Don't worry, The New Deal II is just around the corner.
You should hope so.
To add salt to the wound, our government still hasn't rectified the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of man-kind. That would be Social Security.
You mean possibly the most successful government program ever created? The one that keeps the elderly and the disabled from starving to death in the streets? What about it?
The problem with wingnut bullshit is that it just doesn't stretch very well. The Big Three wanted to keep producing high margin gas guzzlers in the face of skyrocketing gas prices, just like in the 70's. And they had their lunch eaten by the Japanese, just like in the 70's. There is no there there with your "two fleet" misdirection: a Ford car made in a plant in China would be taxed at the same rate as a Toyota made in China. As it should be.
For some, that is learning. Just because something works (or doesn't work) for you doesn't mean it's going to be the same for everyone else in your class. Some learn best from listening, or discussing, or taking notes in a lecture, or reading text books. It all depends on what works best for the individual.
For myself, if I had been a student in your class, I would have been taking notes furiously because it's the only way I can pay attention. No notes = my mind is either asleep or a million miles away.
One just like mine, evidently. Social Studies/History would generally start around Columbus and speed through time until the Revolutionary War. A lot of time would be spent on the Civil War, and then the two World Wars. And then you were done - until next year, where you would cover the exact same time period in exactly the same manner, again. Combine that with the sugar-coated, white washed Eurocentric version of history, and it was pretty damned boring.
One of the largest problems with our schools is that 90% of the time spent in school is wasted on repetition.
Quantity != quality. I'm all for expecting great things from students, but the assignments need to be useful and not just busywork or rote memorization.
But that's how some people learn best - just as you seem to learn best from listening and discussion. It all depends on what works best for the individual.
The federal government has NOT been granted the right to deal with education in any way. Its current educational meddling in state-run schools should serve as evidence of this, and should be unconstitutional.
Nor has the federal government been granted the right to fund an air force or spy agencies. You see, General Welfare and Common Defense are in the same sentence in Article 1, Section 8, and any and all limits on the former apply just as much to the latter. So if Social Security and the Department of Education are unconstitutional because they aren't explicitly allowed by the Constitution, the USAF and the CIA are equally unconstitutional since Congress only has the power to fund an army and a navy.
But I've never seen a wingnut argue that the USAF is in the same unconstitutional boat as Social Security. Sort of like evangelical hacks who quote parts of the Bible in their justifications on banning gay marriage, yet ignore the parts that forbid the eating of shellfish, the stoning of adulterers (scores of moralizing Republicans who are also cheaters) and wearing garments made from different fabrics.
Instead, my dear ACM, please spend your time and money asking state departments of education, which move far, far quicker than the federal department of education, to include CS in curriculum.
Because many of them wont do it, that's why. Red states like Georgia would be 3rd world countries if it weren't for federal spending and regulations. A nationalized CS program not only makes kids from Georgia more competitive with kids from Connecticut, but also makes the U.S. more competitive with other countries. Even if you're the most uptight, self centered elitist on the planet, you want good public education because it means better educated workers for whatever business you are in or are invested in, and more customers with more money in their hands for whatever business you are in or are invested in.
Schools should be accountable to local communities and parents, NOT federal government bureaucrats.
Because every child should receive a basic education, and some areas just wont do it unless otherwise compelled. It's not Timmy's fault that he was born in south Florida in a county packed with senior citizens who have the "I already put my kids through school, so I'm not spending a cent on K-12" attitude. Which is a stupid, selfish, self-centered attitude since more education = better jobs and less crime. In other words, typical conservative thinking.
First: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and then Federalist papers 41-44 are very clear that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it in that section. And that the "general welfare" clause (the first clause of the section) does NOT mean that the feds can do anything they want.
So you've also railed about the unconstitutionality of the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, NSA, and any other intelligence agency not attached to the Army or Navy, spy satellites, the border patrol and large parts of the FBI, right?
Because if Article I, Section 8 is a strict list of enumerated powers, Common Defense is in the same sentence as General Welfare, and is going to be just as limited. So if Social Security and the Department of Education are unconstitutional, so is the USAF and the CIA because Congress only has the authority to fund an army and a navy.
