It doesn't do *crap* for the main alleged purpose of the stock market - investing in worthwhile companies and business ventures as opposed to less worthwhile ones. Basically microtrading is just a way to shave money off of **everyone else's** trades and pocket the difference. Making money by taking it from other people trading, and NOT because you've made a wise investment in a good company.
OF COURSE it results in instability. It takes the irrationality of people's emotions that's already a play in the market, and then it does more emotionally-charged guessing based on that. It's instability squared.
One of the best ways to discourage it would be for the US to just start charging a fee for every chunk of shares traded that's more than, say, 1000. Something like $.50 . That could cut down the profits, AND help pay for some programs to dig us out of the whole Wall St. put us in back in 2008. Maybe even some enforcement for the SEC (imagine that?)
Actually you are quite wrong. You can carry forward losses and that has been a part of tax law for a LONG time. The problem with individuals is that many of them can't really have losses because they don't have the ability to go below zero unless they have other than normal W2 income.
So, actually I'm quite wrong except that I'm right. Please look at the bolded area of your own quote, above. Most individuals only have normal W2 income.
Take this very important tenant of tax law away and corporations would not invest in many ventures that might not pay off the first year. They aren't cheating, they really lost the money. They are just recognizing that fact when they finally do make money.
Oh, come now. Exxon and GE are far from having their first years in business. And, more importantly, their STOCKHOLDERS know and are well aware these companies are profitable. And if they in fact actually losing so much money, and this is NOT some clear and obvious tax dodge, then why haven't their stocks tanked?
So please, if you will, come back to the main point, and please answer this question:
IF paying down the deficit and debt is so important, then WHY can't these loopholes be closed for established corporations that have no real losses, only clever bookkeeping that has no effect on their actual stock market value? Why must the deficit be paid ONLY by budget cuts, in your opinion?
I mean, let's say this really is supposed to be such a Darwinist society that we simply CAN'T afford to give pennies to the poor. In that case, then why CAN we lose BILLIONS in tax revenue from HUGE corporations WHILE they are having their most profitable seasons ever? Why aren't the huge corporations strong enough to take the tough love that the weak, poor and elderly are supposed to get?
So? Let's say that's the case. *I* can't do that, as a private taxpayer. If I lost $50k in one year and then made $50k the next year, I still have to pay taxes on the year I made $50k.
What is a single reason why this tax loophole should NOT be closed, if reducing the deficit is of such importance?
How does keeping this loophole open help pay the debt, if corporations can do that while I can't? Since it is an established fact that trickle-down theories don't work, what other possible reason is there that this is a good thing?
Why is it that, IN SPITE OF OUR DEFICIT AND DEBT, we can afford to let corporations do that - but we CAN'T afford to give the elderly far, far less in oil subsidies so they can keep themselves warm through the winter?
Well, ok. I guess we have to wander all the way into the weeds for this.
From your own article that you cited:
Although I came up with that by reading the company’s annual 10-k filing with the SEC, ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers assures me that this is wrong, that Exxon did indeed pay substantial income taxes to the U.S. Treasury in 2009, and that it overpaid taxes in 2008. How much? Well, Jeffers says so far he’s not at liberty to disclose that information. “That’s not something we’re required to disclose, nor do we.”
So, which are we to believe - the actual statement filed, or the word of a spokesperson who refuses to actually divulge any information?
I prefer to go with the facts, until the facts are disproven by other verified statements.
To quote from the other article you cited, re: GE,
And the New York Times was wrong because, even leaving aside the income tax issue, there is simply no way that GE's US tax bill in 2010 can be fairly described as being "none." GE paid many different kinds of US taxes in 2010--state, local, payroll, etc.--and, according to Eisele, its 2010 income tax bill (which still has yet to be determined) is likely to be positive.
...this is conflation of the worst sort.
Leaving it aside is avoiding the facts rather than proving them wrong. We are talking about the amount of money that GE paid as a business. If GE made a profit as a business, it should pay taxes as a business.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion....Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation’s tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.
So you tell me - what is so hard to understand about that? If GE made a profit, it should pay taxes on that profit. If it is legal for GE to avoid paying taxes on that, then those are legal loopholes that should be closed. And certainly should be closed before we do other things in the name if "budget austerity" like cut off the oil heat for the elderly in winter.
