Your assumption that welfare recipient equates to career welfare recipient is unsound. I know you can dig up statistics, but will the represent what you want them to?
So that outweighs the examples that I provided? Germany does not equal the entire EU, our education system is handled by each state . . . perhaps you heard someone call the EU a bunch of nanny states and you believed it? Really, if you have something of substance I am interested to hear it.
I remember in 92 after voting for Clinton, going to work (at the BMDO in the Pentagon) and having a retired army guy go apeshit on me for 15 minutes, yelling things like "you moron, we'll all be out of work, I hope you're the first one laid off". And then for the next 8 years we had a great time. I started a consulting business, and we grew from 2 to 15 (with revenues over 2 million) contracting with the military. And there were many, many, examples of this exact thing. Look at the spending levels on military during those years. They went down, yet, there were plentiful opportunities.
Please provide citations for this. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that I've heard this complaint before, I don't believe it, and I've never seen any numbers that demonstrate it.
European Nanny State . . . I hope you'll clarify that. I have found the US to be far more of a nanny state. To illustrate: when I was in holland I observed many places where the canals were not blocked by railings etc. I asked a friend what happened if a car were to drive into the canal. The driver is fined and also pays for any damages they caused. IN the US we mandate that railings and bollards be positioned so that an idiot could not drive into the canal, out of fear that the state would be held liable for injuries that might result. This is extended further, to staircases with no railings (ours cannot have any place for a 4" sphere to pass through), bars and swimming pools together, nudity in public (hot springs and beaches), and any number of other examples. I'm sure you have your examples of the EU being more of a nanny state, and I'm interested to hear . . .
If I accept your definition of freedom from religion then this is true. But my definition of freedom from religion is freedom from having to live by the "laws" of a religion to which I do not choose to belong. I do not think that being exposed to a religion counts as such, and that freedom of speech etc makes it impossible (to be insulated from religion).
I have no problem with religion being debated in science class, it happened when I was a kid and it provided a critical thinking opportunity, which is what science is all about. If anything it will expose to the children in class why religion is not science, as well as the danger of science becoming a religion (ie, scientists too stubborn to change their "beliefs" in light of new evidence). So long as religion is not a part of the science curriculum.
In this case perhaps the way to make the point is to vote, casting a ballot that is either empty, or perhaps votes yes or no on various bond issues but does not select any political candidates. By not voting you are not making any point outside of your own head.
People buy health insurance because they are willing to outsource their personal health management, and they think that by taking whatever magic pills they are prescribed they will somehow be better off, and they believe that without insurance the would not be able to stay healthy because they couldn't afford to see a doctor. (wrong and wrong)
Insurance companies don't provide a usefull service that could not be provided through other non leaching means, and insurance salesmen are the lowest form of human life.
And people can't just switch insurance companies under most circumstances, which essentially ties people to their employers.
But I will concede that if the last point was made moot, probably through regulatory pressure, then insurance coverage would get better. But as long as there are these institutions sucking a percentage off the top to please investors then the system will continue to bleed.
That's not true in my experience. We found that a group plan was costing more than individual plans would, so we decided to get individual high deductable plans with individual HSAs. My boss and his wife, currently on the group plan, were rejected by every plan they applied to due to pre-existing conditions. I don't know where you get your info, so maybe state laws are the difference.
I agree that letting non-medical personnel make the decisions about treatment is bad. But just because it is a government system does not mean that this would be the case. This is however the most used strawman against a public health system. I also feel that it would be an opt in system. Right now I don't have insurance (for the last 10 years), and I don't care to pay into a system that lines the pockets of greedy middlemen who provide nothing. I wish to have that be a choice that remains available.
Yeah, someone else should do the thinking for me, read all of the info, summarize it, and then tell me what to do. This AC is a genius, a lazy, lazy, genius.
Gross oversimplification, example: nsurance companies' customers want maximum payouts, or they change companies. There is constant pressure to pay claims. In fact there are very few opportunities to change insurance companies without being denied for pre-existing conditions. The insurance companies are for profit, and the way they maximize profit is to minimize payouts. Your assertion that they would find themselves out of business is interesting and only true because you set the bar at a ridiculously low amount (1%).
In terms of hardware capabilities I agree. But the iPhone is a really great design, which the G1 has not matched. The trackball, moving screen, tilted bottom piece, lack of standard 1/8th" audio jack of the G1 are awkward in the end. I would like to see something with the simplicity of the iPhone with an open architecture and cutting edge hardware. Disclaimer, i realize that there are drawbacks to the iPhone design, battery service comes to mind, but that is a sacrifice I would make due to the elegance of the rest.
I agree. And one of the big problems we in the US face is that IIRC back in the 50s or so corporations were granted person status in terms of the constitution. That should be undone.
