The increase in budget may not be bigger, but the total budget will. Or course, the biggest increases in terms of GDP happened during the great depression. We also had the most debt compared to GDP at that time.
All this goes out the window if we get a universal health care plan too. That would definitely be a sizable increase.
De we really need to be memorizing hundreds of "may or may not work" heuristic rules and naming conventions that scientists sometimes, but don't often use? Maybe they should rethink the manner in which this course it taught. Memorization is not as important as it used to be in this field.
You're right when you say that this does not automatically mean there is spin, but people tend to talk this way when they are spinning something because it makes their claims harder to challenge. It also generates the perception of spin, which is not a good thing.
The budget has grown primarily as a result of social security and defense spending. There's not a lot we can do about social security, and that will continue to grow. We can help with defense, though. It's important to understand that the war is not where the majority of the defense spending increase has come from, instead it is a result of army brass getting everything they ask for.
The national debt is the result of the republican strategy of reducing government spending through starvation. Basically, they believe that if the cut taxes (politically easy) they can then use it as an excuse to cut spending (politically hard).
McCain has never subscribed to this philosophy, that's why he voted against the tax cuts that Bush proposed and passed through congress. Of course, he is now in favor of keeping the tax cuts, and reducing spending because he does not want to raise taxes.
"Remember what George W. Bush ran on? Smaller government. Balanced budgets. Humble foreign policy."
That was what he ran on the first time, but I think he rethought his position after 9/11. The second time he ran on the war on terror. As I recall he did a lot better the second time too.
McCain has always advocated a strong military. He prefers to cut military spending by reforming the military's acquisition process and streamlining their bureaucracy.
McCain also want's to deal with social security and earmarks. None of these things are new positions for him. I don't know why people say that.
the 2008 budget is in excess of $3 trillion, what are these numbers you've posted here? And how does that change the fact that entitlements were enacted and are supported by democrats? You can maybe hold Bush accountable for the discretionary spending, and part of the defense spending but certainly he has nothing to do with social security. He spent six years trying to reduce the benefits so that it would be solvent!
And no, McCain has pretty much always been anti-pork.
We use the word "we" instead of "I" to distancing ourselves from what we are saying. Some support groups encourage people to use words such as "I" or "my" when speaking rather than "we" or "our". That causes them to talk openly and plainly about their toughs and experiences rather than speaking generally and vaguely about ideas and concepts.
What I just said has no accountability. I have practically nothing to do with it now. And yet I have *technically* staid the same thing. Obama could easily rewrite his speeches to give accountability to himself, just as I did in my original post. There is not a certain subject matter that this doesn't work for.
But making yourself accountable is a double edged sword. It increases your authenticity and it exposes you to criticism.
Have you even looked at McCain's voting record? It's not big on pork. . .
Also, you left out entitlement programs from your figures, which is a HUGE omission. Social Security and Medicare were enacted by democrats, and they are the gift that keeps on giving, so to speak.
The government is incompetent and corrupt, and I believe people could do a better job without it. And even if we can't I'd rather be free and poor than well off but have no freedom.
Christians believe you should help the poor VOLUNTARILY, they don't believe you should compel others to do it through threat of force. Forcing someone to help the poor is a very unchristian thing to do.
"There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper." Yes, and he had just killed his brother. Last I checked I hadn't murdered anyone in the streets. And FYI I give generously to charity.
- Providing mandatory healthcare to children? - Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults? - Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade? - Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice? - Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school? - Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation? - Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?
Everything I've listed above increases the role of the federal government. So no, this isn't a talking point. That's 70% I'm opposed to because I don't want to expand federal authority.
The only think I'd say I agree with is reforming the tax code. I would prefer to eliminate the itemized deduction system, include all benefits as income for tax purposes, and eliminate all taxes and fees that are not the income tax. I don't think this is in line with Obama's plan.
Well, since I want to reduce the role of government (especially the federal government) I would say that I'm opposed to most of the points you've listed.
I have news for you. The next administration will hold the new record on spending, and the next after that, and the next after that and so on and so fourth for the next forty years or so. The problem is Social Security, which pushed our budget over $3 trillion this year and continue to push it up as more people retire. You can blame Bush for not cutting other programs, but we would've probably still passed the $3 trillion mark no matter what he did.
In all fairness to him, he was pushing for Social Security reform the whole time he had a republican congress. It is so stupid how everyone just laughed him off and said there is no Social Security crises, but now they are complaining that he failed to reduce the budget. What was he supposed to do, cut defense spending?
Saying "we" instead of "I" is a way of distancing yourself from what you are saying. I was a part of a. ..uh. . support group where I was encouraged to try to use words such as "I" or "my" when speaking rather than "we" or "our". That meant talking openly and plainly about my personal toughs and experiences rather than speaking generally and vaguely about ideas and concepts.
