Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??
We should.
But this debate is not about that AT ALL. The debt ceiling (and all the platinum coin crap) is about borrowing money to cover the expenses already approved (by Congress, mind you)
The Republicans keep shouting about "spending too much money", but oddly they are not willing to cut defense spending or eliminate the useless TSA (or to stop arguing for more wars). Either way, the debate about spending has to happen during budgeting, not during the debt ceiling extension.
All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.
While your basic point is valid, it has been repeatedly pointed out that government budget balancing is nothing like a family budget. A family cannot expect to improve finances by borrowing and investing into infrastructure. Moreover, family income will not shrink (recession) if said family buys fewer things. If government income was constant (i.e. salary-like) regardless of what happened to economy, you would have a better argument.
The first thing Obama should have done when sworn in was dismantle the Department of "Homeland Security" and fold everything back to how it was before the World Trade Center attacks.
That would have been the "advertised" Obama which only existed in voter's imagination.
Instead of the "platform" on which politicians run, they should sign a contract listing their promised policy. Violating any of the major promises should make them subject to impeachment (I hear the line of presidential succession is very long). Otherwise, Obama was under no obligation to follow up on any of his promises. And even if Republicans put forward a serious candidate, he'd still have 4 years before losing office.
It's time for the US to get rid of the TSA, which has caught no terrorists, foiled no plots, cost millions, irradiated thousands with backscatter x-ray scanners, has stolen quite a few personal items and is actively trying to expand its sphere of influence.
But terrorism is proving to be such a convenient way to funnel money to friendly contractors... Who'd want to give that up?
I just learned that NJ had instituted a $5 (per day!) car-rental charge under the "domestic terrorism" category. I am sure other states will soon take notice -- I look forward to random tax-related charges on all of my bills... My lunch purchase may be at risk from terrorists otherwise.
We're seeing an erosion of our freedom and privacy and your problem is that they just haven't caught a terrorist yet? Does that imply that there actions will be justified if they do?
No, I just think it would be a no-brainer to dismantle an organization that serves no purpose. Even if they had caught a terrorist I'd suggest dismantling them, but in that case there would be two sides to the argument (one for TSA, one against TSA)
As it stands, there seems to be only one side to this debate -- a long list of reasons why TSA should be eliminated. You'd think it would be easier to get rid of a completely useless organization (rather the one that is simply less useful than the associated expense)
Owned by an Arab Sheik, IÃ(TM)m sure it will be faire and balanced towards womanÃ(TM)s rights in the Arab World, Jewish issues, and of course homosexuals.
Bah, hahahahahahaa
It will not be any worse than all other major news networks. And the bias will be well known, which is a little better than the status quo
CNNi produces those programs in an arrangement it describes as "in association with" the government of a country, and offers regimes the ability to pay for specific programs about their country.... The disclosure for such arrangements is often barely visible.
Says the guy who insists the entire blame for the current fiscal clusterfuck lies on the shoulders of half the government, while apparently believing that the other half are completely innocent patsies.
It does appear to be the case that the blame is not (currently) distributed equally. As best as I can tell, Republicans are trying to negotiate a compromise without making any concessions whatsoever. Democrats are not blameless, but at the moment they do seem more reasonable.
There are no innocents here -- and most of the problem is due to the fact that too many representatives (on both sides) are too entrenched in their home region due to gerrymandering. Not enough of them worry about re-election, I guess
Letting taxes rise to what they were before the Bush tax cuts came into effect will not tip the US economy into a recession.
It may also be helpful to stop calling that outcome a tax raise. Letting temporary tax cuts expire may be argued against, but it is hardly a tax raise unless they at least go higher than what used to be the rate in the 90s
Sadly a declaration of war which provides the ability to override certain areas of the Constitution is never made. People don't think it's a big deal whether Congress formally declares war or not, but it is. It would be one thing if a formal declaration had been made but the truth is we're really not at war in any real sense.
