Control by a small number of owners over most of the property, tended to by vassals and peasants is where an unregulated free market ultimately converges, and a destination we are well on the way to. That's pretty much Feudalism to a T.
Because you say it does? Because Karl Marx says it will? Despite the fact that it only happens through unrestrained government power?
Here's a clue for you: You have been fed a line of BS, and you don't want to question it, even though history has proven it wrong. Try thinking for yourself some time, instead of latching on to hating the groups people tell you should hate.
Well the first part sounds like some sort of anarchist warcry and the second part sounds like a cornerstone of conservative philosophy, so I'm still a little unclear as to how we get "progressive" out of it.
Oh, I'm sorry, too direct for you? The excuse for why government regulation failed is always because "there wasn't enough government regulation". In other words: "If we had been allowed to bash enough heads, things would have been better".
Well I would call myself centre-left, because that's what most of the world would consider me. But in America you'd probably call me a raging communist because I support things like publicly funded healthcare and education, large amounts of publicly funded infrastructure, strong protections for workers' rights, high and progressive taxation to minimise wealth disparity and strong regulations to curtail corporate abuse of property and the environment. You know, the stuff the Democrats used to work towards 30+ years ago when they were still something that could be regarded as a vaguely left-wing political party.
Well you just sound like a misguided socialist, bought into the idea that central planning will provide equal outcomes for everyone. Which in a way it will, as we see in places like North Korea, where most of the people live in abject poverty, and the rulers control the economy and all the means of production. This is how all socialist systems work - they focus on satisfying the needs of the producers. But it leaves most people without the food and goods they actually need.
I'm sure it will all work fine when nobody has property rights, and government micro-manages every plot of land and property is leased at the pleasure of the collective. You know, just like the good old days of Kings and Vassels. Do you think you'll get to be one of the rulers, or will you be one of the serfs?
It works better than feudalism, which seems to be what progressives want these days [...]
Wait, what ? Feudalism is where the "free marketeers" are trying to take us,
Yea, dumb ass, because "free market" means the King owns all the shit by Divine Right! What kind of stupid shit claim is that? Centralized control is feudalism, dumb ass, free market means you are FREE to TRADE. WTF?
with a rapid and growing - particularly in America - concentration of wealth amongst an increasingly smaller group of people.
Called GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS and CORPORATE EXECUTIVES - each swapping roles all the time. Duh.
At the current rate it should only be another couple of decades before the middle class has been completely obliterated
Yep. And assholes like you supporting it.
and the owners of a handful of corporations are ruling over their wage-slaves.
And a handful of government bureaucrats lording over the remaining slaves to government dependence and handouts.
They might even be nice enough to do it via the proxy of government to maintain the illusion of democracy.
As if they could do it without the government protection and "regulation" (which somehow always ends up as some form of twisted crony capitalism).
I'm not quite sure how you conclude the "progressives" want Feudalism.
LOL - because you keep expecting that if you vote in enough lying shitbags that cry "Eat the Rich" and "If we could just bash a few more heads, we could get [your enemy] under control!" that they will magically be on your side and do something that actually helps.
Especially in America, since there's not really any "progressive" politics to speak of in the first place.
Well then what the fuck do you call yourself - socialist? I thought you preferred progressive. Tell me what you call it and I'll use your term.
Freemarketeers always sound like sociopaths to me.
Because you can't face reality. Reality is that the free market creates prosperity wherever and whenever it is supported by respect for civil rights and private property rights. It works better than feudalism, which seems to be what progressives want these days, and better than socialism / communism, which has starved and killed more people than any other economic system in history.
And let's be clear: A free market is one where the consumers are in charge, and the system is focused on working to satisfy consumer needs. Socialist systems do the opposite - they focus instead on satisfying the needs of the producers. So where you see corporatism at work - like this government protection and sanctioning of AT&T's expansion of profits while the gouge their customers, most of whom are stuck in an area of monopoly control of Internet access, THAT is a socialist system in nature.
Absolutely it does. The simple fact is time and again it is seen that private entities are completely irresponsible and require government oversight and the threat of law to keep them in check.
This idea of deregulation needs to stop. Conservative thinking is a failure. The only time regulation doesnt work is when it is purposely sabotaged to not work which is time and again what conservatives do because its too costly to follow the law and do the right things. If corporations (even do no wrong Google) where not inherently evil, this wouldn't be a issue, But capitalism is just as evil as communism, just in its own ways.
Translation: It would have worked much better if we had only busted more heads!
Same difference, or did mean something positive with that statement?
Only that I don't feel like finding the report you are talking about, digging through the details, and pointing out the flaws. Suffice it to say that the returns on distributing tax revenues to unproductive members of society (regardless of the reasons they are unproductive or whatever efforts they have made to be productive - they are only receiving that assistance because they are currently unproductive) can only produce any kind of returns in an economy where they are a small minority.
Here is where the brass tacks come home to roost. How do you deal with these situations? You acknowledge the problem but don't offer any solution. THAT is exactly what we're dealing with as a country right now. I offer them a helping hand, you seem to want to wave at them from across the street and keep moving.
Well that's an issue that we will ALWAYS be dealing with, and it's not a major one right now. We are prosperous enough and have a pretty decent social safety net. Frankly "people dying of hunger in the streets" is not something you see happening these days. When it is - well what kind of mental problems or perfect storm of errors can happen in this country that can cause that now?