They are granting you the right to deny someone else the use of something by threat or use of force. The main difference between IP and physical property is the ease of enforcement.
My complaint is not that regulation of property rights is unreasonable in and of itself, but rather that people often buy property with a particular intention, which is legal and legitimate at the time, only to see that use prohibited or regulated later on. For example, if you buy a wetland because you intend to drain it and build a subdivision, you would get pretty pissed off if draining that wetland was later ruled illegal. You gave up something with a certain expectation of getting something else, but then you didn't get it.
Another good example rent control. It sucks to buy an investment property, then have it lose most of it's value because someone thinks raising rent is unfair.
I'm not a big advocate of property rights, or rights in general. It seems to me that people often end up using them to be assholes. Moreover, society makes a lot of promises with regard to rights that it doesn't keep (see examples above). The notion of rights is dishonest in that regard. We shouldn't build these expectations in people, because we will not be able to meet them.
"The fact that corporations are not in any way restricted to being in one place at one time, doing one thing at a time, or existing for a limited amount of time has given them an enormous advantage in our legal system, which was never intended by our constitutional framers. "
This is not true. The thing that gives corporations power is the amount of money they have access to. A very wealthy person is formidable as an equally wealthy corporation. Maybe our constitutions' framers didn't want wealth and power to give people an advantage in court, but they probably had some idea that it would. . .
"Owning property and the use of it are two different things."
No, ownership is simply a government granted monopoly of the use of something. You can't separate use from property and still have that word mean what it does.
Every use of a piece of property will have an affect on others, so regulating it when it affects others could mean regulating it at any time. That's a perfectly OK view to have, and in reality the government can and will do that.
It's bad because you are told that you will have an exclusive monopoly on something, but if enough people, or the wrong people disagree with what you are doing they can come and take it from you or force you not to use it as you'd intended when you purchased it. You'd entered the ownership agreement on the condition that you'd be able to do what you planned, but then were disallowed your intended use. In other words, you got ripped off.
"In any case, corporations are designed to prevent personal liability."
Corporations eliminate personal financial liability. They do not affect criminal liability.
No, regressive taxes tax higher incomes at a lower marginal rate. A flat tax is by definition flat, neither regressive or progressive. In the US SS is regressive, income tax is progressive and sales tax is flat.
"Of course the part they will be neglecting is that they didn't really pay into the system, they paid and then spent on other purposes every extra nickel rather than setting it aside for retirement."
You don't know the half of it. The money they did save and invest (on their own) was invested heavily into mortgagees and short-term debt. As the baby boomers get older, they will require more resources (health-care and assisted living) and will produce almost nothing. The younger generations will need to produce significantly more just to get by, to say nothing of a higher standard of living. These resources will be extracted from younger generations through loans, mortgages and rent. A young person buying property will need to take out extensive loans to secure it, a person renting will be in an even worse situation because they will be paying but never see the end of it.
If we want to be free from this impending nightmare, we need to take preventative measures right away. We need to build new housing, and energy infrastructure. We need to streamline our economy to eliminate all the unnecessary work we do, and we need to start training new doctors and health care professionals right away. We also need to fix SS benefits to the CPI so that it won't balloon even further out of control.
Is this going to happen? No. To few people seem to understand the fundamental rule of the economy: insufficient resources means that someone will go without. Everyone thinks the problem with health care is that the prices are too high. No, the problem is that the industry is too small to support the needs of the population. Expand it! Price controls will accomplish nothing.
People think the economy is bad. So they say we need to focus on "job creation". What does that mean? People don't need jobs, they need housing ans health care. Get busy building houses and training doctors! There's plenty of work to be done, we don't need to "make" it.
"I believe that the individuals right to property is very important, but I don't extend that to artificially protected entities such as corporations"
Corporations are treated legally as individuals because they must be in order to have liability. Are you opposed to that? It seems important. . .
"and I don't believe that the right to that property inherently includes uses of it that impact others."
But practically all uses of property inherently impact others. If you grow food on your land, it will impact others by increasing the supply of food. If you do not grow food on your land, you are impacting others by not allowing them to use the land for that purpose. I don't see how you can say that someone has property rights but then dictate how they can use their property.
Re:Why do businesses even have IT departments
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
In reality it is much harder to fire an employee than it is to switch contractors. It's also mean, so people won't do it unless the employee has really screwed up. It is also a better arrangement for the contractor, since as you say they have other clients so they can afford to say no to unreasonable demands.
Re:Why do businesses even have IT departments
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
No, those people work directly with your core business, taking calls from customers and working with clients or subcontractors, or sending them bills. But your IT staff doesn't work with or do work for your customers.
Slashdot Mirror
The increase in budget may not be bigger, but the total budget will. Or course, the biggest increases in terms of GDP happened during the great depression. We also had the most debt compared to GDP at that time.