Congress has even managed to pretend that the war budget doesn't exist. Most of Iraq and Afganistan had been funded via "emergency appropriations" instead of an actual budget with everything else in it. Maybe the official budget debates would stem the warmongering a bit, if our laws cannot?
I have never had an issue using fake information on those shopping member cards. I imagine trying to use fake info for air travel would be frowned upon.
Hehe, I hope you NEVER used a credit card to purchase with your "fake" shopping member card. Because once you do, the fake member card is tied to your real and verifiable info forever.
Airlines would also have your true information because you cannot even buy your plane ticket with cash (well, maybe you can - but I wouldn't recommend it nowdays). At least groceries can still be had for cash...
The "free speech" card is so abused nowadays that it will soon lose any meaning.
"Commercial speech" is generally understood to be different from "free speech". The airlines may have been somewhat emboldened by Citizens United, though.
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
That's all well and good for taxes, but what about
luggage
carry-on
choosing a seat
better seat (extra leg room, emergency exit, etc)
priority lane
You could argue that these are not necessities (thus the law you quote does not apply). But I would say that a carry-on charge, for example, really pushes the line of "necessity".
Amazon do personal pricing. They won't give you a price for some things unless you login. Then they give you a price that is the maximum they think you will pay. Other people see lower prices.
The articles talks about hidden fees, though (carry-ons, luggage, taxes, choosing a seat, etc.). Amazon does nothing to prevent you from comparing its price to the competitor's.
For example, if Amazon sold you a laptop, but neglected to mention that a battery is not included and costs $100 extra (example chosen specifically to correspond to a carry-on fee. Yes, theoretically you can make do without any carry-on, but that is rare).
How airlines get away with this (or with prices shown without taxes, when taxes were never a constant) is a mystery to me. This should have been made illegal a long time ago!
I always get a warm and fuzzy feeling about any company/industry, when I see notes like this:
Airlines also have been cracking down on websites that help travelers manage their frequent flier accounts. The sites use travelers' frequent flier passwords to obtain balances and mileage expiration dates, and then display the information in a way that makes it easier for travelers to figure out when it makes more sense to buy a ticket or to use miles.
There is not even a quote from airlines about "making it safer for passengers" or "providing the best service". I guess there is simply no way to spin this as a good thing for customers. A rare event indeed.
Or is Google software getting worse instead of better?... Google is run by engineers, which is cool
Maybe the wind started to blow in the other direction?
I cannot say much for quality of software, but it seems like all services have gone up in price A LOT (gmail storage, google apps). Maybe engineers are no longer calling the shots? Nothing wrong with charging for services or increasing the price, but when the price goes up a lot (or when the free "small business" options just disappear completely instead of diminishing) that seems a little far.
Usually 1 stars are "Didn't receive the item. Contacted seller but got no response (it's been more than 24 hours since I ordered the product). Very disappointed."
But my favorite is 3 stars (or even 1 star sometimes) with "Great product, very happy, will buy again".
I swear, some people lack the ability to comprehend the rule: more stars good, fewer stars bad.
Reviews are only valid from people that maintain that as their profession. There is a level of experience that comes with reviewing and editing that can't be achieved casually.
I assume you mean "things like books", because if I am buying a mouse, non-professional reviews are highly valid. Perhaps more so than professional ones.
Even for books (movies, etc), I am a tad suspicious of "professional" bullet by bullet reviews. I think there is a higher chance that the professional reviewer has been somehow bribed. Personally, If I were to hire astroturfers, I'd reach out to the professional reviewers first, even if it cost more.
The fifty-something TSA rent-a-cop (Keystone Kop?), in a half-assed attempt at condescension, "explained" to me that "this machine is not harmful, it uses millimeter wave technology that is the same technology in your cell phone -- it's just as safe as your cell phone."
They now all explain (usually politely) that "this is a millimeter wave machine not an x-ray machine", which is safe. I am yet to see the formal apology issued by TSA regarding deploying x-ray machines first, which they now admit may be harmful.