I only point out that the current system, by it's very nature, produces more harm than good by being unable to develop human potential, and providing assistance in such a way as to create a dependency culture. It's wrong. And, yes, I know that handing out a check to the indigent is cheaper than working with them to help them gain self-confidence and become self-sufficient, but it's still wrong.
What you are offering, to me, is not a "helping hand", but a "hand out" that perpetuates a dependent culture, resulting in a loss of self-esteem and a cycle of helplessness. Your system only wants to pay them off, and tuck them away where you don't have to look at them.
And please stop talking about "unemployment", because that is nothing but a temporary assistance program, paid for by employers, to work with people to find gainful employment. It's not what you seem to think it is. It's an insurance program funded by the businesses that hire workers. I happen to work in the Employment Security office - and our job is to help people transition to new work, NOT to pay out benefits. That being said, there are deadbeats that will milk the system, because they do not want to work. More than once I've heard of people offered jobs that asked if they could start some weeks or months later, because that's when their UI benefits ran out. That's difficult to deal with when I hear it, because the people they are asking this of are the people that pay all the bills for the Unemployment Insurance.
What part of reforming medicare and social security to offer fewer benefits is not taking 'pain' for the middle class/poor? Asking the rich to actually pay the same rates as everybody else is only fair.
According to the plan you posted, SS would get RAISES, and Medicare would not see any cuts at all. The rich already pay a higher percentage, and you haven't defined "rich" (I assume it's anyone that makes more than you). You can't fix the problem with class warfare, period. The top 5% currently contribute about 40% of federal revenues. The top 10% contribute 60%. The "rich" in the 50's were people making around $4 million a year, but somehow it's 1/20th of that now. When that doesn't work, it will be people making even less - there is no end to this cycle. People in the US (even the poorest of the working poor) are still among the top 1% of earners in the world, and about $500 billion is current spent for wealth redistribution from the US to the third world - so everyone will get swept into this eventually.
Yeah, see here's the difference. You view anyone as being involuntarily unemployed the same as the bum who won't work. They aren't the same. Morever, giving money to these people *will* increase demand because they actually spend a higher percentage of their now reduced income. Sure they can blow through savings, but hey, they don't deserve a future because their lazy idle bums.
NO! That is a completely wrong and twisted interpretation of my viewpoint, full of incorrect assumptions designed to lead you to spout off the talking points the socialists have taught you to use.
I see dependence as a state that causes many problems. People should aspire to succeed - it's how we all prosper. Failure is a typical outcome of human endeavor - it should not be punished, but it should also not be rewarded. The poor should be uncomfortable in poverty, to encourage them to try again to reach their full potential. People shouldn't be made to feel helpless, that they need government to support them forever - they should be empowered and encouraged to try again, and again, and again. And most importantly, success should be rewarded. The worst thing for an individual, and everyone around them, is to make an attempt, and to be comforted in failure to the degree that no further attempt is made.
Frankly, this is a difficult issue. Because I, like you, do not want to see people starve, and live in the streets and to despair to the point that they feel their life is worthless. But I feel dependency perpetuates this state. There is no dignity in dependence! There are also those that will take advantage of the system, and expend all their energy in obtaining "something for nothing", avoiding having their talents and abilities judged at any cost, even that of their own self-esteem.
Here you show your ignorance. Money is not based on actual real assets. Hasn't been for decades. You may like the Gold Standard, but it doesn't work in today's economy.
You miss my meaning. Yes, it's fiat money with no backing (other than the willingness of the US taxpayer to continue working and paying taxes). But here you show your own ignorance. What is "money"? An exchange medium for goods and services, yes? Anything else? What happens when nobody produces anything to buy? Or what if so little is produced that it takes a wheelbarrow full of fiat currency to buy it? If you print enough, it's worth nothing. It's only good because people are producing things to obtain it. There still has to be actual goods produced, labor performed, and some common agreement on the worth of the Federal Reserve notes in somebody's hand.
As for the country dying from devaluation, FDR didn't kill it when he devalued... his success/failure is debatable, but he didn't kill the country with his overnight devaluation of the dollar.
Ah, I pine for the days when the dollar was actually worth SOME amount of gold! It's all fiat money now, of course, backed only by the willingness of the US taxpayer to continue working and paying taxes.
As for the country dying from devaluation, FDR didn't kill it when he devalued... his success/failure is debatable, but he didn't kill the country with his overnight devaluation of the dollar.
The US actually produced stuff back then. It imports it all now. Big Difference.
Actually the Progressive Caucus in the house has a plan to balance the budget in 10 years [house.gov]...by doing just such progressive types of expenditures and tax reforms. Nobody else even comes close to that, Obama or the GOP.
Paul Krugman likes it, so it must be based on his ideology, which is a proven failure.
Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income
That will not only reduce investments, it will also result in a reduction in revenue. That's proven and has even been acknowledged by the Obama administration.
Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned
How hilariously naive.
Raise the taxable maximum on the employee side to 90% of earnings and eliminate the taxable
maximum on the employer side
So that's where most of the money is coming from. That will not only raise unemployment, but will put a huge burden on the self-employed.
