Yeah wait until corporations buy shares in YOU. When they have a majority, they have a slave. Hell, all they have to do is require said shares as part of payment for medical procedures.
Shhh. It makes c6gunner feel superior to say it. Why interfere with someone's fleeting pleasures when it is unlikely to have any affect whatsoever on anybody at all?
"Establishing a perminnant presence in space is not a reasonable goal at this time. It would cost too much, and it would not be sustainable as a result."
Yup. Just that 'give up', 'pack it in', 'it's too expensive', 'it's too hard' defeatist attitude that defines the US nowadays.
ROFL. Projects in the corporate world aren't cancelled at the stroke of a pen. Right! And corporations are never taken over and the assets sold off. Long term planning is how things work in the corporate world, and the whims of the few are never acted on.
Yes, you are right, and I apologize for characterizing you that way. I ALSO believe that the 'both parties are equally guilty' is a false equivalence, however. I _DO_ believe that the Republicans bear far more responsibility for our problems than the Democrats - which irks me as I am far from being a Democrat. I stood to the right of most Republicans until the party went insane after Obama's election.
However. That being said: you claim to not be a Republican, yet spewed a Republican 'talking point'. You claim that I am not moderate, because I repeated something the Democrats said - without even an attempt at a refutation, you cannot claim that because Democrats said something, it must be false, and a conclusion I came to must be 'bullshit', and that I am simply repeating "tired Democratic sound bites". Just because something originates with the Democrats does NOT make it false. You too, are partisan - I am anti-Republican, and make no bones about it, and you are apparently at the LEAST anti-Democrat. I am NOT pro-Democrat, and it irritates me mightily that in order to defeat the crazies I may have to side with them in upcoming elections.
I support closing loopholes and tax breaks for wealthy individuals - something you obviously oppose, so it's not a a leap to say that you oppose actual tax increases, and therefore oppose _funding_ debt payment - and unless you also support cutting the military budget _drastically_ then you DO support cutting what are being called entitlements, and ARE pro- balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable citizens. Not much choice there. We MUST get the debt under control, BUT crushing the weak is foolish. Especially when the system has been engineered so that the weak outnumber the strong by a wider margin than ever in history and we still have a nominally democratic government.
I am _FOR_ a re-vamping of our income tax code - simplifying (flat %) it but only taxing disposable income, so that the wealthy don't gain even more advantage over the poor. Tax breaks to business I am all for. Individuals do NOT employ even a visible percentage of our population, so cutting taxes there makes no sense (and don't bother with money invested is money working nonsense - companies are not hiring, banks are not lending - so that does not *currently* follow for individuals)
I believe that our medical system is broken, and that insurance is the reason (I have worked for insurance companies my whole life). I do NOT think relieving doctors and hospitals of responsibilities for malpractice, or easing regulation of what drugs are safe is the answer, nor would that fix the problem in any case. I think that government baselines of care would hold the line there as well as keep the insurance markets open, as I cannot see citizens settling for minimum care unless they HAD to.
What are YOUR ideas? Are they more than 'Taxed Enough Already'?
ROFL - let me sum up the Republican fairy tale - absolutely NO tax loopholes should be closed OR taxes raised though they are at lower levels now than when we were at peak prosperity, and the bulk of the unfunded debt (mostly incurred by Republicans who increased services for political gain, but would not increase taxes - also for political gain) should be gotten from so-called entitlements, so we can support our troops by sending them to die in godforsaken holes where we aren't welcome, so that we can steal some sweet crude, because there is no such thing as peak oil, pumping will go on forever, hydrocarbon fuels are all there is, and everything that is now, is forever. And after all, if you are poor enough to need the so-called entitlements, you are a shiftless layabout abusing the system. There are _always_ available jobs that pay housing, food, and medical bills after all.
Medical bankruptcy never happens because you can always get all treatment from the emergency room for free, and this also doesn't affect the economy the Fed get's it's revenue from. Medicare is unnecessary pork for the same 'reason'...
We can't afford to take care of our own, so we will default on SS and leave our elderly out on the ice so we can pay off the Chinese, but THAT's only good business. Corporations (even foreign) should have a legal say in our government and of course that's GREAT for government revenue since corporations - especially multinationals - are known for paying taxes, and never make deals so that they don't have to. Science as practiced by actual scientists is subject to religious and political dogma, and economic theory depends on unregulated businesses having many rights and no legal responsibilities.
