" The vast majority of posts here *always* blame the U.S. for every problem going on in the world.
This is an exaggeration, but there is some truth to it. This is one of the ways that our increasingly polarized society expresses itself. There are also many people who *never* acknowledge that the US has been a poor public citizen in the world. Not always, but we have had our bad moments.
As with any conflict it is no one's fault entirely. There are always things that both sides of a conflict could do to make things better. An honest discussion of current radical muslim terrorism (for example) would take into account the repressive and nihilist fundamentalism of the "terrorists" but would also recognize that the US has been overthrowing governments, exploiting local populations, and generally fscking with the Middle East region for half a century at least. This is bound to piss people off. Like the Merovingian said, it's all cause and effect.
"Brutal dictators that murder their own people? Blame us."
Again, this is one side of the issue. You may not like it (I sure don't) but we have, and continue to, arm brutal dictators around the world for our own purposes. It does not absolve the dictators of being brutal, but it is dishonest to pretend we had nothing to do with it. When Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds, or the Iranians, he was doing it with the knowledge and implicit consent of the United States government. Hell, we gave him sattelite pictures of Iranian troop movements so he could better target them with chemical weapons! But this is never discussed in public. Why is it unpatriotic to point out when my country is behaving badly?
But as to why I am so hard on the US, it's because it's my country. I care more about how my country acts on the world stage (and domestically too of course). When George Bush says you are with us or against us, he is speaking for me. When he says the US won't join the world court because it won't give us immunity, he makes me look like a hypocrite.
I am hard on the US because I love the US. It is still the best country to live in IMHO. I cherish the rights and freedoms we have, and I am upset when I see them threatened. Not by an invading army, but by my own government.
"Maybe they should start acting a bit more rational and patriotic - and a bit less like homo pinko commie politcally correct appeaser pacifist traitors."
This type of language undermines whatever point you were making. The motto "My country, right or wrong" is not patriotic, it is nationalistic. There's a difference.
"Your construction workers comment is just cheap. If these people had a better skill that they could and would like to offer, I am sure they would. If they want to be millionares, then they have to find a skill that is worth that."
Better skill? You owe the floor you are standing on to a construction worker. You owe modern civilization itself to construction workers. The point I was making is that people are not paid based on their work, their skills, or their value to society. They are paid based on the amount of money they can make for someone else. This is why my company pays me as little as they can. I don;t directly contribute to the bottom line.
Why does a CEO make 500% more than a teacher? Because he works 500% harder? Hardly. He gets paid that because he makes the decisions that enable the company to increase it's profits. If he does not increase company profits he will be replaced. Pro athletes are paid huge sums because their playing attracts more people to buy tickets and beer. The fact is that that CEO would have no building to sit in and the athlete no stadium to play in were it not for construction workers. But the worker gets paid squat compared with the other two, even though it is his labor that makes it all possible. Go read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich and tell me how much you think hard work and success are correlated.
Ok, I can dig the difference between local and federal taxes. States and municipalities get money from the federal gov't though. But maybe that would be made up for in higher local taxes.
But I am sure you realize that we spend an astronomical amount of money on our military. And then there's the 10% of yours and my taxes that pay the interest on the national debt every year. And the federal gov't regulates interstate commerce, which requires a bureaucracy. I am not saying that every gov't program is good or appropriate. But I do think I benefit from another person's being helped by the gov't if need be. I am not talking about a hand-out. But case in point: In 2001 I was laid off from my job and was without one for 4 months. Would it have been better for me to lose my apartment and be on the street, or to have the gov't help me with unemployment? You may not think you benefit from my having a place to live and food to eat, but you do. Indirectly, but you do.
That was coherent and concise. Thank you. You make good points and have given me something to think about. Some counter points though:
"You don't have to register a screwdriver or welding torch, and you could easily kill someone with either of those, so why would you have to register firearms?"
Because a firearm's intended purpose is to kill things, the exception being target shooting. This is not the case with other tools. It's been said that any tool is a weapon if you hold it right. But a gun is a weapon that can be a tool if you use it right.
"Sure, they can knock on your door and demand you turn your firearms over, but it's easy enough to tell them you don't have any--and they can't prove otherwise."