Right? If not, why not?
It is not that reducing the debt is "so all-fired important" it is the deficit that has gotten out of control.
OK, fine. It's only "gotten out of control". My question remains the same: is there still ANY REASON not to include closing those loopholes, as part of the deficit reduction?
What money given to them? The government didn't give them any money.
Come on now. Just go back several comments in this thread. You know when Exxon, GE and others received a REBATE? That means they were given money - and MORE MONEY than they paid in taxes. That means they paid zero taxes, and then received MORE MONEY after that.
That means the government gave them money. Its MORE than "allowing them to keep the money they paid", which merely means they would be riding for free while using the country's services.
If you think that means the government DIDN'T give them money, then please explain how giving them back MORE MONEY THAN THEY PAID isn't actually giving them money.
Is there any part of that which is not clear? Otherwise, can we move forward so that you can at least admit that the government made them money? Since, well, the government gave them money, and once again MORE MONEY than they paid?
They are getting refunds because our elected officials decided to promote some economic activity (i.e. increased oil well drilling, etc.) by giving a deduction.
OK! So this is exactly in line with my analogy of paying money to aunts and uncles, in the hopes that they'll give money to others - which they haven't. Here, I'll quote that part of the analogy again for you:
dad says "Nope, sorry kiddo. It's time for austerity now. Daddy lost a lot of money on the stock market, and barely has enough money to buy guns and keep giving money to your rich uncles and aunts, so they can hopefully pay the rest of you some more money if they feel like it."
And when you say, "But Dad we already tried that, and they didn't give us any more money at all. They just kept it." he says, "Nyahhha nyahhh!! I can't hear you!"
So, can you admit that my anology is actually apt? As that money given to them would easily pay for a great many of the programs which we allegedly can't afford?
BTW-Corporate income taxes only represent 12% of the total collected
And? Is that any reason to not include closing those loopholes, as part of the deficit reduction?
Basically, is there ANY REASON to not include closing those loopholes, as part of the deficit reduction? Since reducing the debt and deficit is so all-fired important, right?
Let's be truthful, and live in reality. The fair thing for everyone is that people pay something in line with what they can **AFFORD**.
Otherwise you're asking someone who is using and benefiting from 5% of the country, to pay as much in cash as someone who is using and benefiting from %70 of the country.
If you are only using a car to go work, you are benefiting from less of the roads than the President of a company whose employees use that road to drive to work, ship products on, etc. Ditto for the police, fire department, and military. Even Social Security, which means that the employer has a workforce which is secure and isn't demanding a similar set of benefits from the company.
We're either a nation or we aren't. If we are, we all work together. Which means that some people who benefit more as a percentage, pay back a higher percentage.
I think any such approach should be centered around this fundamental point: what is the tax rate that works best for America?
It seems that the tax rate that helped America to its worldwide success was in the past much higher on the wealthy. So it appears from past historical experience, and the present of our competitors who all have higher tax rates on the wealthy, that that is the direction we should go in.
I don't see how it's bad for the wealthy to pay 70% of the taxes, if they're earning around that much in terms of wealth. Which they are.
But what I think is more important than how much they are taxed, is how that money is spent. What is the best way to invest money in America?
Because money once gathered can be blown irresponsibly or spent wisely and yield a return. For example, you could spend a lot of money on programs which generate no effective return, such as war, or spend it on programs which continue to return for the entire country. Such as interstate roads, rural electrification, social security, and public education.
Once a reasonable non-partisan estimation of what the most effective kind of programs are, and what the long-term gains we want to achieve are, taxes should be estimated around that.
I also think a flat tax rate is kind of silly. The poor and the middle class simply do not have the level of disposable income that the upper classes do. So to simply have the same tax rate for everyone is unfair to the majority of the US population.
I don't agree with your analogy. The government didn't give any money to rich uncles and aunts.
Then how are companies like Exxon and GE not only NOT paying taxes, but **getting refunds**?
The fact that the most profitable companies in history are actually being PAID money by poor and middle class taxpayers, shows that's exactly what's happening.