To top it off, to compromise or doubt ANY of these things is a sin against St. Reagan and His Angels in the Tea Party.
Did I miss anything there, Rudolph? Oh yeah - to 'hope' or 'change' is a ridiculous notion that should be mocked at every turn.
"When expenditures are 49% more than revenues, it is obvious to those who do not believe in Santa Claus that knocking out a few tax loopholes is not going to balance the budget, and that the bulk of the solution lies in reducing expenditures"
Yes, that IS true. And moderates (NOT a dirty word, except to the Right) favor BOTH 'austerity' measures AND closing tax loopholes, as well as some modest tax increases (*gasp* maybe the government SHOULD be funded at the levels we had during peak prosperity after all! Maybe it was just changing the tax code to be more fair that was really needed, eh?). Fundamental extremists like yourself, however, would destroy any chance at all for anything above a third-world existence for future citizens in order to get your Libertarian wet-dreams fulfilled. Rather than invest in the American people to raise them up, you would make us 'competitive' with third world nations by dragging us _down_ to third world level, economically. Oh except for the wealthy. They are worthy of Santa Claus' free gifts, right? At least they won't have to import their desperate household help from illegal immigrant pools anymore, regardless. That's a step up, hey?
ROFL - and where are revenue increases in the Republican plan? hint: cutting Medicare and SS for 500billion != revenue increase. When the Republicans WON'T EVEN CLOSE LOOPHOLES ON WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, calling them tax 'increases'?
Damned straight it's easy to shoot holes in the so-called Republican 'plans'. The Republican Plan is to make us competitive with the Third World not by increaseing production or investing in people, but rather by reducing us to Third World GDPs that leave the most wealthy as defacto lords, and killing off that aberrance, the middle.
Mmmm hmmm. A slight adjustment and it will work, regardless of your dogma. Republicans won't let that happen. The safety net is necessary, and was put in place because when the economy is shot, people suffer - and not just shiftless layabouts, as current Libertarian/Republican dogma would have you believe. Families can be ground up and spit out because of that economic dogma that has NEVER worked (indeed, economies get WORSE the closer they approach the no-regulation, no tax, 'government only exists for defense and to enforce business contracts' 'ideal' is approached; that's why the market 'adjusted' to provide a safety net).
Maybe spending some of that military pork? No! We must continue to 'support our troops' by sending them to die in places that hate us, in support of people that don't want us, in hopes that we can score some of that sweet, sweet crude - even though that never lowers US prices, since oil is fungible and can be sent anywhere)
"What exactly is the Democratic Party plan? Oh yeah, that's right, keep on spending until no one will lend us any money anymore"
Nice strawman. Nope. The Democratic party at least wants to fund things, it's the Right that has been the 'borrow and spend' idiots. And by the way, I'm gonna cut off your 'Laffer Curve' nonsense right now; we are VERY close to the ideal point on that curve; cut taxes further and revenue does NOT rise. Even further, giving money to people with large amounts of discretionary income does indeed 'trickle down' - problem is that the economy is better served by giving the money to those with little income, from an economic standpoint - the money gets put into circulation immediately - this is even more pronounced since banks are not lending and business is not hiring. Hell, that's the REAL reason the economy got juiced in the Reagan years; EVERYONE got a credit-card - even those that would have been considered too much of a risk before de-regulation. It wasn't the trickle down dogma. Of course there was a price to pay; Bush's tax increases and the bank bailouts of the time.
And - hows that medical insurance working out? We DON'T have 'the worlds best medical system' after all; and you are ONE medical issue from being bankrupt at any time. Millions can''t even afford that - and what is YOUR answer?
"Hate to say it, but minimizing delivery can hurt profits more than help, as customers wanting an item but not getting it (or those getting less than they expected) decide to buy a competing item instead. I know what you were getting at, but the sentence came out a bit awkward."
Minimizing does not mean eliminating - *chuckle* - it means as 'little as you can get away with', just as 'maximizing profits' involves 'charging as much as you can get away with' Neither is behavior you want in most cases for services provided for the government, or for citizens, or with public funds. And - competition is minimized by business whenever possible BECAUSE it tends to interfere with minimizing delivery.
And commercialization of space is something I cheer for, BTW. It's just that private enterprise cannot YET duplicate public engineering feats. We are premature, and that worries me greatly.
Yah - and the Republican answer is to gut Social Security; effectively defaulting on THOSE treasury bonds so that we can continue spending AND pay off on the Treasury bonds we sold to the Chinese. Bottom line: to the Republicans, Chinese investors are more important than US citizens in need.