I think that if the gov't is at the point of coming to your door and asking about your guns, they'd probably just bust in a search your house. In this day and age I don't think an armed populace can defend itself against a gov't anyway. Look at the insurgents in Iraq. They have RPG's but they won't be able to defeat the US militarily. We may have guns, but the gov't has tanks and missiles. But I guess if there is no registration, there are a lot more houses to search.
"Then there's another group of people which doesn't think the government has any business regulating what they can and can't have in their homes. It's mine, I paid for it, and it's none of your damned business. There are many people here who are very particular about their privacy."
I can definitely get behind that.
Personally, I don't think much about guns or their registration, as I do not own one and have little desire to. Though I have gone shooting with friends, and had a good time. I live in a major city and view guns as rather unnecessary and often hazardous. Your examples of ranchers and the like are different circumstances, of course. Basically, I support a person's right to own a gun, but would advise them not to. Thanks again for the food for thought!
"The lure of America and the American Dream is self-determination. Not subserviant service to a government."
Jeez, dude. What part of the country do you live in that you are so burdened by government coersion? Other than having to go to work every day, I do pretty much as I please. Hey, wait a minute. I have to go to work every day. That makes me a slave to my company. Sure, I could quit. But I'd just have to find a different master, err, employer. Or I could go into business for myself. But that requires capital, which I would again have to work for.
I have to eat three times a day, does that make me a slave to my stomach?
"You work hard, you get a head."
Thanks, but I already have a head. But seriously! If only that were true. How many millionaire construction workers do you know? Hell, people who work hard would get even less if we didn't have unions and labor laws and other such tyrannies.
"If every person put the money that the govt confiscates for SS into a private account like Chile does, our social security checks would be twice as big!"
This is pure hyperbole. Twice as much? Are you really positing that stocks outperform bonds 2 to 1? Cuz that's what SS is; government bonds.
I must say I am often curious about people who are so anti-tax. You'd think you pay money and never see any benefit. Yes, we pay taxes (some of the lowest in the world BTW) but we get things like streets and parks and police and firefighters and a military and a court system and, yes, Social Security. And despite what the president tells you, you are quite likely to see a benefit. You are correct that Congress could just stop paying SS benefits. But this is the case with any law or program. Besides, go ask any senator, turning off the tap on SS would be political suicide. A sizeable majority of Americans like SS, and politicians need to get re-elected. Why do you think so many Republicans are reluctant to get on board with the president?
"Mini-PCs are nothing new, Apple wasn't first. Get off the high horse. It's a market that has existed before now and never caught on because it's not what people have wanted (especially since it normally meant paying more for the smaller design)"
Not so fast! The Windows PC market has not responded to mini computers. However, Apple has been making money in this market for some time. Beginning back with the Mac Classic (or perhaps even before) Apple has had success with small and All-in-one designs. People (not just Mac users) OOH andD AAH over the new iMacs. Plus, the new Mac Mini is the cheapest Mac available. So one is not paying a premium for the small size. It's true that Apple is not first. But Apple has shown that they can succeed where others have failed. Personally I have heard many positive reactions to the Mac Mini from PC users. And it's already spawned two converts that I know of.
Well, yes and no. What Apple understands, and others do not, is that aesthetics can make a big difference even in the home PC market. I followed the link in your post. The Shuttles are certainly small, though not as small as the Mini, I think. But they're ugly! They have an industrial/utilitarian look to them. It's like Will Smith said to Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black, "The difference between you and me is that I make this look good."
Good point! I also don't like the one button mouse. Having a second button and scroll wheel/third button is indespensible to me on my Mac. But I have spoken with Windows users, even, who don't know what the second button is for! The single button mouse is Apple's continuing attempt to keep it simple. And besides, Logitech makes a decent wheel mouse for $20.
Insightful? More like rant. But I can dig it. I think that Linux is ready for the desktop, especially for the home user. But to say that Linux users are more intelligent is a canard. Your friend's 14 year old son can pick it up quickly because he is 14. Kids learn quickly and are more open to new things. I agree that most Linux users are more proficient with computers. But that is because, until recently they had to be! Linux was not always (and sometimes still isn't) easy to install and configure.
Most people don't know much about computers because they don't think they need to or are not interested. There is nothing objectively wrong with this. I think the car analogy is appropriate here. Most people don't know enough about cars to fix one, but they want to use them. Personally, I set my family up with Mac's and they have few problems. But for x86, Linux is the way to go.