You have the right to your opinion. You don't have the right to your own set of facts.
The abuse of the "general welfare clause" to mean that the Federal government can do whatever it wants is a fairly recent perversion of the Constitution
See: servo on General Welfare and Hamilton.
and blame for that can be laid at the feet of FDR, probably the worst president we ever had. Just about every mess we're in can be tied back to his bullshit.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you head was lodged deep inside your ass while you were in history class. FDR saved the financial system with banking regulation and deposit insurance. FDR put millions back to work on conservation and public works programs, which we still benefit from today. The current wingnut line is that FDR made the depression worse. What they don't tell you is the depression got worse when FDR listened to conservatives and tried to balance the budget, making cutbacks on the New Deal and raising taxes.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. Much of the stability and economic success of the United States came from FDR and the New Deal. Deal with it.
To assume that the "general welfare clause" grants the Federal government any power that it deems good would mean that the enumerated powers, and the 10th amendment, have no real meaning.
The problem with the wingnut argument on the 10th Amendment is that Common Defense is in the same sentence as General Welfare. So if Social Security and the Department of Education are unconstitutional, so is the U.S. Air Force since the Constitution only gives Congress the explicit authority to fund an army and a navy. Also unconstitutional: the CIA, the NSA, spy satellites, and large part of the FBI.
But you never hear wingnuts bitch about the unconstitutionality of the USAF, just as you'll never hear evangelical hacks talk about banning Red Lobster (for serving shellfish) along with gay marriage. Because situational ethics are their modus operandi.
That's no different from the multiple scandals that plagued the Clinton administration, the difference between that the media actively covered it up back then.
The multiple non-scandals, you mean. The recipe was pretty simple:
1. Republicans fake outrage over something (like Gengrich getting off the back of a plane). 2. The press chatters about these outraged Republicans and ask how big a problem this would be for Clinton. 3. Now the invented non-scandal is a Big Deal because now Everyone is Talking About It.
And look how Obama's campaign got away with breaking its campaign financing promise
And look how many people get away with spreading this lie. Obama never promised to take public financing. What he did promise to do was work with the Republican candidate, on the condition that the 527's be reigned in. Since McCain didn't agree to do so (and was violating the campaign laws that bear his name), no deal was made.
Nixon never argued publicly that he had the right to torture suspects, tap on American's phones without warrants, and throw American citizens in jail, indefinitely, without trials.
I believe the 9/11 attack would have happened with any president.
Not with a competent one. Bush was warned point-blank that Al Queda was looking to attack the U.S., and that they might use hijacked planes to do so. A competent president could have taken 5 seconds to tell the FBI to watch out for terrorists and the FAA to stay alert for possible hijackings. The morning of 09/11/01, the FAA sees 4 planes disappear and reports it to NORAD, which scrambles planes over major cities and forces the planes down.
But we didn't have a competent president, we have a stupid, lazy one.
Yes, because Islam's history before the '80s was one of peace and love.
Having your peaceful, democratically elected government overthrown by the CIA tends to make one a bit pissy. As well as giving blank check support to the nation of Israel, which was created regardless of the fact that Jews made up only 11% of the areas population in 1920.
As long as you give up the 30% pay increase, the good health insurance coverage, additional week of vacation, and job security won by the union - sure! But then, making $5 less per hour so you don't have to pay $2000 a year in union dues makes sense to a lot of American workers for some reason.
They sell more vehicles because they're a huge company with a shitload of brands, that's all. They're in the same boat as Apple in the 90's - Apple still had good sales, but it's plethora of similar models drove costs up and the company into the red.
Nonsense. Pro athletes, writers, directors, and actors have unions where the members are rewarded for success and creativity, and members can make vast sums of money. There is nothing stopping IT workers from forming an Egotistical Assholes Union and making 6, 7 figure salaries while engaging in collective bargaining.
Good call. Lay off a few workers when the clone makers got away with reverse engineering the BIOS. IBM is still in business and doing reasonably well. With a Union "protecting" the workers, IBM may have failed much like the auto industry without a bailout.
