not everyone knows this, because it's bullshit. Bureaucracy isn't adding to the cost. Most of the time the cost is in line with private interests. It's just that when the gov't loses money it's just lost, but when the big corps lose money the gov't bails them out.
The most common reason you see gov't "waste" money is when they're pumping money into the economy to keep it going because too much of the wealth has concentrated at the top. You're not seeing waste, you're seeing socialism in the only way Americans can stand it after decades of anti-socialist propaganda from our corporate masters...
I keep hearing this. The paper work adds little or nothing. If you've ever worked with any large organization they always have large paper work requirements. It's necessary to keep employees from embezzling and/or giving juicy contracts to family.
The 30% comes from the fact that gov't contracts usually require higher paid union workers because a lot of the time the contracts are social programs designed to spread wealth in disguise. Think they old public works projects but without the stigma.
The committee members that push it through will get swanky positions with the industries that benefit from DRM. And since the world economy is crashing and only a few are going to live the good life I suppose I can't blame them...
We're really losing the argument here. The trouble is we came to a gun fight without so much as a knife, just a pen and paper.
Let me break it down for you: The reason you can't win arguments with Libertarian/Conservative types is you're arguing with the assumption that both you and they share a fundamental belief: That human beings have more than Intrinsic Value. e.g. that people are worth more than the raw output of their labor, simply by virtue of being living, breathing people.
The parent/grandparents here don't think that way. If you're labor is worth $25k/yr, then you get $25k/yr. The consequences of human misery are irrelevant, because at the end of the day just as Liberals find it morally reprehensible to let someone starve to death when there's plenty of food, Conservatives believe it's equally reprehensible to give them that food if they aren't able to generate enough labor value (for lack of a better term) for it.
Now, the smart Conservative will chime in that a rising boat lifts all tides (actually, it swamps all but the biggest boats, but I digress). And they'll have all manor of reasons why it doesn't matter that they don't believe a person's worth can be more than what they make per hour, but it won't change the cold hard facts.
Liberals, Don't bother arguing with them until you change their mind on this. If you can't get them to agree that people are worth more than how much they can beg, borrow or steal from their fellow man then you're wasting your time, and you'll lose any debate you start because you're not talking about the same things...
and not as human beings. As a laborer he might be worth only $25k/year. As a member of the Human Race, I think he's worth much more. That's why you and I will never agree. You think people only have intrinsic value. You're not considering the very real human misery your beliefs create (or if you are you dismiss them off hand with a wave of Ayn Rand's magic wand).
On the simple, rational thought that I don't want to live in a world where they are, because there are consequences? Seriously, that was all sorta implied from decades (centuries?) of literature, philosophy and law....
by bringing massive amounts of money to bear on local elections. Sarah Palin is a great example of that. She had massive resources for a pretty unimportant political position.
As for the popular vote, he's referring to the fact that as a raw percentage Democrats won more vote. In a parliamentary system they would have a majority in the gov't and popularist legislation would be making it's way through the gov't process. That's pretty much why we have a Republic. It protects the interests of wealthy land owners...
See, the trouble with your BS assertion is that it's so easy to google "7450 Affordable Care Act" and find all the articles disproving it...
Oh, and the PDF you're linking to says nothing about the cost for a family of 4. It's just talking about lower overall health spending. Are you an Astro turfer or do you just not research your sources?
California is seeing a bit of an exodus because too many people moved their driving up real estate prices to unreasonable levels. Their policies are working fairly well except for some lame brain tax rules put in place by Republicans that make it easy to cut taxes and hard to raise them. Also, most, if not nearly all, of the last 10 years worth of consumer protection laws exists because of California. Like knowing when your Credit Card #s get leaked? That was California. How about when there's carcinogens in your food? Also California.
Texas is running a race to the bottom funded by a modest oil boom that's wreaking their environment. Even if you don't believe fracking destroys ground water the fact is it's using it up so fast that towns are going dry.