New machines may or may not be harmful too, perhaps they'll admit that the current machines are not safe when it is time to contract out for the 3rd generation (super-safe-wave-machine) scanners.
No matter how bad a day a waiter is having, he shouldn't spit on food. And TSA employees should treat people like people, not like a piece of meat on a slaughter line.
There is a crucial difference in these two examples
If I caught a waiter spitting in someone's food, I could have them fired or worse. Good luck holding a TSA representative responsible for anything, even if they did something bad. It's like you would complain about the waiter spitting in your food, the restaurant association would review your complaint and then inform you that such behavior aligns with restaurant's official policy. And if you press the issue, you could get fined/arrested or even put on the "no eat" list.
If you allow people to behave badly without fear of punishment, you should expect that they will. In part because the people who are attracted to such positions will be more prone to perpetrating abuse.
Awesome. So anyone criticizing Obama is racist, simply because Obama is black?
Troll he may be, but the OP has made no reference to race or any stereotypes. Where are you coming from with this?
The Senate is about to vote on an extension of the controversial FISA Amendments Act -- the unconstitutional law that allows the NSA to spy on Americans speaking to people abroad without a warrant. Yet you wouldn't know it by watching CSPAN because the Senate isn't debating it.
Why would they debate it? Both sides agree on every single military/security-related issue at this point.
The presidential debates were so interesting, with Obama and Romney competing to see who likes military drones more or who will promise to bomb more countries (Romney wins on that one, but not by much).
This is a great sigh of relief to people like Julian Assange, Private Bradley Manning and those who respect their leadership and courage to share information about what their government is up to.
Ah, yes, I am sure there are directives in there about no longer hounding Assange, no longer blocking Wikileaks donations and letting Manning off for the inhumane treatment he suffered. No?
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??
We should.
But this debate is not about that AT ALL. The debt ceiling (and all the platinum coin crap) is about borrowing money to cover the expenses already approved (by Congress, mind you)
The Republicans keep shouting about "spending too much money", but oddly they are not willing to cut defense spending or eliminate the useless TSA (or to stop arguing for more wars). Either way, the debate about spending has to happen during budgeting, not during the debt ceiling extension.
All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.
While your basic point is valid, it has been repeatedly pointed out that government budget balancing is nothing like a family budget. A family cannot expect to improve finances by borrowing and investing into infrastructure. Moreover, family income will not shrink (recession) if said family buys fewer things. If government income was constant (i.e. salary-like) regardless of what happened to economy, you would have a better argument.
The first thing Obama should have done when sworn in was dismantle the Department of "Homeland Security" and fold everything back to how it was before the World Trade Center attacks.
That would have been the "advertised" Obama which only existed in voter's imagination.
Instead of the "platform" on which politicians run, they should sign a contract listing their promised policy. Violating any of the major promises should make them subject to impeachment (I hear the line of presidential succession is very long). Otherwise, Obama was under no obligation to follow up on any of his promises. And even if Republicans put forward a serious candidate, he'd still have 4 years before losing office.
It's time for the US to get rid of the TSA, which has caught no terrorists, foiled no plots, cost millions, irradiated thousands with backscatter x-ray scanners, has stolen quite a few personal items and is actively trying to expand its sphere of influence.
But terrorism is proving to be such a convenient way to funnel money to friendly contractors... Who'd want to give that up?
I just learned that NJ had instituted a $5 (per day!) car-rental charge under the "domestic terrorism" category. I am sure other states will soon take notice -- I look forward to random tax-related charges on all of my bills... My lunch purchase may be at risk from terrorists otherwise.
We're seeing an erosion of our freedom and privacy and your problem is that they just haven't caught a terrorist yet? Does that imply that there actions will be justified if they do?
No, I just think it would be a no-brainer to dismantle an organization that serves no purpose. Even if they had caught a terrorist I'd suggest dismantling them, but in that case there would be two sides to the argument (one for TSA, one against TSA)
As it stands, there seems to be only one side to this debate -- a long list of reasons why TSA should be eliminated. You'd think it would be easier to get rid of a completely useless organization (rather the one that is simply less useful than the associated expense)
Owned by an Arab Sheik, IÃ(TM)m sure it will be faire and balanced towards womanÃ(TM)s rights in the Arab World, Jewish issues, and of course homosexuals.