I'm sure it's an undocumented feature, but I have noticed a tendency in Windows to mysteriously make IE the default browser. I used to set Opera as my default browser and every so often web links would open in IE. When I checked the default browser, it was set back to IE. I can't explain it, but I don't think it's accidental.
Sorry to be clueless, but is Open Office able to open, edit and save in.doc and.xls formats? That's the key in my opinion. These formats are the standard, for better or worse.
"you dad probably still saw far greater return as a percentage on his investements when compared to ss"
You are probably correct. But that's not my point. A private account can never provide a guaranteed payout. The point of SS is not to maximize gain, but to provide a guaranteed benefit. If you want to maximize gain, you can do it on your own. I know that you are still forced to pay into SS, but that's taxes in general isn't it? You can't pay less in taxes because you think the roads don't need to be paved.
Yes, the govt. squanders, but that doesn't matter. The trust fund is backed by bonds, and those bonds have a redeemable value. Yes, it is the govt borrowing from itself. It's like borrowing from your 401k. You hold your own debt, but you still have to pay it back. The bonds in the Trust Fund are just as good as the ones you and I and China and Saudi Arabia buy. A problem only comes in if the govt defaults on the bonds. But as I said, if that happens, SS is the least of our worries.
"What the hell does society have against the rich?"
Well for me it's the callousness, greed, sense of entitlement, insularity, lack of perspective, selfishness and gluttony. I am not jealous, as I live a comfortable lifestyle myself. But in my experience wealth seems to correlate with priorities being completely out of whack.
Actually, no. The current top rate is 35%. And that's only on income over $146,000. Do you know how much it was before 1980? It was 70%. And yet, people still got rich. Go figure. We also pay a full 10% of our taxes to interest on the national debt! You can thank Reagan and Bush (both of 'em) for that. Welcome to the days of the Don't-tax-but-still-spend "Conservatives".
"Why does the government get a pass where the corporation doesn't?"
Probably because they are different things and should not be treated as the same. Corporations have to make a profit; government does not. As we have seen, government can run a defict when it needs to. The economy, generally, grows over time, as does productivity. So more money, per capita, is collected. Social Security was designed to be self-sustaining, and with a few tweaks it can be. So the comparison to a ponzi scheme, though inflammatory, is not accurate.
I will agree with your allusion to SS money being mismanaged or misspent. I too think that is the case. But it is really an indictment of our elected (and unelected) officials who misspent it, not the program itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and in so many ways...
This is an exaggeration, but there is some truth to it. This is one of the ways that our increasingly polarized society expresses itself. There are also many people who *never* acknowledge that the US has been a poor public citizen in the world. Not always, but we have had our bad moments.
As with any conflict it is no one's fault entirely. There are always things that both sides of a conflict could do to make things better. An honest discussion of current radical muslim terrorism (for example) would take into account the repressive and nihilist fundamentalism of the "terrorists" but would also recognize that the US has been overthrowing governments, exploiting local populations, and generally fscking with the Middle East region for half a century at least. This is bound to piss people off. Like the Merovingian said, it's all cause and effect.
"Brutal dictators that murder their own people? Blame us."
Again, this is one side of the issue. You may not like it (I sure don't) but we have, and continue to, arm brutal dictators around the world for our own purposes. It does not absolve the dictators of being brutal, but it is dishonest to pretend we had nothing to do with it. When Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds, or the Iranians, he was doing it with the knowledge and implicit consent of the United States government. Hell, we gave him sattelite pictures of Iranian troop movements so he could better target them with chemical weapons! But this is never discussed in public. Why is it unpatriotic to point out when my country is behaving badly? But as to why I am so hard on the US, it's because it's my country. I care more about how my country acts on the world stage (and domestically too of course). When George Bush says you are with us or against us, he is speaking for me. When he says the US won't join the world court because it won't give us immunity, he makes me look like a hypocrite.
I am hard on the US because I love the US. It is still the best country to live in IMHO. I cherish the rights and freedoms we have, and I am upset when I see them threatened. Not by an invading army, but by my own government.
"Maybe they should start acting a bit more rational and patriotic - and a bit less like homo pinko commie politcally correct appeaser pacifist traitors."