Also, you can attract businesses all day long with slave labor wages. China does it. But is that the sort of world you want to live in? If the answer is 'yes' you're either a psychopath or just plain naive. Here's a hint: you're not free is someone controls your access to basic needs like food and shelter. You'll do exactly what they say. The phrase 'wage slave' isn't hyperbole.
When they're shutting down non-essential services. Moreover, like I said, I don't know if Obama planned this effect or not. Keep in mind, it's Post 911 and post Boston-Bombing. Somebody on fark who lives in DC was talking about how these days the monuments are crawling with guards watching for terrorists. Blocking off the monuments does more than keep the terrorists out. It keeps their real targets (ordinary Americans) away from the hot spot...
Human beings aren't really that efficient. You're drive for gov't efficiency gets used to excuse cutting services for the lower classes while the rich continue to use gov't to their benefit. You're not going to win that battle. The rich will make use of gov't, so I say why don't we? But nice troll anyway...
but either way shutting the gov't sites is a great way to remind people that gov't does things they want done. For the last 20 or 30 years we've been hammered with a 'Gov't is Evil' message. Never mind that it was the Federal Gov't that did away with Child Labor, Slavery and Segregation, created Superfund sites for cleanup of the messes made by private business and made them stop poisoning ground water.
With all the small gov't Tea Party blather out there it's nice for Americans to be reminded that gov't is a tool, and one they depend on. I for one don't want to see EPA regulation, anti-slavery and usury laws, OSHA Safety and FDA regulations go away.
Gov't is a tool, and a powerful one. The wealthy and well connected will use that tool for themselves. You're not going to be able to stop them. 2000 years of human history pretty much proves that. The only question is are you going to pick up the tool and use it yourself?
for what it's worth, a large part of what our defense industry does is pry money out of the hands of the super wealthy and spread it around the economy. Eisenhower basically created the Military Industrial Complex for purpose of keeping the US economy out of recession post WWII, and he talked about regretting it in his Memoirs. Wealth concentrates, and left to their own devices the rich will take it all for themselves. The economy becomes a zero sum game when power comes into play and the joy of using your wealth to control and manipulate others. Fear of the communists kept the rich in check (somewhat) and allowed for protectionism and pork projects that took money from the wealthy and redistributed it without anyone's feathers being ruffled. Now that that's gone we haven't got anything to replace it with. That's why wealth inequality is the worst since the 1920s...
The infrastructure for plumbing was paid for by the gov't. So where the roads that made cars more than interesting toys. And telephone lines. Most of the research that made the personal computer possible was done on the public dime. And then there's that whole "Internet" thing (please, no Al Gore jokes).
I think the problem we have with the $30,000 bill is that it's so high that the only way it'll ever be more than a toy and a curiosity is if the gov't steps in to fund it, and the rich have a long, long history of getting the gov't to fund their lifestyles and not everyone else's.
Also, let's not underestimate the amount of work that those $30,000 of tests represent. If research is focused on a few rich kids, it's being directed away from somewhere else. Supply siders like to point out that resources are limited until it no longer fits their world view. Then they trot out the old: "Economy's not Zero Sum" and call it a day.
Basically, instead of a vast amount of society's wealth and resources going to make a few rich kid's lives better, I'd like to see the focus on research that benefits the most number of people. Why? Because I'm not rich, and probably never will be. Statistically the same is true for all/.ers. If it wasn't, there's be no 'rich' because if everyone was rich the word wouldn't mean anything...
the kind of power even a House of Rep has let alone a Senator is so massive that trying to restrict their pay to median income is a waste. They'll just make it up an bribes.
They're going to get special privileges. They're going to use the gov't to their advantage. They're going to do these things and you can't stop them. Get over it and start making use of the Gov't yourself for your own benefit. You can't choose not to play the game, but you can lose the war by not fighting in it.
The console market in '84 was abandoned by Atari et al. Everyone in America assumed computers would dominate (As Will Shatner said, "Why buy a videogame?").
Sony and Microsoft were both juggernauts with more resources than Valve. The original Xbox was a colossal failure that would have shut down anyone else.