More anti-union horseshit. A company going under is obviously against the interests of the union as it is against the interests of the CEO. Unions take cuts. All. The. Time. What they aren't willing to do, is take cuts in pay, cuts in benefits, and layoffs while the executives responsible for the direction of the company keep their multi-million dollar salaries and golden parachutes. Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, has presided over a $70 billion loss for the company, and not only still has his job, but is still paid $16 million a year.
No, actually, you can't. As an individual, you are irrelevant and easily replaced. And there is nothing about unions that prevents you from being rewarded for creativity and success - athletes, writers, directors, and actors have unions and are rewarded based on ability, not seniority.
Your argument seems to be based on irreplaceability - once you've made yourself valuable enough to the company, you can get better wages and compensation because the company can't afford to lose you. But that's bad for business - no one individual should be irreplaceable, because people die/move/get different jobs all the time.
I watched southern states throw hundreds of millions in subsidies to foreign manufacturers to set up shop in southern states like Tennessee
Fixed that for you.
The big three executives have destroyed Michigan by making the same mistakes they did in the 70's: they kept building high margin gas guzzlers in the face of skyrocketing gas prices, only to have their lunch eaten by the Japanese. Again. And WTF is Rick Wagoner, the CEO of GM that's presided over a $70 billion loss still doing at the company, much less continue to make $16 million a year?
Fixed that too.
Being against unions is in your self interest if you are a business owner or top executive, because they might get in the way of the 15% increase in your annual compensation. If you're a worker, you are a liar AND and total moron. A worker opposing unions makes as much sense as blacks opposing the Civil Rights Act or women opposing the 19th Amendment: it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, The New Deal II is just around the corner.
You should hope so.
To add salt to the wound, our government still hasn't rectified the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of man-kind. That would be Social Security.
You mean possibly the most successful government program ever created? The one that keeps the elderly and the disabled from starving to death in the streets? What about it?
The problem with wingnut bullshit is that it just doesn't stretch very well. The Big Three wanted to keep producing high margin gas guzzlers in the face of skyrocketing gas prices, just like in the 70's. And they had their lunch eaten by the Japanese, just like in the 70's. There is no there there with your "two fleet" misdirection: a Ford car made in a plant in China would be taxed at the same rate as a Toyota made in China. As it should be.
People who are busy taking notes aren't learning.
For some, that is learning. Just because something works (or doesn't work) for you doesn't mean it's going to be the same for everyone else in your class. Some learn best from listening, or discussing, or taking notes in a lecture, or reading text books. It all depends on what works best for the individual.
For myself, if I had been a student in your class, I would have been taking notes furiously because it's the only way I can pay attention. No notes = my mind is either asleep or a million miles away.
What elementary school did you go to?!?
One just like mine, evidently. Social Studies/History would generally start around Columbus and speed through time until the Revolutionary War. A lot of time would be spent on the Civil War, and then the two World Wars. And then you were done - until next year, where you would cover the exact same time period in exactly the same manner, again. Combine that with the sugar-coated, white washed Eurocentric version of history, and it was pretty damned boring.
One of the largest problems with our schools is that 90% of the time spent in school is wasted on repetition.
Quantity != quality. I'm all for expecting great things from students, but the assignments need to be useful and not just busywork or rote memorization.
I tell people NOT TO TAKE NOTES!
But that's how some people learn best - just as you seem to learn best from listening and discussion. It all depends on what works best for the individual.
I'm pretty selective on Constitutional matters.
Fixed that for you.
The federal government has NOT been granted the right to deal with education in any way. Its current educational meddling in state-run schools should serve as evidence of this, and should be unconstitutional.
Nor has the federal government been granted the right to fund an air force or spy agencies. You see, General Welfare and Common Defense are in the same sentence in Article 1, Section 8, and any and all limits on the former apply just as much to the latter. So if Social Security and the Department of Education are unconstitutional because they aren't explicitly allowed by the Constitution, the USAF and the CIA are equally unconstitutional since Congress only has the power to fund an army and a navy.
