Fun fact: if you cut all "discretionary" spending to zero, we'd still have a deficit. The sum of the cost of the Sacred Cows (debt service + Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security + the military) exceeds tax revenue by itself.
The Tea Party should not hold the economy hostage to force people to accept their legislative agenda.
The Tea Party is a small portion of the Republican party. But a clear majority of the house of Congress made up of proportional representation has approved this budget; it's certainly not the Tea Party doing it, it's the representatives of the people. (How well they represent you, I don't know... but if you don't like it, let them know on your next ballot.)
A "clear majority" of the House of Representatives (made of all the Democrats and independents, plus some non-Tea-Party Republicans) would probably be willing to pass a "clean" continuing resolution (one that doesn't cut funding for Obamacare) at this point. The issue is that it's being blocked from even coming up for a vote because Boehner doesn't want it to. His excuse is the "Hastert Rule," which is an informal House rule that says he can withhold a vote unless it has the support of the "majority of the majority" (i.e., the majority of the Republican caucus only, without counting the rest of the congressmen).
In other words, the only thing maintaining this impasse is Boehner and the Tea Party faction.
Anyway, where was the negotiation when the ACA was shoved through to begin with? Maybe if the Democrats had been willing to negotiate at that time, the (sane) Republicans would be more willing to tolerate it now. Of course, the Democrats didn't think about what might happen if the Republicans actually gained enough power to push back.
The ACA was a Republican idea! The negotiation occurred when the Democrats got on board with it (instead of the single-payer system that they really wanted), but then the Republicans reversed their position in bad faith. The part I don't understand is why, when the Democrats decided to forge ahead without trying to be bipartisan anymore, they didn't just go back to the full-on Socialist single-payer idea.
It really isn't an exaggeration or mischaracterization to say that the budget is being "held hostage" in this situation. Taking hostages is something terrorists do, so the term actually fits pretty well.
The Democrats requests are for the full, untouched continuing resolutions to be passed. They are on record stating that anything short is wrong. That's not negotiating. Negotiating involves giving and taking.
In this case, the Republicans' idea of "negotiating" is in bad faith. It's like a hostage situation:
Republicans: "Which hostage should we kill first?"
Not to mention, it's never any particular government body's prerogative to "decide" anything. It may be the House's prerogative to "propose" something, but the Senate, President, and courts still have to concur.
The teabaggers are right insofar as America does have to get rid of the structural deficit.
No, the tea partiers are wrong because they (hypocritically) claim to want to get rid of the deficit while being almost entirely willing to actually do what's necessary (namely, drastically cut Medicare, Social Security and the military while leaving important stuff like national parks, NASA and the CDC funded) to accomplish it.
It kind of depends on who you mean by "poor." Young, middle-class low-net-worth folks would actually benefit from inflation (assuming their salary keeps up) because it would deflate their fixed-interest-rate debt (e.g. mortgages and student loans).
Genuinely poor folks get screwed of course, because their debt is variable-interest-rate revolving and their housing costs increase with inflation.
That's a good summary, but you forgot to mention about how there probably actually are enough reasonable critters in the House to pass a budget acceptable to the Senate and President, but Boehner won't let it come up for a vote due to the "Hastert Rule."
You complain about how fuel for horses is bulky, then object to using an internal combustion engine (which runs on the most convenient fuel known to mankind)? That does not make sense.
But doesn't Wayland get rid of all the remote desktop capabilities and whatnot too? I suppose I understand the need to break compatibility (in order to move to a more flexible driver model) but I don't understand the need to break compatibility gratuitously (by changing the API more than it absolutely has to) or the need to remove features.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a zero-sum game. I didn't included it earlier because it makes the example more complicated, but it could also be the case that the new efficiencies also allow you to lower your price (or raise quality), which attracts new customers to your product (customers that didn't buy from anyone -- you or your competitors -- before).
I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft or Windows -- you can check my posting history to see that -- but it strikes me that the WHQL requirements could have a good reason and such an exception shouldn't be granted. In particular, it makes sense to me that the OS should be able to see multiple GPUs separately so that it can manage them itself.
I may not entirely know what I'm talking about, but I get the general impression that the real issue is that X delegates too much responsibility to the driver, and that the whole architecture would be better off if the cards were "dumber" and had a lower-level interface. The folks who came up with the WHQL requirement apparently understand that, at least.
We wanted this. We asked for it by voting in these idiots. And by "We" that just means the majority.
Nope. The Republicans control the House of Representatives despite not having a nationwide overall majority. They are in power solely because the voting districts are gerrymandered in such a way as to amplify their power and dilute the Democrats'.
[T]hose skilled developer jobs must necessarily have an overall cost that is significantly less than the labour being replaced, or the machines would be unviable
No, that does not follow. What necessarily occurs is that the net profit must increase. This could mean that labor costs decrease (as you posit), but it could also mean that labor costs stay the same or increase but they're offset by even bigger increases in productivity and/or sales.
For a concrete example, maybe you eliminate 1000 $7.50/hour jobs and replace them with 1000 $15/hour jobs (doubling your labor cost), but your widget production quadruples in the process so it's a net win.
Wait, so what you're saying is that if Bush were still in office and did this then the Democrats would call him out on it, but since Obama is doing the same thing but not being called out on it by the Republicans it makes Obama worse?
That makes absolutely no fucking sense. The only real difference is that the Republicans are fucking up extra hard because they can't be bothered to oppose totalitarianism even when its their alleged opponents that are doing it!
You could just define the debt ceiling limit in terms of percentage of GDP. Then needing to raise it would unambiguously be a sign of the debt getting worse.
Technically, all districts have curved boundaries...