Energy Independence With only 3% of the known oil reserves in the world, the United States
cannot become energy independent or measurably affect the world price of oil simply by drilling
more within our borders. We need to set loose the clean energy industry that is ready to take hold if
we make the public investments in transportation and storage. Our budget will unleash American
ingenuity and talent to build a new clean energy economy in which the United States will regain its
rightful place as a world leader, move energy independence and address our global warming
challenges.
Translation: A miracle happens here! (Oh, and we'll tax the crap out of it)
Bringing Our Troops Home and Reducing Defense Spending
Okay, I can get behind that. It should be part of EVERY budget proposal, we can't afford NOT to do this.
All the wealth redistribution in the plan is bad enough, but does it have to be a global redistribution, too? It even perpetuates Head Start. I mean, I know the goal is to start the "global village" indoctrination as early as possible, but can anyone even acknowledge that it is a proven failure for improving educational outcomes (unless your goal is "dumbing down", of course).
My point is that people aren't going to just stop lending to us overnight or for the foreseeable future - Defaulting on the debt, will cause them to stop lending to us pretty damned quick.
Maybe not, but they could certainly start demanding higher rates. And that will eat up the budget really fast paying higher rates on nearly $15 Trillion in debt. How high will that debt be in 10 years, again?
So one step is guaranteed to cause financial disaster, the other might in time. Why the hell would you choose defaulting on the debt of those two options.
And who is advocating defaulting on the debt? That seems to be the go-to fear tactic by the "raise the ceiling" advocates - claiming that cutting spending in any significant way requires defaulting on the debt. It's just fear-mongering.
we simply can't cut enough to solve the problems we face
We can't TAX enough to solve the problems, either. We have to do both. It's going to be painful for everyone, but some people don't want any pain for themselves, and just want to point fingers.
Investing in our country (and in others) so we can compete globally
But you want to take all the investment opportunities away and use it to feed and clothe the idle. How is that going to grow anything. I don't know what the CBO is smoking, but you're not going to get growth by having a few businesses that cater to a bunch of people feeding at the public trough.
You still haven't come up with what actually, real assets are supposed to be backing up all that imaginary money that you are going to give away - even if it's true that more imaginary money magically appears as a result.
Almost all proceeds from the central bank end up back with government, so interest payments on bonds owned by the Fed are irrelevant.
You're just talking about operational profit from the Fed, which is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the public debt and the treasury's obligations.
If the intent of "borrowing" is just to inflate the money supply to soft default, the productivity on debt is entirely irrelevant... the Fed doesn't need it's money to be productive, it can just print more after all.
Of course the Fed's debt is irrelevant - it doesn't have any. The chart is about the US Government's debt vs. the GDP of the country. How far in debt can the US go for "investment" in government programs until it is actually a drag on the economy? Less debt than it currently has, according to the chart. Which means the debt is too high, the deficit is almost double revenues, and it's time to cut spending or the country will die.
We still seem to have high unemployment. That means that both unemployment payments and food stamps will still be effective at stimulating the economy.
The EB payments for UI is essentially done, the rest is states borrowing more money from the DOL because they have exhausted the trust funds that are paid into by employment taxes. Those taxes, by statute, now have to be raised, in order to pay the loans and restore the trust funds. With inflation hitting food prices as it has been (and signs are that it will accelerate), there is little hope that food stamps will keep up, without throwing more debt at them. So both of those programs are a greater drag on GDP than a help. Part of the continuing death spiral while Keynesians like you continue to ignore the fiscal certainties.
The debt and the deficit are different things and need different solutions. The debt, all the world has to see is reasonable action towards financial sanity. They don't need to see it erased in 5 years.
Tell me how to get to something better than adding a trillion dollars to it every year, then? It's already close to GDP right now, and at $1.7 trillion extra every year, it will be way beyond sustainable. That's not reasonable action. Nobody (except Rand Paul) even has a plan to balance the budget in 5 years, much less address the debt.
Granted with the Tea Party 'patriots' driving us to a shut down/default, the world is rightly concerned that we don't have leadership they can have confidence in. Hence why there is panic in the financial markets towards the future.
You're right that they're concerned we don't have the leadership - because no one will deal with the fiscal mess in spite of the demands of the Tea Party, the IMF and World Bank, a hand full of reps like Warner, Paul, and Coburn that are demanding some responsible action. A future backed by greater abundance of useless fiat money and an economy that cannot make the promised payments is what would panic any creditor. With spending almost double revenues, and a 0.02% cut being blocked by one party as "draconian", they worry that we won't have the will make the hard choices.
The deficit is perfectly solvable provided we account for things we spend and actually pay for them unlike the GOP of the last 10 years. 'Tax and spend' is an epithet against the Dems, and yet it also is the very definition of fiscal responsibility. Funny how the GOP claims the Dems actually do what the GOP says they are better at.
There is no party that is blameless in producing the current fiscal mess. It has taken a lot more than 10 years to get here, and while it seems a Republican congress and a Democratic president do a little better and keeping the budget in check, the trend is steadily toward greater deficits and debt, and has been since Eisenhower left office. The last 3 years has seen the debt increase more than in the previous 10. Quite an accomplishment.
If you could spend $100,000,000 and get back $160,000,000, would you spend it?