Here's an idea: why not do that AFTER commercial interests have the technology to do what NASA does now, rather than just having religious faith in corporations to do everything that government institutions have accomplished?
"Ironically, it seems those that live in cities seem to hate them most even though none are more dependent upon them then those same people"
Maybe it's BECAUSE they are dependent on corporations and know how well they serve the people (their customers)? Perhaps it's because corporations, in order to maximize profit, must minimize delivery? Competition, too, is minimized, by co-opting or eliminating competitors - that's the nature of the beast. Face it, corporations are not the ideal delivery mechanism for all things that citizens depend upon, despite republican and libertarian dogma to the contrary.
"We've all heard the horror stories of no-bid contracts, cost plus contracts, and just straight up cronyism as it regards these things"
And corporations are immune, of course. Wait. Stop. That IS corporate delivery of goods and services, doing what is natural to the corporation: minimizing competition as it interferes with profit. Maybe with more regulation the libertarian/republican model might be able to serve though...
"I question whether those that are against it do so because they don't believe it will be made a reality or whether they're just reflexively anti corporate"
ROFL - so people either believe the battle-cry to deliver space services for profit is a trick (possible, the current level of commercial technology cannot do the job), or they just hate commercial delivery of service for no reason at all? I put it to you that _premature_ commercial support of the space program is just as reflexive to those people that have dogmatic corporatist beliefs. You can't just 'have faith' in corporations; without proper regulation they are worse than government - and the libertarian/republican axis will never permit regulations as they want government to serve corporations, rather than have corporations serve the people.
Slashdot Mirror
So I guess petroleum technology is not profitable, either.
Hatta - is that for the Palestinian village? Or Mohammad Hatta? Or Hatta in the United Arab Emirates?
Just curious.
Yeah wait until corporations buy shares in YOU. When they have a majority, they have a slave. Hell, all they have to do is require said shares as part of payment for medical procedures.
Nah you are just looking for an excuse not to vote.
Yeah, whatever you do, do nothing at all!
It's just an excuse to not bother with all the effort of voting.
Yup - because all transactions are reversible.
Everything is a luxury.
All markets are infinite.
Regulations are never ever ever corrections to the market. People are not part of the market.
Problem is, they won't all have been deniers. Justice is not served.
So stupidity singularity, then.
Shhh. It makes c6gunner feel superior to say it. Why interfere with someone's fleeting pleasures when it is unlikely to have any affect whatsoever on anybody at all?
It actually seems to me that the cycles in corporate are shorter; I've never seen a '10 year plan' last more than 2.
*chuckle* wish I could have modded that 'funny'
"Establishing a perminnant presence in space is not a reasonable goal at this time. It would cost too much, and it would not be sustainable as a result."
Yup. Just that 'give up', 'pack it in', 'it's too expensive', 'it's too hard' defeatist attitude that defines the US nowadays.
We ARE toast, and we don't DESERVE space anymore.
ROFL. Projects in the corporate world aren't cancelled at the stroke of a pen. Right! And corporations are never taken over and the assets sold off. Long term planning is how things work in the corporate world, and the whims of the few are never acted on.
Riiiiight.
And, as a side effect, we will never again be the best.
Terrific.
Yes, you are right, and I apologize for characterizing you that way. I ALSO believe that the 'both parties are equally guilty' is a false equivalence, however. I _DO_ believe that the Republicans bear far more responsibility for our problems than the Democrats - which irks me as I am far from being a Democrat. I stood to the right of most Republicans until the party went insane after Obama's election.
However. That being said: you claim to not be a Republican, yet spewed a Republican 'talking point'. You claim that I am not moderate, because I repeated something the Democrats said - without even an attempt at a refutation, you cannot claim that because Democrats said something, it must be false, and a conclusion I came to must be 'bullshit', and that I am simply repeating "tired Democratic sound bites". Just because something originates with the Democrats does NOT make it false. You too, are partisan - I am anti-Republican, and make no bones about it, and you are apparently at the LEAST anti-Democrat. I am NOT pro-Democrat, and it irritates me mightily that in order to defeat the crazies I may have to side with them in upcoming elections.
I support closing loopholes and tax breaks for wealthy individuals - something you obviously oppose, so it's not a a leap to say that you oppose actual tax increases, and therefore oppose _funding_ debt payment - and unless you also support cutting the military budget _drastically_ then you DO support cutting what are being called entitlements, and ARE pro- balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable citizens. Not much choice there. We MUST get the debt under control, BUT crushing the weak is foolish. Especially when the system has been engineered so that the weak outnumber the strong by a wider margin than ever in history and we still have a nominally democratic government.
