I'm not sure what'll happen if Bush loses. I'm thinking he'll torch the white house and leave messages to all world leaders in Kerry's name, calling them assholes.
And we want to keep those relations good by not getting their government overthrown and replaced with a radical islamic theocracy.
What do you mean? That would be greatnews! There would be a 'radical islamist theocracy' in the 'middle east' that has 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'Usama'. Four out of four, man! Our dear christiofascist government would be falling over eachother to get to the big red button.
I personally think it's very recent, and probably partially aimed at defusing the earlier, much more aggressive tape. I think Usama is saying "Hey, chill out, let's see what happens" to his supporters.
"Society", as you are pleased to call it, is only an aggregation of individuals.
Not quite. A society is an aggregation of people with (broadly) converging needs, goals and ideology.
What you are proposing is to take money away from individual A for the benefit of individual B. That may be good for individual B, but it is certainly not good for individual A.
I'm sorry, but you're either trolling or immensely dense. Shared tax burden is very good for you. It may be you don't want to pay taxes and that's fine, but given the premise that taxes must be paid, this is simple mutual income transfer with interest.
There's no such thing as "the good of society". -- Nobody ever had to use that line to convince you to do something that was in your interest.
You're right. No-one had to tell me; I'malready in tune with the whole 'common good' idea. You obviously are not and extremely selfish and would like to live detached from society. Except when you're in trouble, I'm guessing.
Compelling moral issue: stealing is wrong.
Sure, it is. However, grants do not have any of the characteristics of stealing. The government voluntarily gives money to a person, and usually that sum is repaid in increased revenue to the originator. If you have a problem with taxes, that's irrelevant to this discourse as taxation is a premise.
By compelling moral issues I refer to such reasons as he will to help those less fortunate which many people do not possess.
Excuse me, but that $50,000 job will still exist whether or not a particular individual is educated to fill it or not.
No it doesn't. Imagine the U.S. had X computer programmers and X + Y jobs for them. If Y more people are not trained, those jobs will remain unfulfilled (and will probably force the company to go somewhere else).
Simply getting an education will not make a job magically appear out of your ass.
I agree. However, economical mathematics says it's likely enough that a job is found, and therefore the proposition is profitable. You're also, of course, forgetting things like self-employment, too.
What are these "essentials", and essential to whom?
Essential to you and to the welfare of the overall society (and therefore good to you -with less poverty, people are less likely to be criminals, for example).
Let's see, there's the military, CIA, FBI, NSA, NASA, FDA, FAA, FTC, FCC, EPA; there's police, courts, prisons; firemen, health care, retirement; Coast Guard, Border Patrol; unemployment benefits, workers' compensation; infrastructure and communications; diplomacy and international trade; etc.
And as I pointed out, those jobs that are taxed will still exist whether or not any particular individual is qualified to fill it.
Exist in potentia? If no-one can do the job then no-one gets the job, and the government doesn't get the benefit. It's really pretty simple.
I hate to point this out, but until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, authorizing the federal government to lay and collect income taxes, the military was quite adequately funded by tariffs and excise taxes.
Oh yeah, the U.S. was a real superpower before 1940.
Funding the military alone would not require the collection of an income tax.
I'd like to see your figures for that assertion. I would also like to see a qualified economist's figures for what the tariffs would do to the economy (hint: catastrophe). You may also understand that people at large must have money for excise and tariffs to be effective, and the more money there is, the more effective they are.
Similarly for everything else. You could pay for it directl
We're talking apples here. You don't seem to understand the concept that while the immediate benefit goes to the student, it will propagate back to the society.
Again, all (compelling) moral issues aside, the simple economical reason for giving grants is that it will result in higher revenues for the grantor.
If an unskilled worker makes $20,000 and pays $3,000 in taxes and an educated one makes $50,000 and pays $10,000, that would mean a net revenue increase of $280,000 over a 40-year career for the government. That will fund a whole lot of essentials. Like the military.
Those are services I derive a direct benefit from, and if I didn't pay government for them, I'd still have to pay somebody else to provide (most of) them.
But you don't have to pay anyone else now, do you?
