There's no way that Congress will manage to focus on the same task for 15-20 years.
Within five years, they'll be trying to find someplace to cut to pay for some pork somewhere, and the project that's not due to deliver anything for a decade or more then will be first on the chopping block.
Most intelligent environmentalists (the type you're likely to run into on Slashdot) DO advocate for nuclear power,
Well, no.
On/., most of the environmentalist types are rabidly anti-nuclear. The only ones who seem to be pro-nuclear are some of the engineers and the few of us who've actually been nuclear plant operators.
Or are you limiting the phrase "intelligent environmentalist" to the point where there are only a handful on/.?
If you're saying not to use a gun at all, then what if you don't believe you'll be able to overpower them without the gun, but still do not want to kill them?
If you are not mentally prepared to shoot to kill, you probably shouldn't carry a gun - try a taser, or a baseball bat instead.
What are your options then?
Does the phrase "suffer, bitch" have any meaning for you?
Seriously, trying to shoot someone in a leg is just going to increase the likelihood that you injure a bystander, as well as leaving you open to all sorts of legal trouble - if you're in fear for your life, shoot to kill.
One of the most "conservative" states is Texas, that has a $27 billion budget deficit
A quick google, and I find that the $27B is over two years.
I also find that the week after it was identified, the Tx legislature got to work reducing that deficit. Supposedly, they cut $31B from their budget over the next two years....
if we were to take a realistic bar for safety--- beating the average human driver--- the bar is actually pretty low, because the average safety record of human drivers is pretty shitty.
Per mile driven, just what is the safety record of your average human driver in the USA?
Based on a quickie check of the statistics, looks like 0.08 accidents per driver per year, on average. Or 0.00025 fatal accidents per driver per year.
Doesn't look like human drivers are really that bad, when they drive most every day, and average 12 years between accidents....
Yepp, his fault that something that was approved, budgeted and begun before his administration was done... (this is my glare face)
Not quite.
Budgeting can't be done that far in advance in the USA. Anything that was built this past year had to have been budgeted no earlier than the year before.
The alternative is that at each change of president, we halt all government activity for 3 years and have everyone twiddle their thumbs while new policies are written, and then run those policies for the 4th year.
Yes, the idea is silly. On the other hand, King Stork hasn't worked so well for us (multiple wars, bad economy), so maybe it's time to give King Log a try....
Isn't this hilarious how we were angry at how Iran cracked down on protesters during their election, but we are more than happy to do exactly the same thing for a few looters.
Note the (presumably subtle) distinction between peaceful protesters (such as Iran was cracking down on) and violent looters (such as the UK is thinking about cracking down on).
Note also that noone got upset when the Brits were peacefully protesting. It was the arson, robberies, assaults and such that upset people.
In this case, the judge notes that the company has spent over $600,000, and then awards them $489,150.48 in attorney's fees.
That's a net loss of $110,000 - far more than the extortion, sorry I mean proposed settlement was.
The court also awarded them $141,984.70 for Rule 11 violations. So they received a total of $631,135.18. Which is rather more than the $600K they spent.
Except that the persons taking the case would then know that there were a conflict of interest, because they would know that they are the defendants
Umm, no.
It is NOT a "conflict of interest" to want the side you are on to win. It is a "conflict of interest" to want the side you are on to lose.
It would be a conflict of interest if the blogger's attorneys were graduates of Cooley, but not so much if Cooley's attorneys' were graduates of Cooley.
but a law degree is not like other academic degrees. It is not simply awarded by the faculty. One has to meet external standards.
No. Passing the Bar is irrelevant to graduating from Law School with the appropriate degree.
You can get the degree without passing the Bar, and you can pass the Bar without getting the Degree.
Note that passing the Bar is the requirement to practice law in the USA. Law school is not required. Though getting a job as a lawyer tends to require a degree from a more-or-less prestigious law school, it is possible to be a self-employed lawyer with only the Bar....
And thanks to the Bush tax cuts and all these federal level cuts, my state and local taxes are through the roof to compensate for what the federal government isn't doing and/or providing.
Umm, no.
First off, those federal budget cuts haven't actually happened yet. They may never happen. And if they DO happen, they won't be "cuts", they'll be "reduction in rates of increase" - the budget won't be lower than the year before, it just won't be as much higher as they originally planned.
