Nice, but why are we spending the same money to support a student who wants to be in school and a student who does everything possible to avoid school and probably will never graduate HS? I agree there are problems and we would need to be careful about kicking people out of schools that are funded with public money. But it happens in college today, so it's not impossible.
That is not what I meant. I was not suggesting hypocrisy. I was saying that we're in a troubled state and need to focus efforts on ourselves, rather than acting like we have ample resources available to fix other people's problems.
If we followed your suggestion, you would effectively remove my right to vote. For the last two elections, I have only been able to vote thanks to Ohio absentee voting procedures, and I do not expect the situation to change any time in the near future.
The requirement need only be that the voter have the option of voting in private.
The US is in no position to go into other nations and tell them that their laws and political processes are oppressive and counter to the freedom of the people.
Fixing our own problems would keep us busy for quite a while.
That is an interesting point. The "money" spent on child care when someone does it for "free" is in a sense untaxed at that transaction, where it would be taxed if you are paying someone to watch the child for you.
I'm not sure that really changes whether one can consider child care "free" though, and I don't really agree my point is purely academic.
Either the author of that quote is an idiot, or you aren't interpreting the content correctly (I think it's the former, personally).
Child care was NEVER free. Child care carries an opportunity cost that results in one potential income earner to stay at home. This potential income earner incurs costs to maintain their own life. The actual income earner of the family is paying the child carer in the opportunity cost plus normal life maintenance costs. That money is coming out of the actual income earner's paycheck.
The move to "monetized" child care is a perfectly rational market decision, on average. The potential income earner can bring $x of income in by otherwise occupying himself or herself with a profession, while at the same time paying someone $y to care for their child, such that $x > $y.
Obviously there are other things to consider in such a decision and the above is a simplification. But to say that child care and other things are potentially free is just ridiculous and ignores fundamental economic principles of opportunity cost.
I've actually never had a problem at Philly, at least through the CO gates (D?). Are you talking about US Air gates? Perhaps the TSA there are more cranky due to volume?
How can you blame the people for voting stupid people into office when the political parties present a choice of 2 stupid people to vote for? Why does our system of government allow for political parties to have so much power in the political process?
Federal-government funded retirement and health care programs are bankrupt. Why, then, do we continue to say we think federal-government funded retirement and health care programs will work? Even children who touch the stove to see what happens don't need to do the same thing again.
Especially given what is going on in our economy right now, I don't know how these huge, costly federal programs can even be on the table as a topic of discussion. We don't have the money to fund our current programs, let along create new ones AND cut taxes.
I'm more worried about my personal savings going to shit due to the ridiculous amount of government manipulation of the market that has been going on for the last few months.
I get your point, but don't you think it is a problem that government CAN ignore the Constitution and get away with it? The REASON they can do this is a very complex question, and many things wrong with the current political system contribute to the answer.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the US Government if the US Government can ignore the US Constitution and get away with it.
It isn't so easy to fork your government if you don't like what they are doing.
Oh, yes? What if the federal government got out of things they shouldn't be involved in and returned power to the states? Now you have "market competition" between states, and states that do unpopular things will lose citizens and therefore tax revenue.
The above is oversimplification, sure. But the point is that one of the reasons we don't have very much say in what government does is because the federal control is so strong.
Yes, that is always the argument made. Here's what you do.
Find someone IN YOUR STATE whom you trust and who is planning to vote for the candidate you believe is the greater of two evils.
Thus, here is the situation: 1) You are voting for who you believe is the lesser of the two evils. 2) The person you trust is voting for who you believe is the greater of two evils.
You both promise NOT to vote for that candidate and instead vote for the 3rd party candidate of your choosing.
Therefore, your non-votes cancel each other out, and you are free to vote for whom you please WITHOUT hurting the chances of your "lesser of two evils" choice of winning.
Nice comment. There was a question posted on Ron Paul's campaign for liberty site asking their members if they thought that RP would have been selected as a candidate had the financial crisis happened a few months earlier.
Unfortunately, I think the answer is no, because the parties still control this stuff.
Yeah. I think things are moving in that direction. But unfortunately these giant companies/governments take a while to make changes like that (sometimes it needs to wait for certain old dogs to retire!). Quite ridiculous, but then again if that weren't the case why would they need to hire outside firms...
Agree, but until I can stop submitting proposals in MS Word 97 format (or they will be immediately rejected), I don't think I can move away from Windows soon...
Slashdot Mirror
Nice, but why are we spending the same money to support a student who wants to be in school and a student who does everything possible to avoid school and probably will never graduate HS? I agree there are problems and we would need to be careful about kicking people out of schools that are funded with public money. But it happens in college today, so it's not impossible.