If you are including military spending in the welfare programs from your last sentence then I agree with you. And a lot of the redistribution is going the other way, that is, from poor to rich (the so-called corporate welfare).
A large part of that tax increase is directly and indirectly related to the war in Iraq. The next president will have to deal with it, but the fault lies with the administration that started the war, as well as all of the congressmen (both parties) that failed to do their jobs out of either fear or greed. Yes it's true that the war is doing nothing for you, or any american. It is possibly doing some good for some Iraqi's but this is an irrelevant point. It is definitely doing good for Haliburton and the like, as it funnels money directly from the tax pool into their wallets. The way I see it, Obama will actually take his role as Commander in Chief on in a strategic way which will lead to a quicker end to our involvement, rather than McCain who will continue to only look at the war in a tactical way, and our involvement will continue far longer, and this drain on our economy will increase.
I have the opposite experience, with digital OTA being easier to receive and my channels (not including the subchannels) went from 9 to 15. So your blanket generalization fails, and in fact digital in some cases is much better and easier, and in some cases is much worse, and even in urban situations both cases appear.
True, batteries are much heavier than tanks of fuel. But with current technology the electric car achieves similar energy to weight as an ICE car (offset the extra weight in batteries with much less weight for the drive system), and that will only get better as (inevitably) battery technology improves. My point is that I am betting that in 20 years electricity is a much more viable and implemented solution, and the ICE will be a niche.
But we do have a lot of steam turbines, all of which could rely on a supply of molten salt . . . and it is really easy to transmit electricity, and we're getting better at storing it. But pedantry aside I do realize that the OP was talking about liquid fuel like gasoline, and I am taking a tangent.
For the molten salt driven steam turbine, the salt is the storage. But yes, it will still be inconsistent as the molten salt will only remain so for hours after the sun goes away. But I am betting that electric infrastructure will be what drives our conveyance to a large degree in 20 years.
I think it's interesting that these guys are collecting a LOT of energy and using it to make fuel, that is then burned to create energy. That's a couple of conversions. If they are able to melt steel, why not then melt salt and use the big bucket of molten salt to drive a steam turbine that generates electricity? I'd be willing to bet that in the end they would end up with more usable energy per unit time.
Slashdot Mirror
Your assumption that welfare recipient equates to career welfare recipient is unsound. I know you can dig up statistics, but will the represent what you want them to?
If telling people what they can and cant say on the internet is not an example of a nanny I dont know what is..
agreed.
Perhaps we are both nanny states, but in different areas.
So that outweighs the examples that I provided? Germany does not equal the entire EU, our education system is handled by each state . . . perhaps you heard someone call the EU a bunch of nanny states and you believed it? Really, if you have something of substance I am interested to hear it.
I remember in 92 after voting for Clinton, going to work (at the BMDO in the Pentagon) and having a retired army guy go apeshit on me for 15 minutes, yelling things like "you moron, we'll all be out of work, I hope you're the first one laid off". And then for the next 8 years we had a great time. I started a consulting business, and we grew from 2 to 15 (with revenues over 2 million) contracting with the military. And there were many, many, examples of this exact thing. Look at the spending levels on military during those years. They went down, yet, there were plentiful opportunities.
Please provide citations for this. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that I've heard this complaint before, I don't believe it, and I've never seen any numbers that demonstrate it.
European Nanny State . . . I hope you'll clarify that. I have found the US to be far more of a nanny state. To illustrate: when I was in holland I observed many places where the canals were not blocked by railings etc. I asked a friend what happened if a car were to drive into the canal. The driver is fined and also pays for any damages they caused. IN the US we mandate that railings and bollards be positioned so that an idiot could not drive into the canal, out of fear that the state would be held liable for injuries that might result.
This is extended further, to staircases with no railings (ours cannot have any place for a 4" sphere to pass through), bars and swimming pools together, nudity in public (hot springs and beaches), and any number of other examples.
I'm sure you have your examples of the EU being more of a nanny state, and I'm interested to hear . . .
If I accept your definition of freedom from religion then this is true. But my definition of freedom from religion is freedom from having to live by the "laws" of a religion to which I do not choose to belong. I do not think that being exposed to a religion counts as such, and that freedom of speech etc makes it impossible (to be insulated from religion).
I have no problem with religion being debated in science class, it happened when I was a kid and it provided a critical thinking opportunity, which is what science is all about. If anything it will expose to the children in class why religion is not science, as well as the danger of science becoming a religion (ie, scientists too stubborn to change their "beliefs" in light of new evidence). So long as religion is not a part of the science curriculum.
If the did, but science class is not taught that way, and evolution is taught as a theory.
Freedom of religion encompasses freedom from religion. If not, it is not freedom.