We're already past the point where that works, and are now headed into a spiral of debt and monetization that will screw the entire economy to the wall. There has to be something real to back up all that imaginary money you want to create.
Direct monetization doesn't funnel money through the bond market, it goes directly to government coffers... who can decide how to divide it through fiscal policy and outlays.
The US doesn't do "direct monetization" (whatever you think that means). It borrows everything from the private central bank (the Federal Reserve), at interest. US debt is mostly short-term, too, so when the rates go up, so does the cost of that debt to the government. Continuing to borrow and pay on that debt is unsustainable, no matter how much printing of money you think the Federal Reserve can do.
In case you think there can be no point of diminishing returns on all this borrowing, I would direct your attention to this chart.
US officials can seize your domain without a court order while in Iran or China, they would just block you! Remember the massive domain seizure that ended up being wrong?
Freedom? That's strictly up for debate!
Well considering that the US can seize your domain regardless of what country is hosting your content, that ability probably shouldn't even be considered, as it is the same everywhere.
"We can't just print money and use it to pay off the debt. For each extra dollar we print, we make every other dollar in existence worth less. This means is takes more dollars to be worth a particular value, so prices go up. This is called inflation."
We cant print money and inflation is good for debtors (99% of the US pop the Govt) and bad for billionaires with large piles of cash (1% of the population and China) . This is an easy choice if you dont have your head up your ass.
That's not how the system works. At all.
When inflation hits (it's starting up rather quickly right now - oil prices are up primarily due to the devalued dollar), labor costs are one of the last things to catch up - skilled labor especially. With the unemployment rate still historically high, that's not likely to change.
Inflating money by printing it works by creating debt from the central bank to the large banks, to investment houses, and eventually to big businesses, smaller businesses, and finally consumers. That means that the people that get the money first get it while the value is higher, and the people that get money last get it after it's already devalued (so it buys less).
Inflation benefits billionaire bankers and investors and hurts the middle class and the working class the most.
Yes, I am sure big business will solve the problem for us.
BTW, how are you enjoying that Internet, jackass? You know who paid for it? You think it was big business. It is amazing how many F-Tards out there think that corporate America will solve every problem, even though it was corporate America who has gotten the entire world into a shit storm.
Yea because $1.5 billion in government funding TOTALLY OVERWHELMS the $2.5 Trillion in private investments made since 1991.
Which is why public policy should be directed to intercede. The public is short-sighted,
Oh, yes, of course. Because our representatives in Washington always take the long view, right?
The people saying we should do nothing are doing so mostly out of an ideological mistrust of government doing anything, but they are going to be very regretful when they realize the markets failed to see and prepare for a future that experts and government DID predict, and could have prevented or at least vastly reduced the severity of.
I don't think it's an ideological mistrust - I think it's a well-founded mistrust based on historical record. Central planning is not going to work here any better than it has worked with health care, retirement planning ($15 trillion in unfunded liabilities), public education, farming, banking, and on and on. There is no compelling technology that can fix anything, and no one can agree on any single set of policies, so you end up with some kind of "compromise" where each side gets the pork, the money, and control that satisfies them and whatever constituents they are pandering to and the public gets screwed once again.
All the government can do to fix this is level the playing field, stop rewarding failure and punishing success, and let people with ideas come up with solutions. Yes, some will fail. But some may not. And at least the failures won't mean the entire country is trashed.
Yes, you are correct. Unfortunately most of the efforts to "set things right" have been misguided and done more harm than good. The biggest impediment in my view is the tribal control of the land - since no individual tribe member can make a claim of ownership to any portion of land, it's extremely difficult to develop since it any contribution an individual makes becomes communal property.
The casinos were a way for the tribes to raise investment capital (with a governance structure agreeable to the investors), and at least develop some of the land they collectively control. But you're way off about the "totally free from US government control" part. SCOTUS has ruled that states can control gambling, even on tribal land, if the state has banned that form of gambling. There is also the Indian Gaming Regulation Act of 1988, which classifies gaming into 3 categories, and requires tribes to enter into compacts with their state governments to run any type of gaming establishment.
Well Sarrazin told the truth about Germany, its social policies, and the deterioration of the working class by the pockets of religious authoritarians that were supported by taxpayers but seek privileges for themselves.
This was an indictment of the socialists and their policies, so of course they have to call him "extremist". They do that to pretty much anyone that points out the destructive nature of socialism.
BTW, how's the native population doing in the States?
They are still being kept in poverty by government dependency and the restrictions on any individual from owning land. That's what collectivism and lack of private property rights does to a people, unfortunately. The native population were pushed out of good land many generations ago, and putting them on "reservations" meant they were not allowed to participate in the prosperity that resulted from all that land being given to individuals to develop.
As far as the linux kernel goes? They've picked a very specific release train. 2.4.22, which came out in 25-Aug-2003.
No. RTFA:
The accused infringement relates to the Linux kernel itself, which is at the core of Google's server farm. The complaint named a long list of allegedly infringing Linux versions, starting with the 2.4.22.x tree all the way to version "2.6.31.x, or versions beyond 2.6.31.x."
Why would that matter, if the code pre-existed the patent?
Which is really talking about computer-backed burners, which is what I assume the OP was referring to. If you're looking for a standalone component, it might run a little more.