But I've never seen a wingnut argue that the USAF is in the same unconstitutional boat as Social Security. Sort of like evangelical hacks who quote parts of the Bible in their justifications on banning gay marriage, yet ignore the parts that forbid the eating of shellfish, the stoning of adulterers (scores of moralizing Republicans who are also cheaters) and wearing garments made from different fabrics.
Instead, my dear ACM, please spend your time and money asking state departments of education, which move far, far quicker than the federal department of education, to include CS in curriculum.
Because many of them wont do it, that's why. Red states like Georgia would be 3rd world countries if it weren't for federal spending and regulations. A nationalized CS program not only makes kids from Georgia more competitive with kids from Connecticut, but also makes the U.S. more competitive with other countries. Even if you're the most uptight, self centered elitist on the planet, you want good public education because it means better educated workers for whatever business you are in or are invested in, and more customers with more money in their hands for whatever business you are in or are invested in.
Schools should be accountable to local communities and parents, NOT federal government bureaucrats.
Because every child should receive a basic education, and some areas just wont do it unless otherwise compelled. It's not Timmy's fault that he was born in south Florida in a county packed with senior citizens who have the "I already put my kids through school, so I'm not spending a cent on K-12" attitude. Which is a stupid, selfish, self-centered attitude since more education = better jobs and less crime. In other words, typical conservative thinking.
First: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and then Federalist papers 41-44 are very clear that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it in that section. And that the "general welfare" clause (the first clause of the section) does NOT mean that the feds can do anything they want.
So you've also railed about the unconstitutionality of the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, NSA, and any other intelligence agency not attached to the Army or Navy, spy satellites, the border patrol and large parts of the FBI, right?
Because if Article I, Section 8 is a strict list of enumerated powers, Common Defense is in the same sentence as General Welfare, and is going to be just as limited. So if Social Security and the Department of Education are unconstitutional, so is the USAF and the CIA because Congress only has the authority to fund an army and a navy.
You have the right to your opinion. You don't have the right to your own set of facts.
The abuse of the "general welfare clause" to mean that the Federal government can do whatever it wants is a fairly recent perversion of the Constitution
See: servo on General Welfare and Hamilton.
and blame for that can be laid at the feet of FDR, probably the worst president we ever had. Just about every mess we're in can be tied back to his bullshit.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you head was lodged deep inside your ass while you were in history class. FDR saved the financial system with banking regulation and deposit insurance. FDR put millions back to work on conservation and public works programs, which we still benefit from today. The current wingnut line is that FDR made the depression worse. What they don't tell you is the depression got worse when FDR listened to conservatives and tried to balance the budget, making cutbacks on the New Deal and raising taxes.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. Much of the stability and economic success of the United States came from FDR and the New Deal. Deal with it.
To assume that the "general welfare clause" grants the Federal government any power that it deems good would mean that the enumerated powers, and the 10th amendment, have no real meaning.
The problem with the wingnut argument on the 10th Amendment is that Common Defense is in the same sentence as General Welfare. So if Social Security and the Department of Education are unconstitutional, so is the U.S. Air Force since the Constitution only gives Congress the explicit authority to fund an army and a navy. Also unconstitutional: the CIA, the NSA, spy satellites, and large part of the FBI.
But you never hear wingnuts bitch about the unconstitutionality of the USAF, just as you'll never hear evangelical hacks talk about banning Red Lobster (for serving shellfish) along with gay marriage. Because situational ethics are their modus operandi.
If there's a public outcry and the media ignores it, did it really happen?
Funny, ha ha. But anyone who thinks that's the case has had his head up his ass for the last 40 years.
That's no different from the multiple scandals that plagued the Clinton administration, the difference between that the media actively covered it up back then.