All this goes out the window if we get a universal health care plan too. That would definitely be a sizable increase.
Did I mention that it is more difficult politically to cut spending?
De we really need to be memorizing hundreds of "may or may not work" heuristic rules and naming conventions that scientists sometimes, but don't often use? Maybe they should rethink the manner in which this course it taught. Memorization is not as important as it used to be in this field.
They did cut taxes.
You're right when you say that this does not automatically mean there is spin, but people tend to talk this way when they are spinning something because it makes their claims harder to challenge. It also generates the perception of spin, which is not a good thing.
The budget has grown primarily as a result of social security and defense spending. There's not a lot we can do about social security, and that will continue to grow. We can help with defense, though. It's important to understand that the war is not where the majority of the defense spending increase has come from, instead it is a result of army brass getting everything they ask for.
The national debt is the result of the republican strategy of reducing government spending through starvation. Basically, they believe that if the cut taxes (politically easy) they can then use it as an excuse to cut spending (politically hard).
McCain has never subscribed to this philosophy, that's why he voted against the tax cuts that Bush proposed and passed through congress. Of course, he is now in favor of keeping the tax cuts, and reducing spending because he does not want to raise taxes.
"Remember what George W. Bush ran on? Smaller government. Balanced budgets. Humble foreign policy."
That was what he ran on the first time, but I think he rethought his position after 9/11. The second time he ran on the war on terror. As I recall he did a lot better the second time too.
McCain has always advocated a strong military. He prefers to cut military spending by reforming the military's acquisition process and streamlining their bureaucracy.
McCain also want's to deal with social security and earmarks. None of these things are new positions for him. I don't know why people say that.
the 2008 budget is in excess of $3 trillion, what are these numbers you've posted here? And how does that change the fact that entitlements were enacted and are supported by democrats? You can maybe hold Bush accountable for the discretionary spending, and part of the defense spending but certainly he has nothing to do with social security. He spent six years trying to reduce the benefits so that it would be solvent!
And no, McCain has pretty much always been anti-pork.
Let me rephrase my post to illustrate my meaning:
We use the word "we" instead of "I" to distancing ourselves from what we are saying. Some support groups encourage people to use words such as "I" or "my" when speaking rather than "we" or "our". That causes them to talk openly and plainly about their toughs and experiences rather than speaking generally and vaguely about ideas and concepts.
What I just said has no accountability. I have practically nothing to do with it now. And yet I have *technically* staid the same thing. Obama could easily rewrite his speeches to give accountability to himself, just as I did in my original post. There is not a certain subject matter that this doesn't work for.
But making yourself accountable is a double edged sword. It increases your authenticity and it exposes you to criticism.
Have you even looked at McCain's voting record? It's not big on pork. . .
Also, you left out entitlement programs from your figures, which is a HUGE omission. Social Security and Medicare were enacted by democrats, and they are the gift that keeps on giving, so to speak.
"Don't you presume to tell me I'm not doing my part."
If you require the government to pass laws to make you help the poor, you are not doing your part.
The government is incompetent and corrupt, and I believe people could do a better job without it. And even if we can't I'd rather be free and poor than well off but have no freedom.
Christians believe you should help the poor VOLUNTARILY, they don't believe you should compel others to do it through threat of force. Forcing someone to help the poor is a very unchristian thing to do.
"There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper." Yes, and he had just killed his brother. Last I checked I hadn't murdered anyone in the streets. And FYI I give generously to charity.
- Providing mandatory healthcare to children?
- Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?
- Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?
- Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?
- Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?
- Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation?
- Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?
Everything I've listed above increases the role of the federal government. So no, this isn't a talking point. That's 70% I'm opposed to because I don't want to expand federal authority.
The only think I'd say I agree with is reforming the tax code. I would prefer to eliminate the itemized deduction system, include all benefits as income for tax purposes, and eliminate all taxes and fees that are not the income tax. I don't think this is in line with Obama's plan.
Well, since I want to reduce the role of government (especially the federal government) I would say that I'm opposed to most of the points you've listed.
"they currently hold the record for spending!"
I have news for you. The next administration will hold the new record on spending, and the next after that, and the next after that and so on and so fourth for the next forty years or so. The problem is Social Security, which pushed our budget over $3 trillion this year and continue to push it up as more people retire. You can blame Bush for not cutting other programs, but we would've probably still passed the $3 trillion mark no matter what he did.
In all fairness to him, he was pushing for Social Security reform the whole time he had a republican congress. It is so stupid how everyone just laughed him off and said there is no Social Security crises, but now they are complaining that he failed to reduce the budget. What was he supposed to do, cut defense spending?