Slashdot Mirror
Control by a small number of owners over most of the property, tended to by vassals and peasants is where an unregulated free market ultimately converges, and a destination we are well on the way to. That's pretty much Feudalism to a T.
Because you say it does? Because Karl Marx says it will? Despite the fact that it only happens through unrestrained government power?
Here's a clue for you: You have been fed a line of BS, and you don't want to question it, even though history has proven it wrong. Try thinking for yourself some time, instead of latching on to hating the groups people tell you should hate.
Well the first part sounds like some sort of anarchist warcry and the second part sounds like a cornerstone of conservative philosophy, so I'm still a little unclear as to how we get "progressive" out of it.
Oh, I'm sorry, too direct for you? The excuse for why government regulation failed is always because "there wasn't enough government regulation". In other words: "If we had been allowed to bash enough heads, things would have been better".
Well I would call myself centre-left, because that's what most of the world would consider me. But in America you'd probably call me a raging communist because I support things like publicly funded healthcare and education, large amounts of publicly funded infrastructure, strong protections for workers' rights, high and progressive taxation to minimise wealth disparity and strong regulations to curtail corporate abuse of property and the environment. You know, the stuff the Democrats used to work towards 30+ years ago when they were still something that could be regarded as a vaguely left-wing political party.
Well you just sound like a misguided socialist, bought into the idea that central planning will provide equal outcomes for everyone. Which in a way it will, as we see in places like North Korea, where most of the people live in abject poverty, and the rulers control the economy and all the means of production. This is how all socialist systems work - they focus on satisfying the needs of the producers. But it leaves most people without the food and goods they actually need.
I'm sure it will all work fine when nobody has property rights, and government micro-manages every plot of land and property is leased at the pleasure of the collective. You know, just like the good old days of Kings and Vassels. Do you think you'll get to be one of the rulers, or will you be one of the serfs?
Wait, what ? Feudalism is where the "free marketeers" are trying to take us,
Yea, dumb ass, because "free market" means the King owns all the shit by Divine Right! What kind of stupid shit claim is that? Centralized control is feudalism, dumb ass, free market means you are FREE to TRADE. WTF?
with a rapid and growing - particularly in America - concentration of wealth amongst an increasingly smaller group of people.
Called GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS and CORPORATE EXECUTIVES - each swapping roles all the time. Duh.
At the current rate it should only be another couple of decades before the middle class has been completely obliterated
Yep. And assholes like you supporting it.
and the owners of a handful of corporations are ruling over their wage-slaves.
And a handful of government bureaucrats lording over the remaining slaves to government dependence and handouts.
They might even be nice enough to do it via the proxy of government to maintain the illusion of democracy.
As if they could do it without the government protection and "regulation" (which somehow always ends up as some form of twisted crony capitalism).
I'm not quite sure how you conclude the "progressives" want Feudalism.
LOL - because you keep expecting that if you vote in enough lying shitbags that cry "Eat the Rich" and "If we could just bash a few more heads, we could get [your enemy] under control!" that they will magically be on your side and do something that actually helps.
Especially in America, since there's not really any "progressive" politics to speak of in the first place.
Well then what the fuck do you call yourself - socialist? I thought you preferred progressive. Tell me what you call it and I'll use your term.
Why was this modded down? I thought mods weren't supposed to be used for disagreements.
Freemarketeers always sound like sociopaths to me.
Because you can't face reality. Reality is that the free market creates prosperity wherever and whenever it is supported by respect for civil rights and private property rights. It works better than feudalism, which seems to be what progressives want these days, and better than socialism / communism, which has starved and killed more people than any other economic system in history.
And let's be clear: A free market is one where the consumers are in charge, and the system is focused on working to satisfy consumer needs. Socialist systems do the opposite - they focus instead on satisfying the needs of the producers. So where you see corporatism at work - like this government protection and sanctioning of AT&T's expansion of profits while the gouge their customers, most of whom are stuck in an area of monopoly control of Internet access, THAT is a socialist system in nature.
Absolutely it does. The simple fact is time and again it is seen that private entities are completely irresponsible and require government oversight and the threat of law to keep them in check.
This idea of deregulation needs to stop. Conservative thinking is a failure. The only time regulation doesnt work is when it is purposely sabotaged to not work which is time and again what conservatives do because its too costly to follow the law and do the right things. If corporations (even do no wrong Google) where not inherently evil, this wouldn't be a issue, But capitalism is just as evil as communism, just in its own ways.
Translation: It would have worked much better if we had only busted more heads!
I don't know what the CBO is smoking
Same difference, or did mean something positive with that statement?
Only that I don't feel like finding the report you are talking about, digging through the details, and pointing out the flaws. Suffice it to say that the returns on distributing tax revenues to unproductive members of society (regardless of the reasons they are unproductive or whatever efforts they have made to be productive - they are only receiving that assistance because they are currently unproductive) can only produce any kind of returns in an economy where they are a small minority.
Here is where the brass tacks come home to roost. How do you deal with these situations? You acknowledge the problem but don't offer any solution. THAT is exactly what we're dealing with as a country right now. I offer them a helping hand, you seem to want to wave at them from across the street and keep moving.
Well that's an issue that we will ALWAYS be dealing with, and it's not a major one right now. We are prosperous enough and have a pretty decent social safety net. Frankly "people dying of hunger in the streets" is not something you see happening these days. When it is - well what kind of mental problems or perfect storm of errors can happen in this country that can cause that now?