The multiple non-scandals, you mean. The recipe was pretty simple:
1. Republicans fake outrage over something (like Gengrich getting off the back of a plane).
2. The press chatters about these outraged Republicans and ask how big a problem this would be for Clinton.
3. Now the invented non-scandal is a Big Deal because now Everyone is Talking About It.
And look how Obama's campaign got away with breaking its campaign financing promise
And look how many people get away with spreading this lie. Obama never promised to take public financing. What he did promise to do was work with the Republican candidate, on the condition that the 527's be reigned in. Since McCain didn't agree to do so (and was violating the campaign laws that bear his name), no deal was made.
Nixon never argued publicly that he had the right to torture suspects, tap on American's phones without warrants, and throw American citizens in jail, indefinitely, without trials.
I believe the 9/11 attack would have happened with any president.
Not with a competent one. Bush was warned point-blank that Al Queda was looking to attack the U.S., and that they might use hijacked planes to do so. A competent president could have taken 5 seconds to tell the FBI to watch out for terrorists and the FAA to stay alert for possible hijackings. The morning of 09/11/01, the FAA sees 4 planes disappear and reports it to NORAD, which scrambles planes over major cities and forces the planes down.
But we didn't have a competent president, we have a stupid, lazy one.
Yes, because Islam's history before the '80s was one of peace and love.
Having your peaceful, democratically elected government overthrown by the CIA tends to make one a bit pissy. As well as giving blank check support to the nation of Israel, which was created regardless of the fact that Jews made up only 11% of the areas population in 1920.
Uh huh. Has Felt said as much, or this just speculation coming from someone's ass?
As long as you give up the 30% pay increase, the good health insurance coverage, additional week of vacation, and job security won by the union - sure! But then, making $5 less per hour so you don't have to pay $2000 a year in union dues makes sense to a lot of American workers for some reason.
They sell more vehicles because they're a huge company with a shitload of brands, that's all. They're in the same boat as Apple in the 90's - Apple still had good sales, but it's plethora of similar models drove costs up and the company into the red.
Bad: Everyone is equal
Alex Rodriguez is a member of a union. He makes more than some other teams in professional baseball with older players in the same union.
You were saying?
Nonsense. Pro athletes, writers, directors, and actors have unions where the members are rewarded for success and creativity, and members can make vast sums of money. There is nothing stopping IT workers from forming an Egotistical Assholes Union and making 6, 7 figure salaries while engaging in collective bargaining.
Good call. Lay off a few workers when the clone makers got away with reverse engineering the BIOS. IBM is still in business and doing reasonably well. With a Union "protecting" the workers, IBM may have failed much like the auto industry without a bailout.
More anti-union horseshit. A company going under is obviously against the interests of the union as it is against the interests of the CEO. Unions take cuts. All. The. Time. What they aren't willing to do, is take cuts in pay, cuts in benefits, and layoffs while the executives responsible for the direction of the company keep their multi-million dollar salaries and golden parachutes. Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM, has presided over a $70 billion loss for the company, and not only still has his job, but is still paid $16 million a year.
I can do better for myself on my own, thank you.
No, actually, you can't. As an individual, you are irrelevant and easily replaced. And there is nothing about unions that prevents you from being rewarded for creativity and success - athletes, writers, directors, and actors have unions and are rewarded based on ability, not seniority.
Your argument seems to be based on irreplaceability - once you've made yourself valuable enough to the company, you can get better wages and compensation because the company can't afford to lose you. But that's bad for business - no one individual should be irreplaceable, because people die/move/get different jobs all the time.
I watched southern states throw hundreds of millions in subsidies to foreign manufacturers to set up shop in southern states like Tennessee
Fixed that for you.
The big three executives have destroyed Michigan by making the same mistakes they did in the 70's: they kept building high margin gas guzzlers in the face of skyrocketing gas prices, only to have their lunch eaten by the Japanese. Again. And WTF is Rick Wagoner, the CEO of GM that's presided over a $70 billion loss still doing at the company, much less continue to make $16 million a year?
Fixed that too.
Being against unions is in your self interest if you are a business owner or top executive, because they might get in the way of the 15% increase in your annual compensation. If you're a worker, you are a liar AND and total moron. A worker opposing unions makes as much sense as blacks opposing the Civil Rights Act or women opposing the 19th Amendment: it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.