Bah, hahahahahahaa
It will not be any worse than all other major news networks. And the bias will be well known, which is a little better than the status quo
I'll take that over directly sanctioned pieces such as CNNi
CNNi produces those programs in an arrangement it describes as "in association with" the government of a country, and offers regimes the ability to pay for specific programs about their country. ... The disclosure for such arrangements is often barely visible.
Says the guy who insists the entire blame for the current fiscal clusterfuck lies on the shoulders of half the government, while apparently believing that the other half are completely innocent patsies.
It does appear to be the case that the blame is not (currently) distributed equally. As best as I can tell, Republicans are trying to negotiate a compromise without making any concessions whatsoever. Democrats are not blameless, but at the moment they do seem more reasonable.
There are no innocents here -- and most of the problem is due to the fact that too many representatives (on both sides) are too entrenched in their home region due to gerrymandering. Not enough of them worry about re-election, I guess
Letting taxes rise to what they were before the Bush tax cuts came into effect will not tip the US economy into a recession.
It may also be helpful to stop calling that outcome a tax raise. Letting temporary tax cuts expire may be argued against, but it is hardly a tax raise unless they at least go higher than what used to be the rate in the 90s
Sadly a declaration of war which provides the ability to override certain areas of the Constitution is never made. People don't think it's a big deal whether Congress formally declares war or not, but it is. It would be one thing if a formal declaration had been made but the truth is we're really not at war in any real sense.
Congress has even managed to pretend that the war budget doesn't exist. Most of Iraq and Afganistan had been funded via "emergency appropriations" instead of an actual budget with everything else in it. Maybe the official budget debates would stem the warmongering a bit, if our laws cannot?
It's also possible (likely, even) that there's no loss of users at all.
Considering what users put up with in Facebook, I'd say it is very likely that the controversy was limited to the slashdot crowd.
I have never had an issue using fake information on those shopping member cards. I imagine trying to use fake info for air travel would be frowned upon.
Hehe, I hope you NEVER used a credit card to purchase with your "fake" shopping member card. Because once you do, the fake member card is tied to your real and verifiable info forever.
Airlines would also have your true information because you cannot even buy your plane ticket with cash (well, maybe you can - but I wouldn't recommend it nowdays). At least groceries can still be had for cash...
The "free speech" card is so abused nowadays that it will soon lose any meaning.
"Commercial speech" is generally understood to be different from "free speech". The airlines may have been somewhat emboldened by Citizens United, though.
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
That's all well and good for taxes, but what about
You could argue that these are not necessities (thus the law you quote does not apply). But I would say that a carry-on charge, for example, really pushes the line of "necessity".
Amazon do personal pricing. They won't give you a price for some things unless you login. Then they give you a price that is the maximum they think you will pay. Other people see lower prices.
The articles talks about hidden fees, though (carry-ons, luggage, taxes, choosing a seat, etc.). Amazon does nothing to prevent you from comparing its price to the competitor's.
For example, if Amazon sold you a laptop, but neglected to mention that a battery is not included and costs $100 extra (example chosen specifically to correspond to a carry-on fee. Yes, theoretically you can make do without any carry-on, but that is rare).
How airlines get away with this (or with prices shown without taxes, when taxes were never a constant) is a mystery to me. This should have been made illegal a long time ago!
Airlines also have been cracking down on websites that help travelers manage their frequent flier accounts. The sites use travelers' frequent flier passwords to obtain balances and mileage expiration dates, and then display the information in a way that makes it easier for travelers to figure out when it makes more sense to buy a ticket or to use miles.
There is not even a quote from airlines about "making it safer for passengers" or "providing the best service". I guess there is simply no way to spin this as a good thing for customers. A rare event indeed.