I only point out that the current system, by it's very nature, produces more harm than good by being unable to develop human potential, and providing assistance in such a way as to create a dependency culture. It's wrong. And, yes, I know that handing out a check to the indigent is cheaper than working with them to help them gain self-confidence and become self-sufficient, but it's still wrong.
What you are offering, to me, is not a "helping hand", but a "hand out" that perpetuates a dependent culture, resulting in a loss of self-esteem and a cycle of helplessness. Your system only wants to pay them off, and tuck them away where you don't have to look at them.
And please stop talking about "unemployment", because that is nothing but a temporary assistance program, paid for by employers, to work with people to find gainful employment. It's not what you seem to think it is. It's an insurance program funded by the businesses that hire workers. I happen to work in the Employment Security office - and our job is to help people transition to new work, NOT to pay out benefits. That being said, there are deadbeats that will milk the system, because they do not want to work. More than once I've heard of people offered jobs that asked if they could start some weeks or months later, because that's when their UI benefits ran out. That's difficult to deal with when I hear it, because the people they are asking this of are the people that pay all the bills for the Unemployment Insurance.
"The CBO is just wrong."
I never said that!
What part of reforming medicare and social security to offer fewer benefits is not taking 'pain' for the middle class/poor? Asking the rich to actually pay the same rates as everybody else is only fair.
According to the plan you posted, SS would get RAISES, and Medicare would not see any cuts at all. The rich already pay a higher percentage, and you haven't defined "rich" (I assume it's anyone that makes more than you). You can't fix the problem with class warfare, period. The top 5% currently contribute about 40% of federal revenues. The top 10% contribute 60%. The "rich" in the 50's were people making around $4 million a year, but somehow it's 1/20th of that now. When that doesn't work, it will be people making even less - there is no end to this cycle. People in the US (even the poorest of the working poor) are still among the top 1% of earners in the world, and about $500 billion is current spent for wealth redistribution from the US to the third world - so everyone will get swept into this eventually.
Yeah, see here's the difference. You view anyone as being involuntarily unemployed the same as the bum who won't work. They aren't the same. Morever, giving money to these people *will* increase demand because they actually spend a higher percentage of their now reduced income. Sure they can blow through savings, but hey, they don't deserve a future because their lazy idle bums.
NO! That is a completely wrong and twisted interpretation of my viewpoint, full of incorrect assumptions designed to lead you to spout off the talking points the socialists have taught you to use.
I see dependence as a state that causes many problems. People should aspire to succeed - it's how we all prosper. Failure is a typical outcome of human endeavor - it should not be punished, but it should also not be rewarded. The poor should be uncomfortable in poverty, to encourage them to try again to reach their full potential. People shouldn't be made to feel helpless, that they need government to support them forever - they should be empowered and encouraged to try again, and again, and again. And most importantly, success should be rewarded. The worst thing for an individual, and everyone around them, is to make an attempt, and to be comforted in failure to the degree that no further attempt is made.
Frankly, this is a difficult issue. Because I, like you, do not want to see people starve, and live in the streets and to despair to the point that they feel their life is worthless. But I feel dependency perpetuates this state. There is no dignity in dependence! There are also those that will take advantage of the system, and expend all their energy in obtaining "something for nothing", avoiding having their talents and abilities judged at any cost, even that of their own self-esteem.
Here you show your ignorance. Money is not based on actual real assets. Hasn't been for decades. You may like the Gold Standard, but it doesn't work in today's economy.
You miss my meaning. Yes, it's fiat money with no backing (other than the willingness of the US taxpayer to continue working and paying taxes). But here you show your own ignorance. What is "money"? An exchange medium for goods and services, yes? Anything else? What happens when nobody produces anything to buy? Or what if so little is produced that it takes a wheelbarrow full of fiat currency to buy it? If you print enough, it's worth nothing. It's only good because people are producing things to obtain it. There still has to be actual goods produced, labor performed, and some common agreement on the worth of the Federal Reserve notes in somebody's hand.
As for the country dying from devaluation, FDR didn't kill it when he devalued ... his success/failure is debatable, but he didn't kill the country with his overnight devaluation of the dollar.
Ah, I pine for the days when the dollar was actually worth SOME amount of gold! It's all fiat money now, of course, backed only by the willingness of the US taxpayer to continue working and paying taxes.
As for the country dying from devaluation, FDR didn't kill it when he devalued ... his success/failure is debatable, but he didn't kill the country with his overnight devaluation of the dollar.
The US actually produced stuff back then. It imports it all now. Big Difference.
Actually the Progressive Caucus in the house has a plan to balance the budget in 10 years [house.gov]...by doing just such progressive types of expenditures and tax reforms. Nobody else even comes close to that, Obama or the GOP.
Paul Krugman likes it, so it must be based on his ideology, which is a proven failure.
Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income
That will not only reduce investments, it will also result in a reduction in revenue. That's proven and has even been acknowledged by the Obama administration.
Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned
How hilariously naive.
Raise the taxable maximum on the employee side to 90% of earnings and eliminate the taxable maximum on the employer side
So that's where most of the money is coming from. That will not only raise unemployment, but will put a huge burden on the self-employed.