What we're talking about here is, the government is taking my money to spend for somebody else's benefit. I derive no benefit from having spent the money for the parent poster's having received an education and holding down a $70k job.
This is basic economics. It's better for you to live in a country in which other people earn well, too. All government programs are funded by tax revenue (well, except under the current President) and you receive direct benefit from it.
That's fine for the government, but their using my money to make this "fair trade" with.
How did you get that money? Was your country invaded by the Soviets at any point? Did you go to elementary school? Have you ever been the victim of a crime? The reality is that you're able to make money because someone else's money was spent to give you the opportunity to do so. That's how civilized societies work.
Did you go to school? Do you drive on a road? Does the police patrol your block? Does the military defend your homeland?
The idea is that an unskilled worker will make, what, $20,000 a year, a college-educated one probably around $45,000-$75,000. All moral issues aside, the government views the increased tax revenue as a fair trade.
Your premise is incorrect. A Robin Hood-bank robbery is in no way analogous to government education grants. Firstly, the money is given voluntarily and secondly, the money is returned--with interest--to the same people it was originally gotten from.
Yes, I saw you had two 'points'. The problem is that neither was either correct or relevant.
Re:Incumbents talk about their record
on
Don't Read My Lips
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Statistics are getting to people again. Specifically with regard to the reference to corporations, the relation is probably inverse: successful corporations tend to use the past or present more, rather than that doing so will make them successful.
You're just so wrong I bet you can't even look right.
Bank robbery? Try a loan. The government is 'borrowing' money to you with the expectation that you will 'pay them back' after you graduate. They give you $40000 and you give them $10000 a year for fourty years. I'd say the terms are pretty good, wouldn't you?
I do agree, though, that abuse of the system is a problem. I, therefore, propose that the aid be made in form of a loan. If the student graduates within a given time limit (exclude illness etc.), the loan is forgiven. That way the grants could also be expanded a little to help everyone out.
Here he just repeats over and over the most basic concepts of Libertarianism.
"I get to do whatever the fuck I want and you don't get to say anything about it. Oh, except if someone threatens me. Then you have to defend me to death."
On a related note, I propose that we allow anyone to own whatever weaponry they please. To compensate, they will be completely excluded from police and military protection.
I believe it was extrapolated on a similar study (or possibly the same one; different website anyway) that this is because of two possible reasons: A) in dems this invokes fear whereas republicans feel anger; or B) republicans are not surprised by the imagery (whether it's because of repeated exposure or a different expectations is not known).
Maybe they should have thought about this before they attacked? It's called the 'exit plan'. But oh, I forget, there was no time to wait. Iraq was just about to nucular the U.S., right?
They feel that they are not getting the whole truth and have to turn to alternative sources to here the whole truth of what is going on in the world.
Utter crap. Any half-decent psychologist could tell you that most (probably all) people simply need (psychological imperative) their opinions to be reinforced rather than questioned. And that's what we do.
Homosexual couple can procreate, just not with eachother.
Furthermore, one could assume that the immediate social network for a child in that environment would be on average larger because they would either A) just have two parents like everyone else* or B) also know the biological parent(s) (e.g. a male and female couple 'team up' to breed and split the kids).
It most certainly can. Socialism, as defined by Marx, is the evolutionary phase of a society immediately following the Revolution*. Due to the soft propaganda of decades most people don't understand this but Communism relies on a democratic political model when it's fully realized. The Socialist period, when dissent may be present and the economy and society are in process of being transformed, was assumed to require an authoritarian approach until the final transition was ready to be completed. This phase is, again, what the aforementioned countries supposedly were in.
I understand your point, though, touching upon it myself: Communism and Socialism are both terribly misunderstood terms because of the atrocities committed under their labels -and also in part because of propaganda.
[*] I'm not a Revolutionary Communist, I'm an Evolutionary one.
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
This is the standard trend of U.S. politics mixing and redefining terms. Maybe I should have phrased it 'Socialism'--a distinct polito-economic ideology-- rather than 'socialism' to clarify my position.
The 'modern socialism' you speak of is not, however, in any way derived from Socialism as you seem to imply but rather simply a parallel socioeconomical developement spurred by the general recognition of the moral (or perhaps biological?) imperative that forces us to take care of those who are in need.