I love how you get this argument, but then people turn around and accept the "lesser of two evils" argument.
IF YOU VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT YOU GET EVIL.
Mmmmk?
Thanks for the clarification; your explanation of his makes sense
That is not what I meant. I was not suggesting hypocrisy. I was saying that we're in a troubled state and need to focus efforts on ourselves, rather than acting like we have ample resources available to fix other people's problems.
If we followed your suggestion, you would effectively remove my right to vote. For the last two elections, I have only been able to vote thanks to Ohio absentee voting procedures, and I do not expect the situation to change any time in the near future.
The requirement need only be that the voter have the option of voting in private.
Banks don't have a requirement of anonymity of the source of the money without increasing the chance of fraud.
The US is in no position to go into other nations and tell them that their laws and political processes are oppressive and counter to the freedom of the people.
Fixing our own problems would keep us busy for quite a while.
Why are we offering them help?
That is an interesting point. The "money" spent on child care when someone does it for "free" is in a sense untaxed at that transaction, where it would be taxed if you are paying someone to watch the child for you.
I'm not sure that really changes whether one can consider child care "free" though, and I don't really agree my point is purely academic.
Either the author of that quote is an idiot, or you aren't interpreting the content correctly (I think it's the former, personally).
Child care was NEVER free. Child care carries an opportunity cost that results in one potential income earner to stay at home. This potential income earner incurs costs to maintain their own life. The actual income earner of the family is paying the child carer in the opportunity cost plus normal life maintenance costs. That money is coming out of the actual income earner's paycheck.
The move to "monetized" child care is a perfectly rational market decision, on average. The potential income earner can bring $x of income in by otherwise occupying himself or herself with a profession, while at the same time paying someone $y to care for their child, such that $x > $y.
Obviously there are other things to consider in such a decision and the above is a simplification. But to say that child care and other things are potentially free is just ridiculous and ignores fundamental economic principles of opportunity cost.
The site gave it away for "free," but he didn't.
Why isnt this under book reviews?
I've actually never had a problem at Philly, at least through the CO gates (D?). Are you talking about US Air gates? Perhaps the TSA there are more cranky due to volume?
How can you blame the people for voting stupid people into office when the political parties present a choice of 2 stupid people to vote for? Why does our system of government allow for political parties to have so much power in the political process?
Federal-government funded retirement and health care programs are bankrupt. Why, then, do we continue to say we think federal-government funded retirement and health care programs will work? Even children who touch the stove to see what happens don't need to do the same thing again.
Especially given what is going on in our economy right now, I don't know how these huge, costly federal programs can even be on the table as a topic of discussion. We don't have the money to fund our current programs, let along create new ones AND cut taxes.
I'm more worried about my personal savings going to shit due to the ridiculous amount of government manipulation of the market that has been going on for the last few months.
I get your point, but don't you think it is a problem that government CAN ignore the Constitution and get away with it? The REASON they can do this is a very complex question, and many things wrong with the current political system contribute to the answer.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the US Government if the US Government can ignore the US Constitution and get away with it.
Depends if he is talking about classical liberalism or modern liberals (eg, US's Democratic party). They are two very, very different things.
Oh, yes? What if the federal government got out of things they shouldn't be involved in and returned power to the states? Now you have "market competition" between states, and states that do unpopular things will lose citizens and therefore tax revenue.
The above is oversimplification, sure. But the point is that one of the reasons we don't have very much say in what government does is because the federal control is so strong.
Yes, that is always the argument made. Here's what you do.
Find someone IN YOUR STATE whom you trust and who is planning to vote for the candidate you believe is the greater of two evils.
Thus, here is the situation:
1) You are voting for who you believe is the lesser of the two evils.
2) The person you trust is voting for who you believe is the greater of two evils.
You both promise NOT to vote for that candidate and instead vote for the 3rd party candidate of your choosing.
Therefore, your non-votes cancel each other out, and you are free to vote for whom you please WITHOUT hurting the chances of your "lesser of two evils" choice of winning.
Nice comment. There was a question posted on Ron Paul's campaign for liberty site asking their members if they thought that RP would have been selected as a candidate had the financial crisis happened a few months earlier.
Unfortunately, I think the answer is no, because the parties still control this stuff.
Yeah, Bush sucks. But it's a logical error to assume that he was the worse choice.
It's official. Spam is the new porn.
Yeah. I think things are moving in that direction. But unfortunately these giant companies/governments take a while to make changes like that (sometimes it needs to wait for certain old dogs to retire!). Quite ridiculous, but then again if that weren't the case why would they need to hire outside firms...
I'm guessing you don't do this kind of work...
Agree, but until I can stop submitting proposals in MS Word 97 format (or they will be immediately rejected), I don't think I can move away from Windows soon...