I am _FOR_ a re-vamping of our income tax code - simplifying (flat %) it but only taxing disposable income, so that the wealthy don't gain even more advantage over the poor. Tax breaks to business I am all for. Individuals do NOT employ even a visible percentage of our population, so cutting taxes there makes no sense (and don't bother with money invested is money working nonsense - companies are not hiring, banks are not lending - so that does not *currently* follow for individuals)
I believe that our medical system is broken, and that insurance is the reason (I have worked for insurance companies my whole life). I do NOT think relieving doctors and hospitals of responsibilities for malpractice, or easing regulation of what drugs are safe is the answer, nor would that fix the problem in any case. I think that government baselines of care would hold the line there as well as keep the insurance markets open, as I cannot see citizens settling for minimum care unless they HAD to.
What are YOUR ideas? Are they more than 'Taxed Enough Already'?
ROFL - let me sum up the Republican fairy tale - absolutely NO tax loopholes should be closed OR taxes raised though they are at lower levels now than when we were at peak prosperity, and the bulk of the unfunded debt (mostly incurred by Republicans who increased services for political gain, but would not increase taxes - also for political gain) should be gotten from so-called entitlements, so we can support our troops by sending them to die in godforsaken holes where we aren't welcome, so that we can steal some sweet crude, because there is no such thing as peak oil, pumping will go on forever, hydrocarbon fuels are all there is, and everything that is now, is forever. And after all, if you are poor enough to need the so-called entitlements, you are a shiftless layabout abusing the system. There are _always_ available jobs that pay housing, food, and medical bills after all.
Medical bankruptcy never happens because you can always get all treatment from the emergency room for free, and this also doesn't affect the economy the Fed get's it's revenue from. Medicare is unnecessary pork for the same 'reason'...
We can't afford to take care of our own, so we will default on SS and leave our elderly out on the ice so we can pay off the Chinese, but THAT's only good business. Corporations (even foreign) should have a legal say in our government and of course that's GREAT for government revenue since corporations - especially multinationals - are known for paying taxes, and never make deals so that they don't have to. Science as practiced by actual scientists is subject to religious and political dogma, and economic theory depends on unregulated businesses having many rights and no legal responsibilities.
To top it off, to compromise or doubt ANY of these things is a sin against St. Reagan and His Angels in the Tea Party.
Did I miss anything there, Rudolph? Oh yeah - to 'hope' or 'change' is a ridiculous notion that should be mocked at every turn.
"When expenditures are 49% more than revenues, it is obvious to those who do not believe in Santa Claus that knocking out a few tax loopholes is not going to balance the budget, and that the bulk of the solution lies in reducing expenditures"
Yes, that IS true. And moderates (NOT a dirty word, except to the Right) favor BOTH 'austerity' measures AND closing tax loopholes, as well as some modest tax increases (*gasp* maybe the government SHOULD be funded at the levels we had during peak prosperity after all! Maybe it was just changing the tax code to be more fair that was really needed, eh?). Fundamental extremists like yourself, however, would destroy any chance at all for anything above a third-world existence for future citizens in order to get your Libertarian wet-dreams fulfilled. Rather than invest in the American people to raise them up, you would make us 'competitive' with third world nations by dragging us _down_ to third world level, economically. Oh except for the wealthy. They are worthy of Santa Claus' free gifts, right? At least they won't have to import their desperate household help from illegal immigrant pools anymore, regardless. That's a step up, hey?
Idiot.
They ARE the ones that don't believe in actually increasing funding to service debts they rack up themselves, so I suppose it's possible.
into cooler air, higher up. I wonder what the weather will be like near that tower after it goes into operation? This could be a neat experiment!
ROFL - and where are revenue increases in the Republican plan? hint: cutting Medicare and SS for 500billion != revenue increase. When the Republicans WON'T EVEN CLOSE LOOPHOLES ON WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, calling them tax 'increases'?
Damned straight it's easy to shoot holes in the so-called Republican 'plans'. The Republican Plan is to make us competitive with the Third World not by increaseing production or investing in people, but rather by reducing us to Third World GDPs that leave the most wealthy as defacto lords, and killing off that aberrance, the middle.