This type of language undermines whatever point you were making. The motto "My country, right or wrong" is not patriotic, it is nationalistic. There's a difference.
This would be news to the president.
Good point. I'd like to add, "the ends don't justify the means, the ends are the means." It's along the same lines.
No, because thay have a large army and we already engaged in a Korean war that we didn't win.
Better skill? You owe the floor you are standing on to a construction worker. You owe modern civilization itself to construction workers. The point I was making is that people are not paid based on their work, their skills, or their value to society. They are paid based on the amount of money they can make for someone else. This is why my company pays me as little as they can. I don;t directly contribute to the bottom line.
Why does a CEO make 500% more than a teacher? Because he works 500% harder? Hardly. He gets paid that because he makes the decisions that enable the company to increase it's profits. If he does not increase company profits he will be replaced. Pro athletes are paid huge sums because their playing attracts more people to buy tickets and beer. The fact is that that CEO would have no building to sit in and the athlete no stadium to play in were it not for construction workers. But the worker gets paid squat compared with the other two, even though it is his labor that makes it all possible. Go read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich and tell me how much you think hard work and success are correlated.
But I am sure you realize that we spend an astronomical amount of money on our military. And then there's the 10% of yours and my taxes that pay the interest on the national debt every year. And the federal gov't regulates interstate commerce, which requires a bureaucracy. I am not saying that every gov't program is good or appropriate. But I do think I benefit from another person's being helped by the gov't if need be. I am not talking about a hand-out. But case in point: In 2001 I was laid off from my job and was without one for 4 months. Would it have been better for me to lose my apartment and be on the street, or to have the gov't help me with unemployment? You may not think you benefit from my having a place to live and food to eat, but you do. Indirectly, but you do.
"You don't have to register a screwdriver or welding torch, and you could easily kill someone with either of those, so why would you have to register firearms?"
Because a firearm's intended purpose is to kill things, the exception being target shooting. This is not the case with other tools. It's been said that any tool is a weapon if you hold it right. But a gun is a weapon that can be a tool if you use it right.
"Sure, they can knock on your door and demand you turn your firearms over, but it's easy enough to tell them you don't have any--and they can't prove otherwise."
I think that if the gov't is at the point of coming to your door and asking about your guns, they'd probably just bust in a search your house. In this day and age I don't think an armed populace can defend itself against a gov't anyway. Look at the insurgents in Iraq. They have RPG's but they won't be able to defeat the US militarily. We may have guns, but the gov't has tanks and missiles. But I guess if there is no registration, there are a lot more houses to search.
"Then there's another group of people which doesn't think the government has any business regulating what they can and can't have in their homes. It's mine, I paid for it, and it's none of your damned business. There are many people here who are very particular about their privacy."
I can definitely get behind that.
Personally, I don't think much about guns or their registration, as I do not own one and have little desire to. Though I have gone shooting with friends, and had a good time. I live in a major city and view guns as rather unnecessary and often hazardous. Your examples of ranchers and the like are different circumstances, of course. Basically, I support a person's right to own a gun, but would advise them not to. Thanks again for the food for thought!
Jeez, dude. What part of the country do you live in that you are so burdened by government coersion? Other than having to go to work every day, I do pretty much as I please. Hey, wait a minute. I have to go to work every day. That makes me a slave to my company. Sure, I could quit. But I'd just have to find a different master, err, employer. Or I could go into business for myself. But that requires capital, which I would again have to work for.
I have to eat three times a day, does that make me a slave to my stomach?
"You work hard, you get a head."
Thanks, but I already have a head. But seriously! If only that were true. How many millionaire construction workers do you know? Hell, people who work hard would get even less if we didn't have unions and labor laws and other such tyrannies.
This is pure hyperbole. Twice as much? Are you really positing that stocks outperform bonds 2 to 1? Cuz that's what SS is; government bonds.
I must say I am often curious about people who are so anti-tax. You'd think you pay money and never see any benefit. Yes, we pay taxes (some of the lowest in the world BTW) but we get things like streets and parks and police and firefighters and a military and a court system and, yes, Social Security. And despite what the president tells you, you are quite likely to see a benefit. You are correct that Congress could just stop paying SS benefits. But this is the case with any law or program. Besides, go ask any senator, turning off the tap on SS would be political suicide. A sizeable majority of Americans like SS, and politicians need to get re-elected. Why do you think so many Republicans are reluctant to get on board with the president?
