It's only a matter of time (2018 when the SS account runs dry, or shortly thereafter), when it will transition to a Welfare-like program that is strictly for the poor. If your bank account is empty, you get SS checks. If not, then you get nothing. The Congress won't have any choice.
There is NO SS Trust Fund! Never has been one. The SS taxes go into the general fund, and IOU's are written to cover it.
Sort of like you moving money from your left hip pocket to your right hip pocket, and writing an IOU to put back in your left hip pocket. That way you have twice as much money, right??
But even ignoring that, they have a simple, obvious choice. The one that's been used repeatedly since SS was invented - raise the Social Security taxes.
The wonderful thing about that is that it hides the fact that those IOU's they've been writing themselves are actually just scraps of paper.
...that they provide services that the market wants. (I mean, who ever made a profit pleasing customers?) I hope that anti-trust law isn't too eviscerated to go after them for this BS.
Let's see...Hollywood...huge contributor to one of the major political parties...
Seems to me that the political party I'm trying to remember might be significant somehow. Perhaps the Party of the Speaker of the House? President Pro Tem of the Senate? President of the Senate? President of the USA?
One of those guys anyway...
So chances are pretty good antitrust laws won't be used against them while whichever of those guys it is is still in office....
For myself, I'd rather that the FICA deductions were completely removed, added as a revenue neutral addition to the general income tax, and considered Social Security payments to be simply a form of social welfare instead of an entitlement.
That pretty much is how the U.S. Congress has been treating the Social Security trust funds anyway since Tip O'Neil was speaker and Ronald Reagan was in the White House. Why not just make it official?
Actually, if you ever read the various laws related to Social Security, you'll find that it was set up that way from the very beginning.
The trick was that the average American in the 1930's found the idea of being "on the dole" shameful, so they had to hide the fact that under noise about "personal social security accounts", and such nonsense.
Fortunately, it's becoming more obvious every year to more and more Americans that it's just another tax with some more welfare attached to it.
Note that this is not meant to imply that SS is a bad thing. It's certainly better than letting the elderly starve, but it's arguably the worst way to avoid letting the elderly starve....
Pogo is damped in the liquid fuel system) or they are part of a big military rocket, which the general public as well as many space experts are largely unfamiliar with.
The "big military rockets" you're thinking of are ICBMs.
Which, being unmanned, can handle a lot more vibration than can a rocket carrying a crew of 4-7 people.
That said, NASA seems to be reconsidering some of the alternative designs that were rejected in favour of Ares 5. Which alternatives are both less capable and less expensive (and less technologically risky in that more of them are already proven technology).
Can you imagine the lateral stress on the structure if you attempted to build it horizontally and then hoist?
Note that SpaceX's Falcon9 (and 1 too, for that matter) is assembled horizontally and then hoisted vertically. They spent most of the past year testing the frame used to do that part of the job.
If you take an average over the whole continent, yes, but there are pockets of much higher density where the problems are.
There are parts of Europe where the population density is higher than it is anywhere in Africa. There are parts of Asia where the population density is higher than anywhere in Africa. There are even parts of North America and South America where the population density is higher than anywhere in Africa.
And yet, in general, Europe, Asia, North America and South America seem to be better off than Africa.
Oddly enough, they also have functional governments in Europe, Asia, North America and South America, but not in most of Africa.
Re:Access point to the hyperlogos
on
Caves of the Moon
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The obvious problem with an inflatable habitat is that anything the size of dust is going to make at least one hole in it.
This isn't a kid's balloon. As I recall, the skin is about six inches thick, and made of kevlar.
Somehow mandating that healthcare workers get vaccinated against a new flu is somehow a huge conspiracy to profit for them how?
Think of it this way - my wife makes widgets for sale. I am in a position to require a large block of people to buy widgets. I do so.
Now, is this corruption? Looks like it from here. Especially since all the guy had to do to avoid the "appearance of impropriety" is recuse himself from the decision-making process.
its very nearly as bad to overpopulate the countryside, forcing unemployed & landless citizens to hang around shantytowns, living in poverty, getting AIDS, joining a criminal gang and/or whatever the local revolutionary militia is this month.
Africa has a smaller population than Europe, and a larger land area than Europe.
In other words, it's not overpopulated by a long way.
The poverty in Africa has many causes, mostly to do with what passes for government in much of Africa. But overpopulation isn't the issue.
Yes. Knowing that the prosecution might be listening, the defendant will be afraid to speak frankly to his lawyer. This will result in inadequate defense and consequently to the conviction of innocent people.
I can't see where the innocent people would be afraid to speak frankly to their attorneys if they suspect the police might be listening in.
