equally as bad as spending even more. Keeping taxes low is equally as effective as those $300 checks we got from Bush a while back.
That's a good analogy for this.
"[...] when in reality they don't want to make the changes necessary to actually balance their budget."
This I think is the core of the problem. We have a pile of men and women in power who aren't working to solve problems so much as to push agendas. This applies to either side.
I know we all love our space projects here and I'm no exception - but the reality is that part of recovering from this unfathomly huge deficit is cutting spending.
If you were looking at your finances and were trying to take care of your debt aggressively you'd cut damned near anything not necessary. I can't really fault the politicians for this per se, but if they're going to make the programs we love suffer they need to continue cutting elsewhere as well (which appears to be happening relatively slowly and painfully). I've heard them mention there'd be sacrifice and thus I'd also like to see them cut their own benefits and salaries; however, I haven't seen such occur yet. (If it has and I've somehow missed it by all means educate me).
My questions to you all:
-If we start slashing budgets in this manner how does this affect jobs? Obviously there will be layoffs but will it be on a scale that's more/less devastating to our economy as a whole?
-Would you approach this specific funding issue differently?
-What else would you cut?
Which only applies to warfare and prisoners of war.
Apparently not if you call them enemy combatants.
So mandatory DUI checkpoints at all intersections? Breathalyzers on cars?
I've got to ask - how many times have you seen a drunk driver pulled over who was allowed back on the road? What you're implying is borderline absurd.
Dang.
You nailed some very good points there. This one particularly stuck out " I don't think W. did the right thing, but for the life of me I don't know what the right thing was."
How do you approach the next evolution of war? It reminds me of the transition of formal warfare into guerrilla warfare. Those who don't get a clue and adopt similar styles typically end up defeated.
What's interesting is that with every new stage of warfare we take one step further of removing the "humanity" from it. Like the step from knives to guns, now guns to IEDs with our countermeasure being fighting a lot of it remotely with drones - removing the human all but entirely.
So yeah - how on earth do you approach such an animal?
What do you propose we do about said drunk drivers? It's not like it's legal to do so. Should be try prohibition again?
I don't disagree that drunk drivers are assholes but it's an entirely separate matter here.
Also, the events on 9/11 occurred with determination to take as many lives possible. Drunk drivers are typically just trying to get to point A to point B. Comparing the two is just asinine.
Also, WTF, USA? Where are 10 towers in place of those 2, 10 that are 5 times as tall?
Hah - this made me chuckle a little. Thanks. :)
I really don't know what happened. I'm not terribly old but this isn't the America I always heard about. Despite us slinging bullets in what feels like every direction I still feel like our nation is weaker than ever. There doesn't appear to be much focus. No exact mission. And our country is divided in some of the strangest ways (tea party anyone?).
While he wasn't my first choice when there was "change you can believe in" Ron Paul is starting to look pretty good for precisely what you mention. Seems like the only few politicians who give a shit about the constitution and ensuring our freedoms our protected. You know - all the things that were supposed to make America great.
For some reason it always surprises me how people on the internet will still go for the low blows even in the face of another's humility...
Wasn't fooled - AT&T and Cingular became one company. Rates increased. Nothing more to say on the matter.
How in the hell does acquiring a company like this result in MORE competition?
And lower rates? Just like us Cingular customers got? Yeah, right.
How can they even make such claims - that's damned near perjury.
Well said.
Why hasn't the blogger pressed charges?
You're assuming everything the blogger has alleged is true. In other words, guilty until proven innocent.
I'll just quote exactly what the poster above you said:
However, the flip side is also true. The blogger did not take it to court. She made a public statement on her blog. Now, that's generally protected under the 1st amendment. But the 1st amendment doesn't cover libel, slander or - more generally - defamation. Obviously the statements made by the blogger stand to have a seriously harmful effect on the TSA employee. However, to make a defamation charge stick, she'll have to prove that it is defamation: to wit, whereas the blogger would have to prove in charging rape that rape did happen, the TSA employee will have to prove that it did not happen. This seems moderately more likely than proving the rape charge, if the TSA employee can show specific TSA requirements or training that would cause her to treat the blogger in such a fashion, but it most likely comes to the same issue: lack of evidence.
I totally see this sparking an entire evolution of lifeforms on Mars. If they're smart they'll worship the rover. ;)
Thirded.
Pretty much my immediate thoughts. The claims by the blogger are pretty severe for this agent to just let slide if it's true. And if it's not - well hopefully we'll find out in the court of law. I get that we all don't like the TSA but at the end of the day they're all humans too. Eye for an eye isn't justice in my book - especially when you're just firing wildly into crowds of potentially innocent people.
TSA or not - why should this person allow someone to make such statements if they were blatantly false?
"California Pyro 1 Card Required"
What I don't understand is how this is a "win". Yes, the court slapped SH on the wrist, but they still ruled against them. No beneficial precedent is set that I can see.
[...]how business works. Except for the business of lining their own pockets, of course.
Isn't that the same thing?
I'd join Microsoft in a flash - except all their senior staff are butt-ugly.
Then just think of them all as professional wingmen!
Beats the hell out of the ping pong tables at google. At least MS knows to use them for beer pong.
Simple difference: intent.