Energy Independence With only 3% of the known oil reserves in the world, the United States cannot become energy independent or measurably affect the world price of oil simply by drilling more within our borders. We need to set loose the clean energy industry that is ready to take hold if we make the public investments in transportation and storage. Our budget will unleash American ingenuity and talent to build a new clean energy economy in which the United States will regain its rightful place as a world leader, move energy independence and address our global warming challenges.
Translation: A miracle happens here! (Oh, and we'll tax the crap out of it)
Bringing Our Troops Home and Reducing Defense Spending
Okay, I can get behind that. It should be part of EVERY budget proposal, we can't afford NOT to do this.
All the wealth redistribution in the plan is bad enough, but does it have to be a global redistribution, too? It even perpetuates Head Start. I mean, I know the goal is to start the "global village" indoctrination as early as possible, but can anyone even acknowledge that it is a proven failure for improving educational outcomes (unless your goal is "dumbing down", of course).
My point is that people aren't going to just stop lending to us overnight or for the foreseeable future - Defaulting on the debt, will cause them to stop lending to us pretty damned quick.
Maybe not, but they could certainly start demanding higher rates. And that will eat up the budget really fast paying higher rates on nearly $15 Trillion in debt. How high will that debt be in 10 years, again?
So one step is guaranteed to cause financial disaster, the other might in time. Why the hell would you choose defaulting on the debt of those two options.
And who is advocating defaulting on the debt? That seems to be the go-to fear tactic by the "raise the ceiling" advocates - claiming that cutting spending in any significant way requires defaulting on the debt. It's just fear-mongering.
we simply can't cut enough to solve the problems we face
We can't TAX enough to solve the problems, either. We have to do both. It's going to be painful for everyone, but some people don't want any pain for themselves, and just want to point fingers.
Investing in our country (and in others) so we can compete globally
But you want to take all the investment opportunities away and use it to feed and clothe the idle. How is that going to grow anything. I don't know what the CBO is smoking, but you're not going to get growth by having a few businesses that cater to a bunch of people feeding at the public trough.
You still haven't come up with what actually, real assets are supposed to be backing up all that imaginary money that you are going to give away - even if it's true that more imaginary money magically appears as a result.
Almost all proceeds from the central bank end up back with government, so interest payments on bonds owned by the Fed are irrelevant.
You're just talking about operational profit from the Fed, which is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the public debt and the treasury's obligations.
If the intent of "borrowing" is just to inflate the money supply to soft default, the productivity on debt is entirely irrelevant ... the Fed doesn't need it's money to be productive, it can just print more after all.
Of course the Fed's debt is irrelevant - it doesn't have any. The chart is about the US Government's debt vs. the GDP of the country. How far in debt can the US go for "investment" in government programs until it is actually a drag on the economy? Less debt than it currently has, according to the chart. Which means the debt is too high, the deficit is almost double revenues, and it's time to cut spending or the country will die.
We still seem to have high unemployment. That means that both unemployment payments and food stamps will still be effective at stimulating the economy.
The EB payments for UI is essentially done, the rest is states borrowing more money from the DOL because they have exhausted the trust funds that are paid into by employment taxes. Those taxes, by statute, now have to be raised, in order to pay the loans and restore the trust funds. With inflation hitting food prices as it has been (and signs are that it will accelerate), there is little hope that food stamps will keep up, without throwing more debt at them. So both of those programs are a greater drag on GDP than a help. Part of the continuing death spiral while Keynesians like you continue to ignore the fiscal certainties.
The debt and the deficit are different things and need different solutions. The debt, all the world has to see is reasonable action towards financial sanity. They don't need to see it erased in 5 years.
Tell me how to get to something better than adding a trillion dollars to it every year, then? It's already close to GDP right now, and at $1.7 trillion extra every year, it will be way beyond sustainable. That's not reasonable action. Nobody (except Rand Paul) even has a plan to balance the budget in 5 years, much less address the debt.
Granted with the Tea Party 'patriots' driving us to a shut down/default, the world is rightly concerned that we don't have leadership they can have confidence in. Hence why there is panic in the financial markets towards the future.
You're right that they're concerned we don't have the leadership - because no one will deal with the fiscal mess in spite of the demands of the Tea Party, the IMF and World Bank, a hand full of reps like Warner, Paul, and Coburn that are demanding some responsible action. A future backed by greater abundance of useless fiat money and an economy that cannot make the promised payments is what would panic any creditor. With spending almost double revenues, and a 0.02% cut being blocked by one party as "draconian", they worry that we won't have the will make the hard choices.
The deficit is perfectly solvable provided we account for things we spend and actually pay for them unlike the GOP of the last 10 years. 'Tax and spend' is an epithet against the Dems, and yet it also is the very definition of fiscal responsibility. Funny how the GOP claims the Dems actually do what the GOP says they are better at.
There is no party that is blameless in producing the current fiscal mess. It has taken a lot more than 10 years to get here, and while it seems a Republican congress and a Democratic president do a little better and keeping the budget in check, the trend is steadily toward greater deficits and debt, and has been since Eisenhower left office. The last 3 years has seen the debt increase more than in the previous 10. Quite an accomplishment.
If you could spend $100,000,000 and get back $160,000,000, would you spend it?