Re:Free Speech in Denmark??
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
The GP is completely unfair. The U.S. has even established 'Free Speech Zones' to protect the first amendment.
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
Socialism is the final step on the journey towards communism. Notably, USSR was and China, Cuba and Vietnam still remain socialist regimes (in name only, realistically they're totalitarian state capitalisms). Socialism is characterized by a strong authoritarian control over the people (whereas in true communism it is not necessary as the communality is fully voluntary).
What you're talking about is normally referred to as 'social democracy' and is generally practiced in European countries and Canada.
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, those daycare centers are just breeding grounds for terrorists.
Dresden. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Vietnam. Nossirree Bob.
I'm not sure what'll happen if Bush loses. I'm thinking he'll torch the white house and leave messages to all world leaders in Kerry's name, calling them assholes.
What do you mean? That would be greatnews! There would be a 'radical islamist theocracy' in the 'middle east' that has 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'Usama'. Four out of four, man! Our dear christiofascist government would be falling over eachother to get to the big red button.
I personally think it's very recent, and probably partially aimed at defusing the earlier, much more aggressive tape. I think Usama is saying "Hey, chill out, let's see what happens" to his supporters.
Not quite. A society is an aggregation of people with (broadly) converging needs, goals and ideology.
I'm sorry, but you're either trolling or immensely dense. Shared tax burden is very good for you. It may be you don't want to pay taxes and that's fine, but given the premise that taxes must be paid, this is simple mutual income transfer with interest.
You're right. No-one had to tell me; I'malready in tune with the whole 'common good' idea. You obviously are not and extremely selfish and would like to live detached from society. Except when you're in trouble, I'm guessing.
Sure, it is. However, grants do not have any of the characteristics of stealing. The government voluntarily gives money to a person, and usually that sum is repaid in increased revenue to the originator. If you have a problem with taxes, that's irrelevant to this discourse as taxation is a premise.
By compelling moral issues I refer to such reasons as he will to help those less fortunate which many people do not possess.
No it doesn't. Imagine the U.S. had X computer programmers and X + Y jobs for them. If Y more people are not trained, those jobs will remain unfulfilled (and will probably force the company to go somewhere else).
I agree. However, economical mathematics says it's likely enough that a job is found, and therefore the proposition is profitable. You're also, of course, forgetting things like self-employment, too.
Essential to you and to the welfare of the overall society (and therefore good to you -with less poverty, people are less likely to be criminals, for example).
Let's see, there's the military, CIA, FBI, NSA, NASA, FDA, FAA, FTC, FCC, EPA; there's police, courts, prisons; firemen, health care, retirement; Coast Guard, Border Patrol; unemployment benefits, workers' compensation; infrastructure and communications; diplomacy and international trade; etc.
Exist in potentia? If no-one can do the job then no-one gets the job, and the government doesn't get the benefit. It's really pretty simple.
Oh yeah, the U.S. was a real superpower before 1940.
I'd like to see your figures for that assertion. I would also like to see a qualified economist's figures for what the tariffs would do to the economy (hint: catastrophe). You may also understand that people at large must have money for excise and tariffs to be effective, and the more money there is, the more effective they are.
Similarly for everything else. You could pay for it directl
We're talking apples here. You don't seem to understand the concept that while the immediate benefit goes to the student, it will propagate back to the society.
Again, all (compelling) moral issues aside, the simple economical reason for giving grants is that it will result in higher revenues for the grantor.
If an unskilled worker makes $20,000 and pays $3,000 in taxes and an educated one makes $50,000 and pays $10,000, that would mean a net revenue increase of $280,000 over a 40-year career for the government. That will fund a whole lot of essentials. Like the military.
But you don't have to pay anyone else now, do you?
This is basic economics. It's better for you to live in a country in which other people earn well, too. All government programs are funded by tax revenue (well, except under the current President) and you receive direct benefit from it.
How did you get that money? Was your country invaded by the Soviets at any point? Did you go to elementary school? Have you ever been the victim of a crime? The reality is that you're able to make money because someone else's money was spent to give you the opportunity to do so. That's how civilized societies work.
Don't recollect getting any of the money back.