I can, on the other hand, see where the guilty guys might be afraid to speak frankly to their attorneys.
But I can't see how guilty guys getting inadequate defense will lead to the conviction of innocent people.
In general, other than somewhat exaggerating the capabilities of non-European nations, you're correct - Europe wasn't the height of civilization back then. But don't undermine your own arguments by adding items of questionable veracity.
Also, note that even if China had been inclined to conquer Europe then, they'd have been unable to do so - the logistics situation would have been impossible.
The government doesn't determine the price. What it does do is ascertain that the price (whatever it is) is the same for everyone.
So, basically, you're saying the government is preventing me from selling my property for any price I care to set on it? Yah, that's regulation, alright.
The "regulation" about book prices is not what you'd usually associate with the term. Specifically, it is a fixed-price model, which says that books can not be sold at discount except under certain circumstances.
Actually, that's pretty much what I'd associate with the word "regulation" - the government sets a minimum price on a product or service, forbidding anyone from coming up with a better way to market the product or service.
While having small bookstores where the employees know something about the books is nice, buying four books a week instead of five because of the higher price is not so nice....
You haven't answered the question yet. Why should I care why my car gets good mileage?
Note, for the not-too-bright-entity I'm responding to, the question isn't "why should my car get good mileage", but "why should I care why my car gets good mileage".
The two are not the same, in spite of the words "why", "car", "good" and "mileage" in both sentences.
From what I gathered from Googling, the only thing the "eco-hippies" have a problem with is when those nuclear reactors fall back to Earth - or when they're sunk during a nuclear submarine or ship accident.
Nah, when the subject of launching one into space came up decades ago, they opposed it completely, on the grounds that it might fall back to Earth.
I should also note that the reactor vessel of a ship's nuclear reactor isn't going to corrode to the point of allowing the contents out in less than many centuries.
I don't think anyone will have any problem launching a nuclear reactor into space other than the astronauts who are on board with it. And considering the long track record of such things, I don't think they will have a problem either.
Considering the way the word "nuclear" causes panic in the minds of many Greens, I'd guess you'd have a lot more problems than that if you tried to launch one.
Depends on how much he weighs. The drive provides a force of 0.5N. A typical car plus passengers masses around 1000kg. F=ma, so, 0.5 / 1000 gives him an acceleration of 0.0005 m/s/s (ignoring friction and air resistance). 800 miles is a little under 1,300 km, or 1,300,000m. Assuming a stationary start, and accelerating for the whole time, we get sqrt(2s/a), which is around 51,000 seconds, or around 14 hours. Of course, after that time he'd be going quite quickly, so he'd probably want to be slowing down for the second half of the journey which increases the total travel time to about 20 hours.
"quite quickly"? He'd be going (using your approximations) about 25.5 m/s. Which is only about 92 km/hour (57 miles per hour for those who don't do metric). He should be able to stop just fine with normal brakes in just a hundred feet or so.
This only hapenned because those regime had big propaganda machines, and their totalitarianism enabled them to effectively suppress news of their atrocities from reaching those apologetic intellectuals.
An exaggeration, at best. It must be remembered that "eugenics" didn't originate among the totalitarian states of the mid 20th century. Indiana and California was implementing eugenics laws when Hitler (and Stalin and Mao) was a child.
Though I must concede that the totalitarian states managed to implement eugenics on a scale that made the USA look like dabblers in the concept.
Slashdot Mirror
There is NO SS Trust Fund! Never has been one. The SS taxes go into the general fund, and IOU's are written to cover it.
Sort of like you moving money from your left hip pocket to your right hip pocket, and writing an IOU to put back in your left hip pocket. That way you have twice as much money, right??
But even ignoring that, they have a simple, obvious choice. The one that's been used repeatedly since SS was invented - raise the Social Security taxes.
The wonderful thing about that is that it hides the fact that those IOU's they've been writing themselves are actually just scraps of paper.
Let's see...Hollywood...huge contributor to one of the major political parties...
Seems to me that the political party I'm trying to remember might be significant somehow. Perhaps the Party of the Speaker of the House? President Pro Tem of the Senate? President of the Senate? President of the USA?
One of those guys anyway...
So chances are pretty good antitrust laws won't be used against them while whichever of those guys it is is still in office....
Actually, if you ever read the various laws related to Social Security, you'll find that it was set up that way from the very beginning.
The trick was that the average American in the 1930's found the idea of being "on the dole" shameful, so they had to hide the fact that under noise about "personal social security accounts", and such nonsense.
Fortunately, it's becoming more obvious every year to more and more Americans that it's just another tax with some more welfare attached to it.