Valve isn't entering an untapped and ignored market and they can't lose $5 billion up front. OTOH they have to do something. Microsoft with Win8 has signaled they want to squeeze Valve out of the distribution market. I'm not sure what they're going to do. Companies targeted by Microsoft don't have a good track record of survival...
The cut back in coverage started around 2000. Obama was a Senator then for god's sake. The part time work started after the banks exploded from the mortgage bubble.
My HSA is still tax free. 1099s are mostly a tax dodge, taking advantage of desperate people or both. Companies hire 1099s for what's really full time continuous work and call them 'contractors'. The taxes are lower because you're not hiring an employee you're paying for work. The reason you can't get a 1099 is the gov't is cracking down on that. It's only good for you in the short run. In the long run they'll cut your wages and benefits while underfunding the safety net you'll need sooner or later.
lots and lots of old people (40+) are finding themselves completely unemployable, especially back East in places like Detroit. Doctor's are giving them bogus 'disabilities' so they don't starve to death and die on the streets, but the right wing is already going after them...
That's progress. Every year we redefine the poor until the word is just a dim memory. There will be people that long for something beyond reality, but that's different from trying to escape from it.
And yes, there will be outliers in any system. I know I can't make everyone happy by taking away the constant battle for survival. What I can do is ease their pain and eliminate as much of it as I can. Again, progress.
and you actually hit on the reason why when you mentioned rich vs poor people's drugs. A lot of these people have serious chemical imbalances in their brains. They aren't taking heroin because they lack moral fiber and they can't "Pray it away". They're self medicating. See this comic for anyone that doubts.
As for action, why would Russian need to do anything? From a practical standpoint these people have little or no impact on the general populace. They die quickly and mostly keep to themselves. In order to take action Russia would have to move away from Libertarian ideals of "Free choice" and towards Socialism (hopefully real Socialism and not the phoney kind loved by Fascists).
Slashdot Mirror
not everyone knows this, because it's bullshit. Bureaucracy isn't adding to the cost. Most of the time the cost is in line with private interests. It's just that when the gov't loses money it's just lost, but when the big corps lose money the gov't bails them out.
The most common reason you see gov't "waste" money is when they're pumping money into the economy to keep it going because too much of the wealth has concentrated at the top. You're not seeing waste, you're seeing socialism in the only way Americans can stand it after decades of anti-socialist propaganda from our corporate masters...
I keep hearing this. The paper work adds little or nothing. If you've ever worked with any large organization they always have large paper work requirements. It's necessary to keep employees from embezzling and/or giving juicy contracts to family.
The 30% comes from the fact that gov't contracts usually require higher paid union workers because a lot of the time the contracts are social programs designed to spread wealth in disguise. Think they old public works projects but without the stigma.
The committee members that push it through will get swanky positions with the industries that benefit from DRM. And since the world economy is crashing and only a few are going to live the good life I suppose I can't blame them...
We're really losing the argument here. The trouble is we came to a gun fight without so much as a knife, just a pen and paper.
Let me break it down for you: The reason you can't win arguments with Libertarian/Conservative types is you're arguing with the assumption that both you and they share a fundamental belief: That human beings have more than Intrinsic Value. e.g. that people are worth more than the raw output of their labor, simply by virtue of being living, breathing people.
The parent/grandparents here don't think that way. If you're labor is worth $25k/yr, then you get $25k/yr. The consequences of human misery are irrelevant, because at the end of the day just as Liberals find it morally reprehensible to let someone starve to death when there's plenty of food, Conservatives believe it's equally reprehensible to give them that food if they aren't able to generate enough labor value (for lack of a better term) for it.
Now, the smart Conservative will chime in that a rising boat lifts all tides (actually, it swamps all but the biggest boats, but I digress). And they'll have all manor of reasons why it doesn't matter that they don't believe a person's worth can be more than what they make per hour, but it won't change the cold hard facts.