Second, also note the financial bailouts - which gave banks money without restrictions in order to save the economy. Which the companies then spent on giving BILLIONS in bonuses to the same people who cratered the economy. Now note that this is a **net win** for them - the government has given them FAR MORE money than it taxed. Which also exactly matches my analogy.
You'll note that my analogy didn't say "ALL your uncles and aunts."
Therefore, even though you don't like my analogy, I think you can see that it still stands. Also note that these loopholes are the ones that the GOP is interested in preserving.
Interesting, isn't it? It's all "austerity" when the elderly need some pennies to keep their houses warm in winter. But when a company like Exxon or GE, or a wealthy non-producer like a hedge fund manager needs buckets of gold to stay comfortable? Somehow we can afford that.
Why is that? I'd love to hear why that's good for America.
Finally, I'd like to note once again that you're misconstruing what I'm saying as concentrating ONLY on raising taxes. I'm NOT doing this. What I want to hear is, if the debt is such a huge problem then why is raising taxes ENTIRELY off the table?
Why not a balanced approach of raising taxes and cutting the budget? What is wrong with that, besides supply-side economics which once again have been proven not to work?
Ever since you were born, you and all your brothers and sisters have been working on Daddy's farm. A certain percentage of what everyone earns has been put aside for the family's needs - medicine, schooling, and protection i.e. guns and guard dogs.
A couple of years ago, on the theory that it would make everyone make more money, the family started putting less money aside from what everyone made. This had no discernible effect on the family fortunes, besides less money actually being saved.
Your older sister and brother went to college. Now it's time for you. But when it's time to pay your tuition, dad says "Nope, sorry kiddo. It's time for austerity now. Daddy lost a lot of money on the stock market, and barely has enough money to buy guns and keep giving money to your rich uncles and aunts, so they can hopefully pay the rest of you some more money if they feel like it."
And when you say, "But Dad we already tried that, and they didn't give us any more money at all. They just kept it." he says, "Nyahhha nyahhh!! I can't hear you!"
And when you say, "We'll have more money if we just start saving more again from what everyone's making. Why not put the amount we're saving back to where it was 9 years ago?" Daddy tells you to shut up and get in the fields.
It is funny that when right-wingers say "make them live within their means", it almost never seems to apply to corporations or the military.
It's almost like this rule is only applied towards spending that right-wingers don't like. Which almost always is spending on women's health, public education, programs for the young or the elderly, or anything that doesn't benefit a Christian church, a corporation or a personal friend.
First, you'll notice above that my comment wasn't saying ONLY raise taxes. It was saying that any serious proposal to eliminate the deficit and the debt will include tax increases AS WELL AS budget cuts.
So my main point remains - if the debt is such a worry, then there should be tax cuts ALSO.
And if the debt is really such an all-fired crisis suddenly, now that a Democrat is President, then why should tax increases be OFF the table?
You're welcome to base some sort of reply on "trickle-down economics" or a variant, but be warned in advance that trickle-down AKA supply-side AKA Reaganomics AKA Voodoo Economics is thoroughly disproved and no longer taken seriously by any nonpartisan economists.
In other words, cut the US budget in half to stop the situation from getting worse.
Or, just put taxes back to where they were under the Clinton administration and close the existing tax loopholes. Which would do more to remedy the budget than any right-wing proposal yet.
I'm willing to listen to a solution that includes both budget cuts and raising taxes. But any solution that *doesn't* involve raising taxes and closing loopholes at all doesn't strike me as really being pointed at solving the deficit. From what I see, it's using a scare of "deficit bad! deficit bad!" to cancel spending that the right-wing doesn't like for ideological reasons.
Was this in New Jersey, by any chance?
I only ask because I grew up in NJ, and the town-level police were just uniformly petty, vindictive and sleazy in just this way.
From what I've read, that documentary is problematic for a number of reasons - not the least of which is that the Finnish system that is compared to the US is:
a) fully unionized with teachers
b) actually on par with the US when adjusted for the huge number of second-language students the US is dealing with.
Also, Biology including evolution, Astronomy, Chemistry; Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus; Computer programming; Print shop, metal shop, and actual knowledge about health.
If you want to see more of that and less "social engineering", then more money should be put into them.