Did you go to school? Do you drive on a road? Does the police patrol your block? Does the military defend your homeland?
The idea is that an unskilled worker will make, what, $20,000 a year, a college-educated one probably around $45,000-$75,000. All moral issues aside, the government views the increased tax revenue as a fair trade.
Your premise is incorrect. A Robin Hood-bank robbery is in no way analogous to government education grants. Firstly, the money is given voluntarily and secondly, the money is returned--with interest--to the same people it was originally gotten from.
Yes, I saw you had two 'points'. The problem is that neither was either correct or relevant.
Statistics are getting to people again. Specifically with regard to the reference to corporations, the relation is probably inverse: successful corporations tend to use the past or present more, rather than that doing so will make them successful.
I'm sorry, was I too subtle?
You miss the point. The other guy is still protected.
If someone breaks in your house, kidnaps your kid, etc., you're on your own.
If you try to rob someone, the police will protect that person.
You're just so wrong I bet you can't even look right.
Bank robbery? Try a loan. The government is 'borrowing' money to you with the expectation that you will 'pay them back' after you graduate. They give you $40000 and you give them $10000 a year for fourty years. I'd say the terms are pretty good, wouldn't you?
I do agree, though, that abuse of the system is a problem. I, therefore, propose that the aid be made in form of a loan. If the student graduates within a given time limit (exclude illness etc.), the loan is forgiven. That way the grants could also be expanded a little to help everyone out.
"I get to do whatever the fuck I want and you don't get to say anything about it. Oh, except if someone threatens me. Then you have to defend me to death."
On a related note, I propose that we allow anyone to own whatever weaponry they please. To compensate, they will be completely excluded from police and military protection.
I believe it was extrapolated on a similar study (or possibly the same one; different website anyway) that this is because of two possible reasons:
A) in dems this invokes fear whereas republicans feel anger; or
B) republicans are not surprised by the imagery (whether it's because of repeated exposure or a different expectations is not known).
I think the AA should start using Bush in their cautionary adverts.
Maybe they should have thought about this before they attacked? It's called the 'exit plan'. But oh, I forget, there was no time to wait. Iraq was just about to nucular the U.S., right?
Utter crap. Any half-decent psychologist could tell you that most (probably all) people simply need (psychological imperative) their opinions to be reinforced rather than questioned. And that's what we do.
Homosexual couple can procreate, just not with eachother.
Furthermore, one could assume that the immediate social network for a child in that environment would be on average larger because they would either A) just have two parents like everyone else* or B) also know the biological parent(s) (e.g. a male and female couple 'team up' to breed and split the kids).
*Yes, yes. But heterosexuals get divorced too.
It most certainly can. Socialism, as defined by Marx, is the evolutionary phase of a society immediately following the Revolution*. Due to the soft propaganda of decades most people don't understand this but Communism relies on a democratic political model when it's fully realized. The Socialist period, when dissent may be present and the economy and society are in process of being transformed, was assumed to require an authoritarian approach until the final transition was ready to be completed. This phase is, again, what the aforementioned countries supposedly were in.
I understand your point, though, touching upon it myself: Communism and Socialism are both terribly misunderstood terms because of the atrocities committed under their labels -and also in part because of propaganda.
[*] I'm not a Revolutionary Communist, I'm an Evolutionary one.
This is the standard trend of U.S. politics mixing and redefining terms. Maybe I should have phrased it 'Socialism'--a distinct polito-economic ideology-- rather than 'socialism' to clarify my position.
The 'modern socialism' you speak of is not, however, in any way derived from Socialism as you seem to imply but rather simply a parallel socioeconomical developement spurred by the general recognition of the moral (or perhaps biological?) imperative that forces us to take care of those who are in need.
The GP is completely unfair. The U.S. has even established 'Free Speech Zones' to protect the first amendment.
Socialism is the final step on the journey towards communism. Notably, USSR was and China, Cuba and Vietnam still remain socialist regimes (in name only, realistically they're totalitarian state capitalisms). Socialism is characterized by a strong authoritarian control over the people (whereas in true communism it is not necessary as the communality is fully voluntary).
What you're talking about is normally referred to as 'social democracy' and is generally practiced in European countries and Canada.
For another six days, yeah.