You missed the whole point. How are they paying for it?
And, by the way, the private sector has already solved this problem. In order to get into good schools, you have to have a competitive amount of community involvement. So what problem is this fixing?
Where did you see the information that those grants and loans are going away? As far as I can tell this is in addition to those. That means it needs additional funding.
It really pains me to say this, but the political discourse here on/. is actually quite intelligent. For a peek into the REAL political discourse of this country, take a gander at craigslist's rants & raves section or the political forums. I don't really think having a forum on change.gov that has 900 posts about Obama being a Muslim is really going to help anything.
In order for the community to come up with something useful, it must first endeavor not to be a bunch of blithering idiots.
Again, it is hard to comment, because I think the US's actions in that area are immoral. But, again, we are not policing the world because it is in the world's best interest. We foolishly believe it is in our best interest.
I didn't say you aren't allowed to have or express your opinion. I am objecting to the attitude that people outside the US have that their opinion should mean anything to Americans when they vote. It's arrogant. We are not voting for your interests, we are voting for US interests. I don't care if you're informed, because you are forming your opinion based on non-US interests. Like I said, I am picking on your comment not because it was outrageous, but because it has an undercurrent that reminded me of issue in general.
As to your friend, is she a citizen of this country? If not, she does not have the right to influence the country's government. To your argument about taxation, I can't really comment because I consider income tax immoral. But if you consume in this country, you will be taxed on that consumption, just like most other countries.
Again, why do I care that Canada approves of our selection for president? It's not about you and it's not about the rest of the world. We are selecting the candidate who is best for the US, and the only reason your opinion matters is because we trade with you and defend against you. I really get tired of people from other countries patting us on the head and saying "good boy, America." I understand this impacts you, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a US election, not a world election. You don't get a vote for a very good reason.
The Democrats didn't start getting all pro-liberties until they weren't in power. Let's not have a short memory, now. Now they're in power of the legislative and executive branches. If they don't fix a lot of that stuff fast, then I'm going to have to call bullshit.
Very few politicians want to take a lot of effort to limit their own power.
I really get tired of this implication that world opinion should affect the US election. I'm picking on you, I know; but the endorsements of foreign papers and the comments here about how one candidate or the other would be best for the world... that is not what this election is about. The election is about what is best for the US. There is overlap, but it is NOT the same. There's a reason you have to be a citizen to vote.
Amen, brother. Your choices this election are big government and bigger government. Another nice one I've heard is: your choices this election are a warmonger who is a reluctant socialist and a socialist who is a reluctant warmonger.
Who *isn't* throwing their vote away this election?
No, it's socialism. I think you are complaining about how the two heads of the same friggin party are socialistic. Libertarians would say it's socialism. Anyone with a brain would say it's socialism. I don't have the information behind the graph to back this up, but it is interesting just in a thought-provoking sense:
Your numbers are way off. 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. The 60% of wages pays way more than 60% of total income taxes. What you are talking about would be more like a flat tax.
Greenspan WAS a champion of free markets. But you cannot say that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve -- an entity whose entire purpose is to regulate the market -- is in favor of free markets. Manipulating the cost of capital is not a free market. Regulating certain securities and not others is not a free market. The problem with regulation is that it is imperfect and changes the competitive landscape. This is ALWAYS the case. The problem with credit default swaps, for example, is not that it is unregulated; the problem is that most other similar securities ARE regulated. That's what grew the market so large.
You cannot look a the failure now and say that is due to free markets. In fact, there is a VERY strong indication that it is due to government intervention in the free markets. See the role of the GSE's and the Community Reinvestment Act's manipulation of the risk gradient. Wikipedia "moral hazard".
But if you are quoting the House Oversight Committee minutes, then you already know all this.
That's ridiculous. The Constitution is routinely ignored and all it results in is a bloated and unnecessary federal government redundancy. Tell me, for instance, what the federal department of education gets us for all the taxpayer money we use to fund it. This obsession with a "united front" and homogeneity between states costs us all a ton of money.
Sorry, but when you introduce taxpayer funded health care, then the taxpayers have a legitimate stake in your health practices. This trade off between personal liberties and public entitlements is not new and will not go away.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the whole point. How are they paying for it?
And, by the way, the private sector has already solved this problem. In order to get into good schools, you have to have a competitive amount of community involvement. So what problem is this fixing?
Where did you see the information that those grants and loans are going away? As far as I can tell this is in addition to those. That means it needs additional funding.
where's the crime section? where's the civil liberties section?