In this case perhaps the way to make the point is to vote, casting a ballot that is either empty, or perhaps votes yes or no on various bond issues but does not select any political candidates. By not voting you are not making any point outside of your own head.
Actually I disagree with your assumptions.
People buy health insurance because they are willing to outsource their personal health management, and they think that by taking whatever magic pills they are prescribed they will somehow be better off, and they believe that without insurance the would not be able to stay healthy because they couldn't afford to see a doctor. (wrong and wrong)
Insurance companies don't provide a usefull service that could not be provided through other non leaching means, and insurance salesmen are the lowest form of human life.
And people can't just switch insurance companies under most circumstances, which essentially ties people to their employers.
But I will concede that if the last point was made moot, probably through regulatory pressure, then insurance coverage would get better. But as long as there are these institutions sucking a percentage off the top to please investors then the system will continue to bleed.
That's not true in my experience. We found that a group plan was costing more than individual plans would, so we decided to get individual high deductable plans with individual HSAs. My boss and his wife, currently on the group plan, were rejected by every plan they applied to due to pre-existing conditions. I don't know where you get your info, so maybe state laws are the difference.
I agree that letting non-medical personnel make the decisions about treatment is bad. But just because it is a government system does not mean that this would be the case. This is however the most used strawman against a public health system. I also feel that it would be an opt in system. Right now I don't have insurance (for the last 10 years), and I don't care to pay into a system that lines the pockets of greedy middlemen who provide nothing. I wish to have that be a choice that remains available.
Yeah, someone else should do the thinking for me, read all of the info, summarize it, and then tell me what to do. This AC is a genius, a lazy, lazy, genius.
Gross oversimplification, example:
nsurance companies' customers want maximum payouts, or they change companies. There is constant pressure to pay claims.
In fact there are very few opportunities to change insurance companies without being denied for pre-existing conditions. The insurance companies are for profit, and the way they maximize profit is to minimize payouts. Your assertion that they would find themselves out of business is interesting and only true because you set the bar at a ridiculously low amount (1%).
In terms of hardware capabilities I agree. But the iPhone is a really great design, which the G1 has not matched. The trackball, moving screen, tilted bottom piece, lack of standard 1/8th" audio jack of the G1 are awkward in the end. I would like to see something with the simplicity of the iPhone with an open architecture and cutting edge hardware. Disclaimer, i realize that there are drawbacks to the iPhone design, battery service comes to mind, but that is a sacrifice I would make due to the elegance of the rest.
I agree. And one of the big problems we in the US face is that IIRC back in the 50s or so corporations were granted person status in terms of the constitution. That should be undone.
Wait, slashdot counts right? I need to change my timecards.
If you are including military spending in the welfare programs from your last sentence then I agree with you. And a lot of the redistribution is going the other way, that is, from poor to rich (the so-called corporate welfare).
A large part of that tax increase is directly and indirectly related to the war in Iraq. The next president will have to deal with it, but the fault lies with the administration that started the war, as well as all of the congressmen (both parties) that failed to do their jobs out of either fear or greed. Yes it's true that the war is doing nothing for you, or any american. It is possibly doing some good for some Iraqi's but this is an irrelevant point. It is definitely doing good for Haliburton and the like, as it funnels money directly from the tax pool into their wallets. The way I see it, Obama will actually take his role as Commander in Chief on in a strategic way which will lead to a quicker end to our involvement, rather than McCain who will continue to only look at the war in a tactical way, and our involvement will continue far longer, and this drain on our economy will increase.
I have the opposite experience, with digital OTA being easier to receive and my channels (not including the subchannels) went from 9 to 15. So your blanket generalization fails, and in fact digital in some cases is much better and easier, and in some cases is much worse, and even in urban situations both cases appear.
True, batteries are much heavier than tanks of fuel. But with current technology the electric car achieves similar energy to weight as an ICE car (offset the extra weight in batteries with much less weight for the drive system), and that will only get better as (inevitably) battery technology improves. My point is that I am betting that in 20 years electricity is a much more viable and implemented solution, and the ICE will be a niche.
But we do have a lot of steam turbines, all of which could rely on a supply of molten salt . . . and it is really easy to transmit electricity, and we're getting better at storing it. But pedantry aside I do realize that the OP was talking about liquid fuel like gasoline, and I am taking a tangent.
For the molten salt driven steam turbine, the salt is the storage. But yes, it will still be inconsistent as the molten salt will only remain so for hours after the sun goes away. But I am betting that electric infrastructure will be what drives our conveyance to a large degree in 20 years.
I think it's interesting that these guys are collecting a LOT of energy and using it to make fuel, that is then burned to create energy. That's a couple of conversions. If they are able to melt steel, why not then melt salt and use the big bucket of molten salt to drive a steam turbine that generates electricity? I'd be willing to bet that in the end they would end up with more usable energy per unit time.