Mmmm hmmm. A slight adjustment and it will work, regardless of your dogma. Republicans won't let that happen. The safety net is necessary, and was put in place because when the economy is shot, people suffer - and not just shiftless layabouts, as current Libertarian/Republican dogma would have you believe. Families can be ground up and spit out because of that economic dogma that has NEVER worked (indeed, economies get WORSE the closer they approach the no-regulation, no tax, 'government only exists for defense and to enforce business contracts' 'ideal' is approached; that's why the market 'adjusted' to provide a safety net).
Maybe spending some of that military pork? No! We must continue to 'support our troops' by sending them to die in places that hate us, in support of people that don't want us, in hopes that we can score some of that sweet, sweet crude - even though that never lowers US prices, since oil is fungible and can be sent anywhere)
"What exactly is the Democratic Party plan? Oh yeah, that's right, keep on spending until no one will lend us any money anymore"
Nice strawman. Nope. The Democratic party at least wants to fund things, it's the Right that has been the 'borrow and spend' idiots. And by the way, I'm gonna cut off your 'Laffer Curve' nonsense right now; we are VERY close to the ideal point on that curve; cut taxes further and revenue does NOT rise. Even further, giving money to people with large amounts of discretionary income does indeed 'trickle down' - problem is that the economy is better served by giving the money to those with little income, from an economic standpoint - the money gets put into circulation immediately - this is even more pronounced since banks are not lending and business is not hiring. Hell, that's the REAL reason the economy got juiced in the Reagan years; EVERYONE got a credit-card - even those that would have been considered too much of a risk before de-regulation. It wasn't the trickle down dogma. Of course there was a price to pay; Bush's tax increases and the bank bailouts of the time.
And - hows that medical insurance working out? We DON'T have 'the worlds best medical system' after all; and you are ONE medical issue from being bankrupt at any time. Millions can''t even afford that - and what is YOUR answer?
"Hate to say it, but minimizing delivery can hurt profits more than help, as customers wanting an item but not getting it (or those getting less than they expected) decide to buy a competing item instead. I know what you were getting at, but the sentence came out a bit awkward."
Minimizing does not mean eliminating - *chuckle* - it means as 'little as you can get away with', just as 'maximizing profits' involves 'charging as much as you can get away with' Neither is behavior you want in most cases for services provided for the government, or for citizens, or with public funds. And - competition is minimized by business whenever possible BECAUSE it tends to interfere with minimizing delivery.
And commercialization of space is something I cheer for, BTW. It's just that private enterprise cannot YET duplicate public engineering feats. We are premature, and that worries me greatly.
Yah - and the Republican answer is to gut Social Security; effectively defaulting on THOSE treasury bonds so that we can continue spending AND pay off on the Treasury bonds we sold to the Chinese. Bottom line: to the Republicans, Chinese investors are more important than US citizens in need.
Here's an idea: why not do that AFTER commercial interests have the technology to do what NASA does now, rather than just having religious faith in corporations to do everything that government institutions have accomplished?
No? Your dogma is showing.
"Ironically, it seems those that live in cities seem to hate them most even though none are more dependent upon them then those same people"
Maybe it's BECAUSE they are dependent on corporations and know how well they serve the people (their customers)? Perhaps it's because corporations, in order to maximize profit, must minimize delivery? Competition, too, is minimized, by co-opting or eliminating competitors - that's the nature of the beast. Face it, corporations are not the ideal delivery mechanism for all things that citizens depend upon, despite republican and libertarian dogma to the contrary.
"We've all heard the horror stories of no-bid contracts, cost plus contracts, and just straight up cronyism as it regards these things"
And corporations are immune, of course. Wait. Stop. That IS corporate delivery of goods and services, doing what is natural to the corporation: minimizing competition as it interferes with profit. Maybe with more regulation the libertarian/republican model might be able to serve though...
"I question whether those that are against it do so because they don't believe it will be made a reality or whether they're just reflexively anti corporate"
ROFL - so people either believe the battle-cry to deliver space services for profit is a trick (possible, the current level of commercial technology cannot do the job), or they just hate commercial delivery of service for no reason at all? I put it to you that _premature_ commercial support of the space program is just as reflexive to those people that have dogmatic corporatist beliefs. You can't just 'have faith' in corporations; without proper regulation they are worse than government - and the libertarian/republican axis will never permit regulations as they want government to serve corporations, rather than have corporations serve the people.
The states keep trying though.
I can't WAIT until the Feds use their own gun-running operation as justification to try and eliminate the 2nd, too.