It really pains me to say this, but the political discourse here on /. is actually quite intelligent. For a peek into the REAL political discourse of this country, take a gander at craigslist's rants & raves section or the political forums. I don't really think having a forum on change.gov that has 900 posts about Obama being a Muslim is really going to help anything.
In order for the community to come up with something useful, it must first endeavor not to be a bunch of blithering idiots.
Um, exactly. The government is paying $40/hour untaxed to do work that is not worth that much. Anyone see a problem???
Curious... should they be able to vote in their home country as well as their resident country?
Again, it is hard to comment, because I think the US's actions in that area are immoral. But, again, we are not policing the world because it is in the world's best interest. We foolishly believe it is in our best interest.
I didn't say you aren't allowed to have or express your opinion. I am objecting to the attitude that people outside the US have that their opinion should mean anything to Americans when they vote. It's arrogant. We are not voting for your interests, we are voting for US interests. I don't care if you're informed, because you are forming your opinion based on non-US interests. Like I said, I am picking on your comment not because it was outrageous, but because it has an undercurrent that reminded me of issue in general.
As to your friend, is she a citizen of this country? If not, she does not have the right to influence the country's government. To your argument about taxation, I can't really comment because I consider income tax immoral. But if you consume in this country, you will be taxed on that consumption, just like most other countries.
Single quart-sized baggie, please!
I was on the phone putting more of my savings into gold.
Again, why do I care that Canada approves of our selection for president? It's not about you and it's not about the rest of the world. We are selecting the candidate who is best for the US, and the only reason your opinion matters is because we trade with you and defend against you. I really get tired of people from other countries patting us on the head and saying "good boy, America." I understand this impacts you, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a US election, not a world election. You don't get a vote for a very good reason.
The Democrats didn't start getting all pro-liberties until they weren't in power. Let's not have a short memory, now. Now they're in power of the legislative and executive branches. If they don't fix a lot of that stuff fast, then I'm going to have to call bullshit.
Very few politicians want to take a lot of effort to limit their own power.
You're right. But how's he going to pay for it?
See also http://www.iousathemovie.com/
I really get tired of this implication that world opinion should affect the US election. I'm picking on you, I know; but the endorsements of foreign papers and the comments here about how one candidate or the other would be best for the world... that is not what this election is about. The election is about what is best for the US. There is overlap, but it is NOT the same. There's a reason you have to be a citizen to vote.
Amen, brother. Your choices this election are big government and bigger government. Another nice one I've heard is: your choices this election are a warmonger who is a reluctant socialist and a socialist who is a reluctant warmonger.
Who *isn't* throwing their vote away this election?
No, it's socialism. I think you are complaining about how the two heads of the same friggin party are socialistic. Libertarians would say it's socialism. Anyone with a brain would say it's socialism. I don't have the information behind the graph to back this up, but it is interesting just in a thought-provoking sense:
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v374/179/71/1103467/n1103467_32537534_5793.jpg
So, Obama isn't a socialist because republicans were involved in socialist legislation? Does that pass anyone's logical error test???
Thanks for listing the biggest economic powerhouses in the world.
Your numbers are way off. 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. The 60% of wages pays way more than 60% of total income taxes. What you are talking about would be more like a flat tax.
Greenspan WAS a champion of free markets. But you cannot say that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve -- an entity whose entire purpose is to regulate the market -- is in favor of free markets. Manipulating the cost of capital is not a free market. Regulating certain securities and not others is not a free market. The problem with regulation is that it is imperfect and changes the competitive landscape. This is ALWAYS the case. The problem with credit default swaps, for example, is not that it is unregulated; the problem is that most other similar securities ARE regulated. That's what grew the market so large.
You cannot look a the failure now and say that is due to free markets. In fact, there is a VERY strong indication that it is due to government intervention in the free markets. See the role of the GSE's and the Community Reinvestment Act's manipulation of the risk gradient. Wikipedia "moral hazard".
But if you are quoting the House Oversight Committee minutes, then you already know all this.
That's ridiculous. The Constitution is routinely ignored and all it results in is a bloated and unnecessary federal government redundancy. Tell me, for instance, what the federal department of education gets us for all the taxpayer money we use to fund it. This obsession with a "united front" and homogeneity between states costs us all a ton of money.
Sorry, but when you introduce taxpayer funded health care, then the taxpayers have a legitimate stake in your health practices. This trade off between personal liberties and public entitlements is not new and will not go away.
Don't be an idiot. If government subsidizes something, it will be consumed more. Or were you absent that day in microeconimics?
Are you seriously suggesting we point to our politicians as role models? What is wrong with you.
So do public schools... if we're talking about colleges. Discrimination laws keep the issue you bring up from happening.