Secondly, State and local taxes aren't increasing because the feds aren't doing/providing something. They're increasing because the State's bills are higher than they were (remember, Unemployment Insurance and Medicaid are largely State functions - more people on Medicaid, more drawing unemployment, fewer actually paying taxes, requirement that their books balance, add up to higher taxes for the people still paying taxes).
Thirdly, if you believe that budget cuts are bad when you're spending more than you make, consider doing your bit to help the economy get going - spend every penny you have, run your credit cards up to the max, get a second mortgage, and spend, spend, spend! It's worked for the Federal Government, right?
They eliminate Bush tax cuts and suddenly our problems get much smaller.
For values of "much" that are in the 15-20% range.
If we removed the Bush tax cuts, and everything else remained exactly as it is (the people affected by those tax cuts don't change behaviour due to increased tax liability), we're still talking deficits in the $1T+ range.
Also, keep in mind that those Bush tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of the year don't just apply to the rich. They were across the board tax cuts, and eliminating them will affect all of us that pay taxes.
The US doesn't even have the same debt ratio as an individual with a decent sized mortgage and a few credit cards, but they have a way better interest rate.
A person with a decent-sized mortgage and a few credit cards who spent 40% more than he made every year would have neither house nor credit cards after a few years....
This ignoring the fact that the government has a debt to income ratio around 6. Even when my mortgage was brand new, I didn't owe six times my income.
Oh and it has powers of imminent domain, how much book value do you give those?
So, you're arguing that the government isn't insolvent based on its legal right to STEAL YOUR STUFF?!?
While I agree the government has that power, exercising it to the point that it could begin paying down the debt (which means stealing ~$1.5T per year, minimum) would cause a revolution....
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but at current spending levels, cutting $4T over 10 years still has us running a deficit.
Not only running a deficit, but running near-record deficits. Only the last three years will have a higher deficit than we're projecting for the next ten.
And those projections assume that Congress actually does the spending cuts. Historically, they've not been too good at that part of "deficit reduction"...
In the worst case scenario USA will just print a few trillion dollars and discharge the debt. Of course, dollar will be devalued and the purchasing power of the money paid to retire the debt will be much less. But strictly speaking, your bond matured, you got the promised number of dollars. So how the hell can USA default?
So, your "worst case" reduces down to "the USA will pay off our current debt by ensuring that noone will every lend money to them again"? If you just print money to pay off your debts, people stop buying your bonds (since they know that you'll just hand them some monopoly money when it comes time to redeem the bond).
Note also that "a few trillion" is correct if we define "a few" as "six or seven". Which will increase the money supply by about 40%, and inevitably increase prices on everything by about the same amount. I take it you make enough that you could get by if everything cost 40% more?
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting that you'd mention neo-con and the Tea Party, when this happened in one of the most Liberal States in the Union...
For all intents and purposes...
There's no way that Congress will manage to focus on the same task for 15-20 years.
Within five years, they'll be trying to find someplace to cut to pay for some pork somewhere, and the project that's not due to deliver anything for a decade or more then will be first on the chopping block.
Lenin? Is that you?
Seriously, it's been tried. And the cure was worse than the disease....
Tongue in cheek.
Well, no.
On /., most of the environmentalist types are rabidly anti-nuclear. The only ones who seem to be pro-nuclear are some of the engineers and the few of us who've actually been nuclear plant operators.
Or are you limiting the phrase "intelligent environmentalist" to the point where there are only a handful on /.?
If you are not mentally prepared to shoot to kill, you probably shouldn't carry a gun - try a taser, or a baseball bat instead.
Does the phrase "suffer, bitch" have any meaning for you?
Seriously, trying to shoot someone in a leg is just going to increase the likelihood that you injure a bystander, as well as leaving you open to all sorts of legal trouble - if you're in fear for your life, shoot to kill.
If not, don't pull a gun out in the first place.
Because nuclear doesn't cause Global Warming, and natural gas does?
A quick google, and I find that the $27B is over two years.
I also find that the week after it was identified, the Tx legislature got to work reducing that deficit. Supposedly, they cut $31B from their budget over the next two years....
On the other hand, there's California....
Per mile driven, just what is the safety record of your average human driver in the USA?