Liberals, Don't bother arguing with them until you change their mind on this. If you can't get them to agree that people are worth more than how much they can beg, borrow or steal from their fellow man then you're wasting your time, and you'll lose any debate you start because you're not talking about the same things...
and not as human beings. As a laborer he might be worth only $25k/year. As a member of the Human Race, I think he's worth much more. That's why you and I will never agree. You think people only have intrinsic value. You're not considering the very real human misery your beliefs create (or if you are you dismiss them off hand with a wave of Ayn Rand's magic wand).
On the simple, rational thought that I don't want to live in a world where they are, because there are consequences? Seriously, that was all sorta implied from decades (centuries?) of literature, philosophy and law....
by bringing massive amounts of money to bear on local elections. Sarah Palin is a great example of that. She had massive resources for a pretty unimportant political position.
As for the popular vote, he's referring to the fact that as a raw percentage Democrats won more vote. In a parliamentary system they would have a majority in the gov't and popularist legislation would be making it's way through the gov't process. That's pretty much why we have a Republic. It protects the interests of wealthy land owners...
See, the trouble with your BS assertion is that it's so easy to google "7450 Affordable Care Act" and find all the articles disproving it...
Oh, and the PDF you're linking to says nothing about the cost for a family of 4. It's just talking about lower overall health spending. Are you an Astro turfer or do you just not research your sources?
There's even a name for it: "White Flight". Wealthy people don't live near sex offenders and violent criminals. That's for the poor and middle class.
California is seeing a bit of an exodus because too many people moved their driving up real estate prices to unreasonable levels. Their policies are working fairly well except for some lame brain tax rules put in place by Republicans that make it easy to cut taxes and hard to raise them. Also, most, if not nearly all, of the last 10 years worth of consumer protection laws exists because of California. Like knowing when your Credit Card #s get leaked? That was California. How about when there's carcinogens in your food? Also California.
Texas is running a race to the bottom funded by a modest oil boom that's wreaking their environment. Even if you don't believe fracking destroys ground water the fact is it's using it up so fast that towns are going dry.
Also, you can attract businesses all day long with slave labor wages. China does it. But is that the sort of world you want to live in? If the answer is 'yes' you're either a psychopath or just plain naive. Here's a hint: you're not free is someone controls your access to basic needs like food and shelter. You'll do exactly what they say. The phrase 'wage slave' isn't hyperbole.
When they're shutting down non-essential services. Moreover, like I said, I don't know if Obama planned this effect or not. Keep in mind, it's Post 911 and post Boston-Bombing. Somebody on fark who lives in DC was talking about how these days the monuments are crawling with guards watching for terrorists. Blocking off the monuments does more than keep the terrorists out. It keeps their real targets (ordinary Americans) away from the hot spot...
Human beings aren't really that efficient. You're drive for gov't efficiency gets used to excuse cutting services for the lower classes while the rich continue to use gov't to their benefit. You're not going to win that battle. The rich will make use of gov't, so I say why don't we? But nice troll anyway...
but either way shutting the gov't sites is a great way to remind people that gov't does things they want done. For the last 20 or 30 years we've been hammered with a 'Gov't is Evil' message. Never mind that it was the Federal Gov't that did away with Child Labor, Slavery and Segregation, created Superfund sites for cleanup of the messes made by private business and made them stop poisoning ground water.
With all the small gov't Tea Party blather out there it's nice for Americans to be reminded that gov't is a tool, and one they depend on. I for one don't want to see EPA regulation, anti-slavery and usury laws, OSHA Safety and FDA regulations go away.
Gov't is a tool, and a powerful one. The wealthy and well connected will use that tool for themselves. You're not going to be able to stop them. 2000 years of human history pretty much proves that. The only question is are you going to pick up the tool and use it yourself?
for what it's worth, a large part of what our defense industry does is pry money out of the hands of the super wealthy and spread it around the economy. Eisenhower basically created the Military Industrial Complex for purpose of keeping the US economy out of recession post WWII, and he talked about regretting it in his Memoirs. Wealth concentrates, and left to their own devices the rich will take it all for themselves. The economy becomes a zero sum game when power comes into play and the joy of using your wealth to control and manipulate others. Fear of the communists kept the rich in check (somewhat) and allowed for protectionism and pork projects that took money from the wealthy and redistributed it without anyone's feathers being ruffled. Now that that's gone we haven't got anything to replace it with. That's why wealth inequality is the worst since the 1920s...