Also it's worth realizing that most places in 1869 didn't even *have* public schools. An eighth-grade education was quite sufficient for an agrarian economy mostly reliant on unskilled or blue-collar labor.
Most kids today really do know a lot more than most kids at the same age back then - at least as far as abstract knowledge. Of course, most "kids" back then were married by 19 because statistically they'd probably be dead at 38.
Sorry that you don't like my opinion, but it stands.
Apple has no logical reason to keep from supporting Flash, other than that they don't want people watching videos Apple doesn't sell them. Apple won't say this in a straightforward fashion. Therefore, in this way, Apple sucks.
I write this on an iMac, by the way. I like Apple computers. But their mobile devices are aiming for a locked-down ecosystem, and that is something I don't like at alll.
Sure, Android + Cell manufactures want me to buy a new phone. But they are at least **listening** to what I want, and not **telling me what I SHOULD want**. I can put any files I want on my iphone, use it as a USB drive, upload and download music, books and movies without having to a) jailbreak it or b) go through iTunes. That means Android + cell manufactures are trying to control me less than Apple.
That's how it is.
"You mean like when getting the vendors to push Android updates is completely futile?"
Sure. Except that doesn't bother me because it doesn't mean they're trying to control me. It just means they're screwing up, which I prefer.
"Whatever the reason, they make it clear that it will not be supporting Flash at purchase time. If that's a big deal, then you can steer clear. "
Right, and that's exactly what I did. Also, I'm going to tell people that Apple's mobile devices suck more because of it - which they do. Whether or not other people buy it anyway, I couldn't care less.
"Jailbreaking is just as easy as rooting. "
Sure. I did that when I had an iPhone. Still wouldn't get me Flash OR fix this new Apple issue.
But far easier than jailbreaking is just avoiding Apple all together, and telling other people how much it sucks. So for me, it's more like 6 of 1 or a dozen of the other - and any 12 things I want, not just the 6 Jobs thinks I should want. but so it goes.
A situation where I have to even figure out if Apple just doesn't give a crap abou it's customers, or Apple is deliberately making things worse for them to make more money.
You know, the same situation where Apple just up and chose not to support Flash on iPod, iPhone and now iPad. A decision which is partly some platform concerns, more likely Steve Jobs still being in a snit about some early actions of Adobe, and is really most likely where Apple doesn't want to support anyone being able to watch a movie without buying it from iTunes.
That's the tight ecosystem situation I'm talking about. I'd rather deal with sloppy apps then a locked-down system that Apple is the only one holding the keys to.
I am so much happier with my Droid X than I ever was with my iPhone. And the Droid still needs bugs worked out in it. But it just isn't putting me into an ecosystem with a situation like that.
I didn't miss your point. I'm saying that your point has no relevance to whether or not Anonymous is:
1. a group, i.e. a number of people that have something in common.
2. of activists, i.e. people who are attempting to agitate in the public to create change
You can not like them, think they're too sloppy, should be more organized etc. etc. in order to be a "real" group. But this is a subjective opinion on your part, which has nothing to do with the fact that they are a group of activists.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG, the hours of life that I lost to this so-called game before I dumped it cold turkey. Crack is less addictive.
OF COURSE it results in instability. It takes the irrationality of people's emotions that's already a play in the market, and then it does more emotionally-charged guessing based on that. It's instability squared.
One of the best ways to discourage it would be for the US to just start charging a fee for every chunk of shares traded that's more than, say, 1000. Something like $.50 . That could cut down the profits, AND help pay for some programs to dig us out of the whole Wall St. put us in back in 2008. Maybe even some enforcement for the SEC (imagine that?)
Yeah, the rest of the US was just holding California back.
So, actually I'm quite wrong except that I'm right. Please look at the bolded area of your own quote, above. Most individuals only have normal W2 income.
Oh, come now. Exxon and GE are far from having their first years in business. And, more importantly, their STOCKHOLDERS know and are well aware these companies are profitable. And if they in fact actually losing so much money, and this is NOT some clear and obvious tax dodge, then why haven't their stocks tanked?