Based on a quickie check of the statistics, looks like 0.08 accidents per driver per year, on average. Or 0.00025 fatal accidents per driver per year.
Doesn't look like human drivers are really that bad, when they drive most every day, and average 12 years between accidents....
Not quite.
Budgeting can't be done that far in advance in the USA. Anything that was built this past year had to have been budgeted no earlier than the year before.
Yes, the idea is silly. On the other hand, King Stork hasn't worked so well for us (multiple wars, bad economy), so maybe it's time to give King Log a try....
You just made a short story collection on the theme "cars"?
Or perhaps you meant car analogy?
You mean, sort of like the Space Shuttle did on every reentry?
Note the (presumably subtle) distinction between peaceful protesters (such as Iran was cracking down on) and violent looters (such as the UK is thinking about cracking down on).
Note also that noone got upset when the Brits were peacefully protesting. It was the arson, robberies, assaults and such that upset people.
The court also awarded them $141,984.70 for Rule 11 violations. So they received a total of $631,135.18. Which is rather more than the $600K they spent.
Umm, no.
It is NOT a "conflict of interest" to want the side you are on to win. It is a "conflict of interest" to want the side you are on to lose.
It would be a conflict of interest if the blogger's attorneys were graduates of Cooley, but not so much if Cooley's attorneys' were graduates of Cooley.
No. Passing the Bar is irrelevant to graduating from Law School with the appropriate degree.
You can get the degree without passing the Bar, and you can pass the Bar without getting the Degree.
Note that passing the Bar is the requirement to practice law in the USA. Law school is not required. Though getting a job as a lawyer tends to require a degree from a more-or-less prestigious law school, it is possible to be a self-employed lawyer with only the Bar....
Umm, no.
First off, those federal budget cuts haven't actually happened yet. They may never happen. And if they DO happen, they won't be "cuts", they'll be "reduction in rates of increase" - the budget won't be lower than the year before, it just won't be as much higher as they originally planned.
Secondly, State and local taxes aren't increasing because the feds aren't doing/providing something. They're increasing because the State's bills are higher than they were (remember, Unemployment Insurance and Medicaid are largely State functions - more people on Medicaid, more drawing unemployment, fewer actually paying taxes, requirement that their books balance, add up to higher taxes for the people still paying taxes).
Thirdly, if you believe that budget cuts are bad when you're spending more than you make, consider doing your bit to help the economy get going - spend every penny you have, run your credit cards up to the max, get a second mortgage, and spend, spend, spend! It's worked for the Federal Government, right?
For values of "much" that are in the 15-20% range.
If we removed the Bush tax cuts, and everything else remained exactly as it is (the people affected by those tax cuts don't change behaviour due to increased tax liability), we're still talking deficits in the $1T+ range.
Also, keep in mind that those Bush tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of the year don't just apply to the rich. They were across the board tax cuts, and eliminating them will affect all of us that pay taxes.
A person with a decent-sized mortgage and a few credit cards who spent 40% more than he made every year would have neither house nor credit cards after a few years....
This ignoring the fact that the government has a debt to income ratio around 6. Even when my mortgage was brand new, I didn't owe six times my income.
So, you're arguing that the government isn't insolvent based on its legal right to STEAL YOUR STUFF?!?
While I agree the government has that power, exercising it to the point that it could begin paying down the debt (which means stealing ~$1.5T per year, minimum) would cause a revolution....
The government's income is about $2.3T. Its debt is about $14T. How is that a 1:1 ratio?
Remember, YOU are not a slave of the government! The part of GDP which is represented by your income belongs to YOU, not the government.
Until they tax it away, of course.
Not only running a deficit, but running near-record deficits. Only the last three years will have a higher deficit than we're projecting for the next ten.
And those projections assume that Congress actually does the spending cuts. Historically, they've not been too good at that part of "deficit reduction"...
So, your "worst case" reduces down to "the USA will pay off our current debt by ensuring that noone will every lend money to them again"? If you just print money to pay off your debts, people stop buying your bonds (since they know that you'll just hand them some monopoly money when it comes time to redeem the bond).
Note also that "a few trillion" is correct if we define "a few" as "six or seven". Which will increase the money supply by about 40%, and inevitably increase prices on everything by about the same amount. I take it you make enough that you could get by if everything cost 40% more?