Honest question: Why is gun registration so bad?
Not so fast! The Windows PC market has not responded to mini computers. However, Apple has been making money in this market for some time. Beginning back with the Mac Classic (or perhaps even before) Apple has had success with small and All-in-one designs. People (not just Mac users) OOH andD AAH over the new iMacs. Plus, the new Mac Mini is the cheapest Mac available. So one is not paying a premium for the small size. It's true that Apple is not first. But Apple has shown that they can succeed where others have failed. Personally I have heard many positive reactions to the Mac Mini from PC users. And it's already spawned two converts that I know of.
Well, yes and no. What Apple understands, and others do not, is that aesthetics can make a big difference even in the home PC market. I followed the link in your post. The Shuttles are certainly small, though not as small as the Mini, I think. But they're ugly! They have an industrial/utilitarian look to them. It's like Will Smith said to Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black, "The difference between you and me is that I make this look good."
This can be done on the Mac by copying your Home folder, no? Or perhaps certain subfolders (like Library, etc).
Good point! I also don't like the one button mouse. Having a second button and scroll wheel/third button is indespensible to me on my Mac. But I have spoken with Windows users, even, who don't know what the second button is for! The single button mouse is Apple's continuing attempt to keep it simple. And besides, Logitech makes a decent wheel mouse for $20.
Already there baby! Company policy is to not have Windows boxes facing the internet. They must all be firewalled. Only Linux gets to play on the 'net.
Dude! That's already the case! In my experience home users don't update their machines regularly.
Most people don't know much about computers because they don't think they need to or are not interested. There is nothing objectively wrong with this. I think the car analogy is appropriate here. Most people don't know enough about cars to fix one, but they want to use them. Personally, I set my family up with Mac's and they have few problems. But for x86, Linux is the way to go.
I'm sure it's an undocumented feature, but I have noticed a tendency in Windows to mysteriously make IE the default browser. I used to set Opera as my default browser and every so often web links would open in IE. When I checked the default browser, it was set back to IE. I can't explain it, but I don't think it's accidental.
Sorry to be clueless, but is Open Office able to open, edit and save in .doc and .xls formats? That's the key in my opinion. These formats are the standard, for better or worse.
You are probably correct. But that's not my point. A private account can never provide a guaranteed payout. The point of SS is not to maximize gain, but to provide a guaranteed benefit. If you want to maximize gain, you can do it on your own. I know that you are still forced to pay into SS, but that's taxes in general isn't it? You can't pay less in taxes because you think the roads don't need to be paved.
Yes, the govt. squanders, but that doesn't matter. The trust fund is backed by bonds, and those bonds have a redeemable value. Yes, it is the govt borrowing from itself. It's like borrowing from your 401k. You hold your own debt, but you still have to pay it back. The bonds in the Trust Fund are just as good as the ones you and I and China and Saudi Arabia buy. A problem only comes in if the govt defaults on the bonds. But as I said, if that happens, SS is the least of our worries.
Well for me it's the callousness, greed, sense of entitlement, insularity, lack of perspective, selfishness and gluttony. I am not jealous, as I live a comfortable lifestyle myself. But in my experience wealth seems to correlate with priorities being completely out of whack.
Actually, no. The current top rate is 35%. And that's only on income over $146,000. Do you know how much it was before 1980? It was 70%. And yet, people still got rich. Go figure. We also pay a full 10% of our taxes to interest on the national debt! You can thank Reagan and Bush (both of 'em) for that. Welcome to the days of the Don't-tax-but-still-spend "Conservatives".
Probably because they are different things and should not be treated as the same. Corporations have to make a profit; government does not. As we have seen, government can run a defict when it needs to. The economy, generally, grows over time, as does productivity. So more money, per capita, is collected. Social Security was designed to be self-sustaining, and with a few tweaks it can be. So the comparison to a ponzi scheme, though inflammatory, is not accurate.
I will agree with your allusion to SS money being mismanaged or misspent. I too think that is the case. But it is really an indictment of our elected (and unelected) officials who misspent it, not the program itself.