So please, if you will, come back to the main point, and please answer this question:
IF paying down the deficit and debt is so important, then WHY can't these loopholes be closed for established corporations that have no real losses, only clever bookkeeping that has no effect on their actual stock market value? Why must the deficit be paid ONLY by budget cuts, in your opinion?
I mean, let's say this really is supposed to be such a Darwinist society that we simply CAN'T afford to give pennies to the poor. In that case, then why CAN we lose BILLIONS in tax revenue from HUGE corporations WHILE they are having their most profitable seasons ever? Why aren't the huge corporations strong enough to take the tough love that the weak, poor and elderly are supposed to get?
So? Let's say that's the case. *I* can't do that, as a private taxpayer. If I lost $50k in one year and then made $50k the next year, I still have to pay taxes on the year I made $50k.
What is a single reason why this tax loophole should NOT be closed, if reducing the deficit is of such importance?
How does keeping this loophole open help pay the debt, if corporations can do that while I can't? Since it is an established fact that trickle-down theories don't work, what other possible reason is there that this is a good thing?
Why is it that, IN SPITE OF OUR DEFICIT AND DEBT, we can afford to let corporations do that - but we CAN'T afford to give the elderly far, far less in oil subsidies so they can keep themselves warm through the winter?
From your own article that you cited:
So, which are we to believe - the actual statement filed, or the word of a spokesperson who refuses to actually divulge any information?
I prefer to go with the facts, until the facts are disproven by other verified statements.
To quote from the other article you cited, re: GE,
Leaving it aside is avoiding the facts rather than proving them wrong. We are talking about the amount of money that GE paid as a business. If GE made a profit as a business, it should pay taxes as a business.
And, according to the NY TImes article - which the NY Times stands behind, and which GE has demanded no retractions from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html
So you tell me - what is so hard to understand about that? If GE made a profit, it should pay taxes on that profit. If it is legal for GE to avoid paying taxes on that, then those are legal loopholes that should be closed. And certainly should be closed before we do other things in the name if "budget austerity" like cut off the oil heat for the elderly in winter. Right? If not, why not?
OK, fine. It's only "gotten out of control". My question remains the same: is there still ANY REASON not to include closing those loopholes, as part of the deficit reduction?
Come on now. Just go back several comments in this thread. You know when Exxon, GE and others received a REBATE? That means they were given money - and MORE MONEY than they paid in taxes. That means they paid zero taxes, and then received MORE MONEY after that.
That means the government gave them money. Its MORE than "allowing them to keep the money they paid", which merely means they would be riding for free while using the country's services.
If you think that means the government DIDN'T give them money, then please explain how giving them back MORE MONEY THAN THEY PAID isn't actually giving them money.
Is there any part of that which is not clear? Otherwise, can we move forward so that you can at least admit that the government made them money? Since, well, the government gave them money, and once again MORE MONEY than they paid?
OK! So this is exactly in line with my analogy of paying money to aunts and uncles, in the hopes that they'll give money to others - which they haven't. Here, I'll quote that part of the analogy again for you:
So, can you admit that my anology is actually apt? As that money given to them would easily pay for a great many of the programs which we allegedly can't afford?
And? Is that any reason to not include closing those loopholes, as part of the deficit reduction?
Basically, is there ANY REASON to not include closing those loopholes, as part of the deficit reduction? Since reducing the debt and deficit is so all-fired important, right?
Let's be truthful, and live in reality. The fair thing for everyone is that people pay something in line with what they can **AFFORD**.
Otherwise you're asking someone who is using and benefiting from 5% of the country, to pay as much in cash as someone who is using and benefiting from %70 of the country.
If you are only using a car to go work, you are benefiting from less of the roads than the President of a company whose employees use that road to drive to work, ship products on, etc. Ditto for the police, fire department, and military. Even Social Security, which means that the employer has a workforce which is secure and isn't demanding a similar set of benefits from the company.
We're either a nation or we aren't. If we are, we all work together. Which means that some people who benefit more as a percentage, pay back a higher percentage.
I think any such approach should be centered around this fundamental point: what is the tax rate that works best for America?
It seems that the tax rate that helped America to its worldwide success was in the past much higher on the wealthy. So it appears from past historical experience, and the present of our competitors who all have higher tax rates on the wealthy, that that is the direction we should go in.