Or is Google software getting worse instead of better? ... Google is run by engineers, which is cool
Maybe the wind started to blow in the other direction?
I cannot say much for quality of software, but it seems like all services have gone up in price A LOT (gmail storage, google apps). Maybe engineers are no longer calling the shots? Nothing wrong with charging for services or increasing the price, but when the price goes up a lot (or when the free "small business" options just disappear completely instead of diminishing) that seems a little far.
Usually 1 stars are "Didn't receive the item. Contacted seller but got no response (it's been more than 24 hours since I ordered the product). Very disappointed."
But my favorite is 3 stars (or even 1 star sometimes) with "Great product, very happy, will buy again".
I swear, some people lack the ability to comprehend the rule: more stars good, fewer stars bad.
Reviews are only valid from people that maintain that as their profession. There is a level of experience that comes with reviewing and editing that can't be achieved casually.
I assume you mean "things like books", because if I am buying a mouse, non-professional reviews are highly valid. Perhaps more so than professional ones.
Even for books (movies, etc), I am a tad suspicious of "professional" bullet by bullet reviews. I think there is a higher chance that the professional reviewer has been somehow bribed. Personally, If I were to hire astroturfers, I'd reach out to the professional reviewers first, even if it cost more.
I think online reviews are only worth anything when you have dozens or, better yet, hundreds. A few reviews are usually worthless.
Three weeks with none of my games on Steam playable. Makes me wonder why I bother buying anything.
Vote with your wallet - buy from Good Old Games (or such) instead. No DRM.
The fifty-something TSA rent-a-cop (Keystone Kop?), in a half-assed attempt at condescension, "explained" to me that "this machine is not harmful, it uses millimeter wave technology that is the same technology in your cell phone -- it's just as safe as your cell phone."
They now all explain (usually politely) that "this is a millimeter wave machine not an x-ray machine", which is safe. I am yet to see the formal apology issued by TSA regarding deploying x-ray machines first, which they now admit may be harmful.
New machines may or may not be harmful too, perhaps they'll admit that the current machines are not safe when it is time to contract out for the 3rd generation (super-safe-wave-machine) scanners.
No matter how bad a day a waiter is having, he shouldn't spit on food. And TSA employees should treat people like people, not like a piece of meat on a slaughter line.
There is a crucial difference in these two examples
If I caught a waiter spitting in someone's food, I could have them fired or worse. Good luck holding a TSA representative responsible for anything, even if they did something bad. It's like you would complain about the waiter spitting in your food, the restaurant association would review your complaint and then inform you that such behavior aligns with restaurant's official policy. And if you press the issue, you could get fined/arrested or even put on the "no eat" list.
If you allow people to behave badly without fear of punishment, you should expect that they will. In part because the people who are attracted to such positions will be more prone to perpetrating abuse.
Racist!
Awesome. So anyone criticizing Obama is racist, simply because Obama is black?
Troll he may be, but the OP has made no reference to race or any stereotypes. Where are you coming from with this?
The Senate is about to vote on an extension of the controversial FISA Amendments Act -- the unconstitutional law that allows the NSA to spy on Americans speaking to people abroad without a warrant. Yet you wouldn't know it by watching CSPAN because the Senate isn't debating it.
Why would they debate it? Both sides agree on every single military/security-related issue at this point.
The presidential debates were so interesting, with Obama and Romney competing to see who likes military drones more or who will promise to bomb more countries (Romney wins on that one, but not by much).
Yeah, right. This coming from the alleged constitutional law professor who signed the PATRIOT act extension.
Not to mention personally signing off on people who were put on a "kill list". It is so very surreal, what goes on nowdays.
This is a great sigh of relief to people like Julian Assange, Private Bradley Manning and those who respect their leadership and courage to share information about what their government is up to.
Ah, yes, I am sure there are directives in there about no longer hounding Assange, no longer blocking Wikileaks donations and letting Manning off for the inhumane treatment he suffered. No?
This wouldn't be coming from the same President Obama who publicly declared Manning to be guilty long before any trial?