I think that there should be a rule that, for all districts, the perimeter/area ratio should be minimized and the centroid and center of population should both fall within the area of the district.
Slashdot Mirror
Fun fact: if you cut all "discretionary" spending to zero, we'd still have a deficit. The sum of the cost of the Sacred Cows (debt service + Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security + the military) exceeds tax revenue by itself.
A "clear majority" of the House of Representatives (made of all the Democrats and independents, plus some non-Tea-Party Republicans) would probably be willing to pass a "clean" continuing resolution (one that doesn't cut funding for Obamacare) at this point. The issue is that it's being blocked from even coming up for a vote because Boehner doesn't want it to. His excuse is the "Hastert Rule," which is an informal House rule that says he can withhold a vote unless it has the support of the "majority of the majority" (i.e., the majority of the Republican caucus only, without counting the rest of the congressmen).
In other words, the only thing maintaining this impasse is Boehner and the Tea Party faction.
The ACA was a Republican idea! The negotiation occurred when the Democrats got on board with it (instead of the single-payer system that they really wanted), but then the Republicans reversed their position in bad faith. The part I don't understand is why, when the Democrats decided to forge ahead without trying to be bipartisan anymore, they didn't just go back to the full-on Socialist single-payer idea.
It really isn't an exaggeration or mischaracterization to say that the budget is being "held hostage" in this situation. Taking hostages is something terrorists do, so the term actually fits pretty well.
In this case, the Republicans' idea of "negotiating" is in bad faith. It's like a hostage situation:
Republicans: "Which hostage should we kill first?"
Democrats: "You can't kill any hostages!"
Republicans: "Waaah! You won't negotiate!"
Not to mention, it's never any particular government body's prerogative to "decide" anything. It may be the House's prerogative to "propose" something, but the Senate, President, and courts still have to concur.
Check out mrmoneymustache.com; it sounds like you'd like it.
No, the tea partiers are wrong because they (hypocritically) claim to want to get rid of the deficit while being almost entirely willing to actually do what's necessary (namely, drastically cut Medicare, Social Security and the military while leaving important stuff like national parks, NASA and the CDC funded) to accomplish it.
It kind of depends on who you mean by "poor." Young, middle-class low-net-worth folks would actually benefit from inflation (assuming their salary keeps up) because it would deflate their fixed-interest-rate debt (e.g. mortgages and student loans).
Genuinely poor folks get screwed of course, because their debt is variable-interest-rate revolving and their housing costs increase with inflation.
That's a good summary, but you forgot to mention about how there probably actually are enough reasonable critters in the House to pass a budget acceptable to the Senate and President, but Boehner won't let it come up for a vote due to the "Hastert Rule."
Won't they just say "we didn't defame you, we just quoted what somebody else said?"
You complain about how fuel for horses is bulky, then object to using an internal combustion engine (which runs on the most convenient fuel known to mankind)? That does not make sense.
So then the question becomes, could an actual fission reactor be designed small and powerful enough to power a car (or horse) -like vehicle?
Maybe we should invest in researching mind-control helmets for donkeys, then.
Okay, that was a joke, but perhaps an automated mechanical rider (that operated the reins and stirrups) would almost be practical...
But doesn't Wayland get rid of all the remote desktop capabilities and whatnot too? I suppose I understand the need to break compatibility (in order to move to a more flexible driver model) but I don't understand the need to break compatibility gratuitously (by changing the API more than it absolutely has to) or the need to remove features.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a zero-sum game. I didn't included it earlier because it makes the example more complicated, but it could also be the case that the new efficiencies also allow you to lower your price (or raise quality), which attracts new customers to your product (customers that didn't buy from anyone -- you or your competitors -- before).
The majority of tornadoes miss your house completely.
I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft or Windows -- you can check my posting history to see that -- but it strikes me that the WHQL requirements could have a good reason and such an exception shouldn't be granted. In particular, it makes sense to me that the OS should be able to see multiple GPUs separately so that it can manage them itself.
I may not entirely know what I'm talking about, but I get the general impression that the real issue is that X delegates too much responsibility to the driver, and that the whole architecture would be better off if the cards were "dumber" and had a lower-level interface. The folks who came up with the WHQL requirement apparently understand that, at least.
Nope. The Republicans control the House of Representatives despite not having a nationwide overall majority. They are in power solely because the voting districts are gerrymandered in such a way as to amplify their power and dilute the Democrats'.
Google "DIY install kitchen cabinets"
No, that does not follow. What necessarily occurs is that the net profit must increase. This could mean that labor costs decrease (as you posit), but it could also mean that labor costs stay the same or increase but they're offset by even bigger increases in productivity and/or sales.
For a concrete example, maybe you eliminate 1000 $7.50/hour jobs and replace them with 1000 $15/hour jobs (doubling your labor cost), but your widget production quadruples in the process so it's a net win.
It's inaccurate: those employees are working with deferred pay.
Except in this analogy, they tried to seize all the neighbors' property too!
Wait, so what you're saying is that if Bush were still in office and did this then the Democrats would call him out on it, but since Obama is doing the same thing but not being called out on it by the Republicans it makes Obama worse?
That makes absolutely no fucking sense. The only real difference is that the Republicans are fucking up extra hard because they can't be bothered to oppose totalitarianism even when its their alleged opponents that are doing it!
You could just define the debt ceiling limit in terms of percentage of GDP. Then needing to raise it would unambiguously be a sign of the debt getting worse.
Technically, all districts have curved boundaries...
I think that there should be a rule that, for all districts, the perimeter/area ratio should be minimized and the centroid and center of population should both fall within the area of the district.