I don't see how it's bad for the wealthy to pay 70% of the taxes, if they're earning around that much in terms of wealth. Which they are.
But what I think is more important than how much they are taxed, is how that money is spent. What is the best way to invest money in America?
Because money once gathered can be blown irresponsibly or spent wisely and yield a return. For example, you could spend a lot of money on programs which generate no effective return, such as war, or spend it on programs which continue to return for the entire country. Such as interstate roads, rural electrification, social security, and public education.
Once a reasonable non-partisan estimation of what the most effective kind of programs are, and what the long-term gains we want to achieve are, taxes should be estimated around that.
I also think a flat tax rate is kind of silly. The poor and the middle class simply do not have the level of disposable income that the upper classes do. So to simply have the same tax rate for everyone is unfair to the majority of the US population.
Then how are companies like Exxon and GE not only NOT paying taxes, but **getting refunds**?
The fact that the most profitable companies in history are actually being PAID money by poor and middle class taxpayers, shows that's exactly what's happening.
Second, also note the financial bailouts - which gave banks money without restrictions in order to save the economy. Which the companies then spent on giving BILLIONS in bonuses to the same people who cratered the economy. Now note that this is a **net win** for them - the government has given them FAR MORE money than it taxed. Which also exactly matches my analogy.
You'll note that my analogy didn't say "ALL your uncles and aunts."
Therefore, even though you don't like my analogy, I think you can see that it still stands. Also note that these loopholes are the ones that the GOP is interested in preserving.
Interesting, isn't it? It's all "austerity" when the elderly need some pennies to keep their houses warm in winter. But when a company like Exxon or GE, or a wealthy non-producer like a hedge fund manager needs buckets of gold to stay comfortable? Somehow we can afford that.
Why is that? I'd love to hear why that's good for America.
Finally, I'd like to note once again that you're misconstruing what I'm saying as concentrating ONLY on raising taxes. I'm NOT doing this. What I want to hear is, if the debt is such a huge problem then why is raising taxes ENTIRELY off the table?
Why not a balanced approach of raising taxes and cutting the budget? What is wrong with that, besides supply-side economics which once again have been proven not to work?
What I see is more like this analogy:
Ever since you were born, you and all your brothers and sisters have been working on Daddy's farm. A certain percentage of what everyone earns has been put aside for the family's needs - medicine, schooling, and protection i.e. guns and guard dogs.
A couple of years ago, on the theory that it would make everyone make more money, the family started putting less money aside from what everyone made. This had no discernible effect on the family fortunes, besides less money actually being saved.
Your older sister and brother went to college. Now it's time for you. But when it's time to pay your tuition, dad says "Nope, sorry kiddo. It's time for austerity now. Daddy lost a lot of money on the stock market, and barely has enough money to buy guns and keep giving money to your rich uncles and aunts, so they can hopefully pay the rest of you some more money if they feel like it."
And when you say, "But Dad we already tried that, and they didn't give us any more money at all. They just kept it." he says, "Nyahhha nyahhh!! I can't hear you!"
And when you say, "We'll have more money if we just start saving more again from what everyone's making. Why not put the amount we're saving back to where it was 9 years ago?" Daddy tells you to shut up and get in the fields.
It is funny that when right-wingers say "make them live within their means", it almost never seems to apply to corporations or the military.
It's almost like this rule is only applied towards spending that right-wingers don't like. Which almost always is spending on women's health, public education, programs for the young or the elderly, or anything that doesn't benefit a Christian church, a corporation or a personal friend.
Coincidence - or SATAN??
First, you'll notice above that my comment wasn't saying ONLY raise taxes. It was saying that any serious proposal to eliminate the deficit and the debt will include tax increases AS WELL AS budget cuts. So my main point remains - if the debt is such a worry, then there should be tax cuts ALSO. And if the debt is really such an all-fired crisis suddenly, now that a Democrat is President, then why should tax increases be OFF the table? You're welcome to base some sort of reply on "trickle-down economics" or a variant, but be warned in advance that trickle-down AKA supply-side AKA Reaganomics AKA Voodoo Economics is thoroughly disproved and no longer taken seriously by any nonpartisan economists.