Note that this is not meant to imply that SS is a bad thing. It's certainly better than letting the elderly starve, but it's arguably the worst way to avoid letting the elderly starve....
Reporters have expense accounts to cover the things they can't bring with them, and the shoes isn't enough inconvenience to waste much thought on.
The "big military rockets" you're thinking of are ICBMs.
Which, being unmanned, can handle a lot more vibration than can a rocket carrying a crew of 4-7 people.
What he said.
That said, NASA seems to be reconsidering some of the alternative designs that were rejected in favour of Ares 5. Which alternatives are both less capable and less expensive (and less technologically risky in that more of them are already proven technology).
Note that SpaceX's Falcon9 (and 1 too, for that matter) is assembled horizontally and then hoisted vertically. They spent most of the past year testing the frame used to do that part of the job.
There are parts of Europe where the population density is higher than it is anywhere in Africa. There are parts of Asia where the population density is higher than anywhere in Africa. There are even parts of North America and South America where the population density is higher than anywhere in Africa.
And yet, in general, Europe, Asia, North America and South America seem to be better off than Africa.
Oddly enough, they also have functional governments in Europe, Asia, North America and South America, but not in most of Africa.
This isn't a kid's balloon. As I recall, the skin is about six inches thick, and made of kevlar.
Think of it this way - my wife makes widgets for sale. I am in a position to require a large block of people to buy widgets. I do so.
Now, is this corruption? Looks like it from here. Especially since all the guy had to do to avoid the "appearance of impropriety" is recuse himself from the decision-making process.
It has a lower population density now than China had 1000 years ago. And a higher technology.
Again, it's not overpopulation that's the problem, it's what passes for government.
This assumes that the phone manufacturers will stop including a charger in every phone they sell.
Africa has a smaller population than Europe, and a larger land area than Europe.
In other words, it's not overpopulated by a long way.
The poverty in Africa has many causes, mostly to do with what passes for government in much of Africa. But overpopulation isn't the issue.
I can't see where the innocent people would be afraid to speak frankly to their attorneys if they suspect the police might be listening in.
I can, on the other hand, see where the guilty guys might be afraid to speak frankly to their attorneys.
But I can't see how guilty guys getting inadequate defense will lead to the conviction of innocent people.
Yes, several times, on several different cars. Difficult, but not impossible.
Speaking from experience as a submariner, I must disagree.
Among other differences are the rather large size of the boat's crew (comparatively speaking) and the mission duration.
For a submarine, four months is a long voyage.
And there aren't enough ways to divvy up six guys so that you can rearrange things so that two guys getting on each other's nerves can be kept apart.
Citation?
In general, other than somewhat exaggerating the capabilities of non-European nations, you're correct - Europe wasn't the height of civilization back then. But don't undermine your own arguments by adding items of questionable veracity.
Also, note that even if China had been inclined to conquer Europe then, they'd have been unable to do so - the logistics situation would have been impossible.
So, basically, you're saying the government is preventing me from selling my property for any price I care to set on it? Yah, that's regulation, alright.
The Rules of Engagement don't actually allow them to go after him.
Actually, that's pretty much what I'd associate with the word "regulation" - the government sets a minimum price on a product or service, forbidding anyone from coming up with a better way to market the product or service.
While having small bookstores where the employees know something about the books is nice, buying four books a week instead of five because of the higher price is not so nice....
Note, for the not-too-bright-entity I'm responding to, the question isn't "why should my car get good mileage", but "why should I care why my car gets good mileage".
The two are not the same, in spite of the words "why", "car", "good" and "mileage" in both sentences.
I'll bite. Why, exactly, should I care WHY my car gets good mileage?
If I get a car that gets 100 mpg, does it really matter to me just why it gets that kind of mileage? Likewise for a car that gets 10 mpg...
Nah, when the subject of launching one into space came up decades ago, they opposed it completely, on the grounds that it might fall back to Earth.
I should also note that the reactor vessel of a ship's nuclear reactor isn't going to corrode to the point of allowing the contents out in less than many centuries.
Considering the way the word "nuclear" causes panic in the minds of many Greens, I'd guess you'd have a lot more problems than that if you tried to launch one.
"quite quickly"? He'd be going (using your approximations) about 25.5 m/s. Which is only about 92 km/hour (57 miles per hour for those who don't do metric). He should be able to stop just fine with normal brakes in just a hundred feet or so.
An exaggeration, at best. It must be remembered that "eugenics" didn't originate among the totalitarian states of the mid 20th century. Indiana and California was implementing eugenics laws when Hitler (and Stalin and Mao) was a child.
Though I must concede that the totalitarian states managed to implement eugenics on a scale that made the USA look like dabblers in the concept.