Saying "we" instead of "I" is a way of distancing yourself from what you are saying. I was a part of a. . .uh. . support group where I was encouraged to try to use words such as "I" or "my" when speaking rather than "we" or "our". That meant talking openly and plainly about my personal toughs and experiences rather than speaking generally and vaguely about ideas and concepts.
It depends how many degrees you turn each time.
They are granting you the right to deny someone else the use of something by threat or use of force. The main difference between IP and physical property is the ease of enforcement.
My complaint is not that regulation of property rights is unreasonable in and of itself, but rather that people often buy property with a particular intention, which is legal and legitimate at the time, only to see that use prohibited or regulated later on. For example, if you buy a wetland because you intend to drain it and build a subdivision, you would get pretty pissed off if draining that wetland was later ruled illegal. You gave up something with a certain expectation of getting something else, but then you didn't get it.
Another good example rent control. It sucks to buy an investment property, then have it lose most of it's value because someone thinks raising rent is unfair.
I'm not a big advocate of property rights, or rights in general. It seems to me that people often end up using them to be assholes. Moreover, society makes a lot of promises with regard to rights that it doesn't keep (see examples above). The notion of rights is dishonest in that regard. We shouldn't build these expectations in people, because we will not be able to meet them.
"The fact that corporations are not in any way restricted to being in one place at one time, doing one thing at a time, or existing for a limited amount of time has given them an enormous advantage in our legal system, which was never intended by our constitutional framers. "
This is not true. The thing that gives corporations power is the amount of money they have access to. A very wealthy person is formidable as an equally wealthy corporation. Maybe our constitutions' framers didn't want wealth and power to give people an advantage in court, but they probably had some idea that it would. . .
"Owning property and the use of it are two different things."
No, ownership is simply a government granted monopoly of the use of something. You can't separate use from property and still have that word mean what it does.
Every use of a piece of property will have an affect on others, so regulating it when it affects others could mean regulating it at any time. That's a perfectly OK view to have, and in reality the government can and will do that.
It's bad because you are told that you will have an exclusive monopoly on something, but if enough people, or the wrong people disagree with what you are doing they can come and take it from you or force you not to use it as you'd intended when you purchased it. You'd entered the ownership agreement on the condition that you'd be able to do what you planned, but then were disallowed your intended use. In other words, you got ripped off.
"In any case, corporations are designed to prevent personal liability."
Corporations eliminate personal financial liability. They do not affect criminal liability.
"aren't flat taxes regressive"
No, regressive taxes tax higher incomes at a lower marginal rate. A flat tax is by definition flat, neither regressive or progressive. In the US SS is regressive, income tax is progressive and sales tax is flat.
"Of course the part they will be neglecting is that they didn't really pay into the system, they paid and then spent on other purposes every extra nickel rather than setting it aside for retirement."
You don't know the half of it. The money they did save and invest (on their own) was invested heavily into mortgagees and short-term debt. As the baby boomers get older, they will require more resources (health-care and assisted living) and will produce almost nothing. The younger generations will need to produce significantly more just to get by, to say nothing of a higher standard of living. These resources will be extracted from younger generations through loans, mortgages and rent. A young person buying property will need to take out extensive loans to secure it, a person renting will be in an even worse situation because they will be paying but never see the end of it.
If we want to be free from this impending nightmare, we need to take preventative measures right away. We need to build new housing, and energy infrastructure. We need to streamline our economy to eliminate all the unnecessary work we do, and we need to start training new doctors and health care professionals right away. We also need to fix SS benefits to the CPI so that it won't balloon even further out of control.
Is this going to happen? No. To few people seem to understand the fundamental rule of the economy: insufficient resources means that someone will go without. Everyone thinks the problem with health care is that the prices are too high. No, the problem is that the industry is too small to support the needs of the population. Expand it! Price controls will accomplish nothing.
People think the economy is bad. So they say we need to focus on "job creation". What does that mean? People don't need jobs, they need housing ans health care. Get busy building houses and training doctors! There's plenty of work to be done, we don't need to "make" it.
"I believe that the individuals right to property is very important, but I don't extend that to artificially protected entities such as corporations"
Corporations are treated legally as individuals because they must be in order to have liability. Are you opposed to that? It seems important. . .
"and I don't believe that the right to that property inherently includes uses of it that impact others."
But practically all uses of property inherently impact others. If you grow food on your land, it will impact others by increasing the supply of food. If you do not grow food on your land, you are impacting others by not allowing them to use the land for that purpose. I don't see how you can say that someone has property rights but then dictate how they can use their property.
In reality it is much harder to fire an employee than it is to switch contractors. It's also mean, so people won't do it unless the employee has really screwed up. It is also a better arrangement for the contractor, since as you say they have other clients so they can afford to say no to unreasonable demands.
No, those people work directly with your core business, taking calls from customers and working with clients or subcontractors, or sending them bills. But your IT staff doesn't work with or do work for your customers.