We're already past the point where that works, and are now headed into a spiral of debt and monetization that will screw the entire economy to the wall. There has to be something real to back up all that imaginary money you want to create.
Direct monetization doesn't funnel money through the bond market, it goes directly to government coffers ... who can decide how to divide it through fiscal policy and outlays.
The US doesn't do "direct monetization" (whatever you think that means). It borrows everything from the private central bank (the Federal Reserve), at interest. US debt is mostly short-term, too, so when the rates go up, so does the cost of that debt to the government. Continuing to borrow and pay on that debt is unsustainable, no matter how much printing of money you think the Federal Reserve can do.
In case you think there can be no point of diminishing returns on all this borrowing, I would direct your attention to this chart.
US officials can seize your domain without a court order while in Iran or China, they would just block you! Remember the massive domain seizure that ended up being wrong?
Freedom? That's strictly up for debate!
Well considering that the US can seize your domain regardless of what country is hosting your content, that ability probably shouldn't even be considered, as it is the same everywhere.
"We can't just print money and use it to pay off the debt. For each extra dollar we print, we make every other dollar in existence worth less. This means is takes more dollars to be worth a particular value, so prices go up. This is called inflation." We cant print money and inflation is good for debtors (99% of the US pop the Govt) and bad for billionaires with large piles of cash (1% of the population and China) . This is an easy choice if you dont have your head up your ass.
That's not how the system works. At all.
When inflation hits (it's starting up rather quickly right now - oil prices are up primarily due to the devalued dollar), labor costs are one of the last things to catch up - skilled labor especially. With the unemployment rate still historically high, that's not likely to change.
Inflating money by printing it works by creating debt from the central bank to the large banks, to investment houses, and eventually to big businesses, smaller businesses, and finally consumers. That means that the people that get the money first get it while the value is higher, and the people that get money last get it after it's already devalued (so it buys less).
Inflation benefits billionaire bankers and investors and hurts the middle class and the working class the most.
Yes, I am sure big business will solve the problem for us. BTW, how are you enjoying that Internet, jackass? You know who paid for it? You think it was big business. It is amazing how many F-Tards out there think that corporate America will solve every problem, even though it was corporate America who has gotten the entire world into a shit storm.
Yea because $1.5 billion in government funding TOTALLY OVERWHELMS the $2.5 Trillion in private investments made since 1991.
I think that is more the fact that CNG equipment has a tendency to go 'boom' and leave a small crater where once your car stood.
But federal and state safety regulations cover that. The OP was talking about the onerous EPA regulations that have nothing to do with safety.
Which is why public policy should be directed to intercede. The public is short-sighted,
Oh, yes, of course. Because our representatives in Washington always take the long view, right?
The people saying we should do nothing are doing so mostly out of an ideological mistrust of government doing anything, but they are going to be very regretful when they realize the markets failed to see and prepare for a future that experts and government DID predict, and could have prevented or at least vastly reduced the severity of.
I don't think it's an ideological mistrust - I think it's a well-founded mistrust based on historical record. Central planning is not going to work here any better than it has worked with health care, retirement planning ($15 trillion in unfunded liabilities), public education, farming, banking, and on and on. There is no compelling technology that can fix anything, and no one can agree on any single set of policies, so you end up with some kind of "compromise" where each side gets the pork, the money, and control that satisfies them and whatever constituents they are pandering to and the public gets screwed once again.
All the government can do to fix this is level the playing field, stop rewarding failure and punishing success, and let people with ideas come up with solutions. Yes, some will fail. But some may not. And at least the failures won't mean the entire country is trashed.
Yes, you are correct. Unfortunately most of the efforts to "set things right" have been misguided and done more harm than good. The biggest impediment in my view is the tribal control of the land - since no individual tribe member can make a claim of ownership to any portion of land, it's extremely difficult to develop since it any contribution an individual makes becomes communal property.
The casinos were a way for the tribes to raise investment capital (with a governance structure agreeable to the investors), and at least develop some of the land they collectively control. But you're way off about the "totally free from US government control" part. SCOTUS has ruled that states can control gambling, even on tribal land, if the state has banned that form of gambling. There is also the Indian Gaming Regulation Act of 1988, which classifies gaming into 3 categories, and requires tribes to enter into compacts with their state governments to run any type of gaming establishment.
Well Sarrazin told the truth about Germany, its social policies, and the deterioration of the working class by the pockets of religious authoritarians that were supported by taxpayers but seek privileges for themselves.
This was an indictment of the socialists and their policies, so of course they have to call him "extremist". They do that to pretty much anyone that points out the destructive nature of socialism.
BTW, how's the native population doing in the States?
They are still being kept in poverty by government dependency and the restrictions on any individual from owning land. That's what collectivism and lack of private property rights does to a people, unfortunately. The native population were pushed out of good land many generations ago, and putting them on "reservations" meant they were not allowed to participate in the prosperity that resulted from all that land being given to individuals to develop.
Still missing OLGA.
As far as the linux kernel goes? They've picked a very specific release train. 2.4.22, which came out in 25-Aug-2003 .
No. RTFA:
Why would that matter, if the code pre-existed the patent?
Right there on NewEgg.
Which is really talking about computer-backed burners, which is what I assume the OP was referring to. If you're looking for a standalone component, it might run a little more.