Intel can't perform well enough to keep up with current gen and ATI has a long history of driver issues (sorry, but it's true).
For better or for worse Valve is stuck with nVidia.
that's the leftist mentality. Nice troll though. Sorry to come along and smash it with reason and stuff...
The infrastructure for plumbing was paid for by the gov't. So where the roads that made cars more than interesting toys. And telephone lines. Most of the research that made the personal computer possible was done on the public dime. And then there's that whole "Internet" thing (please, no Al Gore jokes).
/.ers. If it wasn't, there's be no 'rich' because if everyone was rich the word wouldn't mean anything...
I think the problem we have with the $30,000 bill is that it's so high that the only way it'll ever be more than a toy and a curiosity is if the gov't steps in to fund it, and the rich have a long, long history of getting the gov't to fund their lifestyles and not everyone else's.
Also, let's not underestimate the amount of work that those $30,000 of tests represent. If research is focused on a few rich kids, it's being directed away from somewhere else. Supply siders like to point out that resources are limited until it no longer fits their world view. Then they trot out the old: "Economy's not Zero Sum" and call it a day.
Basically, instead of a vast amount of society's wealth and resources going to make a few rich kid's lives better, I'd like to see the focus on research that benefits the most number of people. Why? Because I'm not rich, and probably never will be. Statistically the same is true for all
the kind of power even a House of Rep has let alone a Senator is so massive that trying to restrict their pay to median income is a waste. They'll just make it up an bribes.
They're going to get special privileges. They're going to use the gov't to their advantage. They're going to do these things and you can't stop them. Get over it and start making use of the Gov't yourself for your own benefit. You can't choose not to play the game, but you can lose the war by not fighting in it.
The console market in '84 was abandoned by Atari et al. Everyone in America assumed computers would dominate (As Will Shatner said, "Why buy a videogame?").
Sony and Microsoft were both juggernauts with more resources than Valve. The original Xbox was a colossal failure that would have shut down anyone else.
Valve isn't entering an untapped and ignored market and they can't lose $5 billion up front. OTOH they have to do something. Microsoft with Win8 has signaled they want to squeeze Valve out of the distribution market. I'm not sure what they're going to do. Companies targeted by Microsoft don't have a good track record of survival...
These guys did.
The cut back in coverage started around 2000. Obama was a Senator then for god's sake. The part time work started after the banks exploded from the mortgage bubble.
My HSA is still tax free. 1099s are mostly a tax dodge, taking advantage of desperate people or both. Companies hire 1099s for what's really full time continuous work and call them 'contractors'. The taxes are lower because you're not hiring an employee you're paying for work. The reason you can't get a 1099 is the gov't is cracking down on that. It's only good for you in the short run. In the long run they'll cut your wages and benefits while underfunding the safety net you'll need sooner or later.
lots and lots of old people (40+) are finding themselves completely unemployable, especially back East in places like Detroit. Doctor's are giving them bogus 'disabilities' so they don't starve to death and die on the streets, but the right wing is already going after them...
That's progress. Every year we redefine the poor until the word is just a dim memory. There will be people that long for something beyond reality, but that's different from trying to escape from it.
And yes, there will be outliers in any system. I know I can't make everyone happy by taking away the constant battle for survival. What I can do is ease their pain and eliminate as much of it as I can. Again, progress.
and you actually hit on the reason why when you mentioned rich vs poor people's drugs. A lot of these people have serious chemical imbalances in their brains. They aren't taking heroin because they lack moral fiber and they can't "Pray it away". They're self medicating. See this comic for anyone that doubts.
As for action, why would Russian need to do anything? From a practical standpoint these people have little or no impact on the general populace. They die quickly and mostly keep to themselves. In order to take action Russia would have to move away from Libertarian ideals of "Free choice" and towards Socialism (hopefully real Socialism and not the phoney kind loved by Fascists).