Or, just put taxes back to where they were under the Clinton administration and close the existing tax loopholes. Which would do more to remedy the budget than any right-wing proposal yet. I'm willing to listen to a solution that includes both budget cuts and raising taxes. But any solution that *doesn't* involve raising taxes and closing loopholes at all doesn't strike me as really being pointed at solving the deficit. From what I see, it's using a scare of "deficit bad! deficit bad!" to cancel spending that the right-wing doesn't like for ideological reasons.
Was this in New Jersey, by any chance? I only ask because I grew up in NJ, and the town-level police were just uniformly petty, vindictive and sleazy in just this way.
From what I've read, that documentary is problematic for a number of reasons - not the least of which is that the Finnish system that is compared to the US is: a) fully unionized with teachers b) actually on par with the US when adjusted for the huge number of second-language students the US is dealing with.
If you want to see more of that and less "social engineering", then more money should be put into them.
Also it's worth realizing that most places in 1869 didn't even *have* public schools. An eighth-grade education was quite sufficient for an agrarian economy mostly reliant on unskilled or blue-collar labor.
Most kids today really do know a lot more than most kids at the same age back then - at least as far as abstract knowledge. Of course, most "kids" back then were married by 19 because statistically they'd probably be dead at 38.
Sorry that you don't like my opinion, but it stands.
Apple has no logical reason to keep from supporting Flash, other than that they don't want people watching videos Apple doesn't sell them. Apple won't say this in a straightforward fashion. Therefore, in this way, Apple sucks.
I write this on an iMac, by the way. I like Apple computers. But their mobile devices are aiming for a locked-down ecosystem, and that is something I don't like at alll.
Sure, Android + Cell manufactures want me to buy a new phone. But they are at least **listening** to what I want, and not **telling me what I SHOULD want**. I can put any files I want on my iphone, use it as a USB drive, upload and download music, books and movies without having to a) jailbreak it or b) go through iTunes. That means Android + cell manufactures are trying to control me less than Apple.
That's how it is.
"You mean like when getting the vendors to push Android updates is completely futile?"
Sure. Except that doesn't bother me because it doesn't mean they're trying to control me. It just means they're screwing up, which I prefer.
"Whatever the reason, they make it clear that it will not be supporting Flash at purchase time. If that's a big deal, then you can steer clear. "
Right, and that's exactly what I did. Also, I'm going to tell people that Apple's mobile devices suck more because of it - which they do. Whether or not other people buy it anyway, I couldn't care less.
"Jailbreaking is just as easy as rooting. "
Sure. I did that when I had an iPhone. Still wouldn't get me Flash OR fix this new Apple issue.
But far easier than jailbreaking is just avoiding Apple all together, and telling other people how much it sucks. So for me, it's more like 6 of 1 or a dozen of the other - and any 12 things I want, not just the 6 Jobs thinks I should want. but so it goes.
A situation where I have to even figure out if Apple just doesn't give a crap abou it's customers, or Apple is deliberately making things worse for them to make more money.
You know, the same situation where Apple just up and chose not to support Flash on iPod, iPhone and now iPad. A decision which is partly some platform concerns, more likely Steve Jobs still being in a snit about some early actions of Adobe, and is really most likely where Apple doesn't want to support anyone being able to watch a movie without buying it from iTunes.
That's the tight ecosystem situation I'm talking about. I'd rather deal with sloppy apps then a locked-down system that Apple is the only one holding the keys to.
I am so much happier with my Droid X than I ever was with my iPhone. And the Droid still needs bugs worked out in it. But it just isn't putting me into an ecosystem with a situation like that.
Innocent until proven guilty. Why is that so hard for people to remember?
Then MAYBE I'll see them - if George Lucas personally autographs my Laserdisc version of the only 3 movies that are really Star Wars.
I didn't miss your point. I'm saying that your point has no relevance to whether or not Anonymous is:
1. a group, i.e. a number of people that have something in common.
2. of activists, i.e. people who are attempting to agitate in the public to create change
You can not like them, think they're too sloppy, should be more organized etc. etc. in order to be a "real" group. But this is a subjective opinion on your part, which has nothing to do with the fact that they are a group of activists.