Would people really feel "forced" if there was a tax financed single payer system financed by taxes? Does someone feel "forced" to pay for police and other services with taxes? Would anyone rather have a private company to call in case of fire, than pay tax money for that service? Am I making a weird extrapolation between police and healthcare?
I think part of it is that it's a federal system, not state driven like it should be. Federal taxes should be much lower, since they should only be required to provide fewer services (Print money, Declare War, maintain an army/navy, international treaties, interstate and international trade, post office, and laws to enforce the Constitution). Now based on that list, Federal taxes should be way lower. You want better medical services, or better welfare, move to a different state. Or just go to where you can get a job. Like North Dakota (they are hiring from what I hear). Don't like the weather there? Well, then keep living in squalor and leeching of the tax dollars of those who earn a living for both of you.
But then again, there was this vague agreement between the States and Federal Governments: "Spending money for the betterment of the general welfare." That is where the wheels begin to go off the tracks when politicians and lawyers get involved.
Exactly. We need diplomacy, not bombs. We need to stop trying to be the world's "policeman", stop propping up dictators, stop propping up the rebels to take down the dictators we earlier propped up, and slash military spending. Consider Switzerland, for example.
Well, so sorry to offend some folks, but I'd rather the U.S. be the world's "policeman" then someone else do it. Because like it or lump it, there will always be a top Nation.
In days past, this was solved differently. The kid would've had his ass kicked. People had more respect for each other back then. Nowadays, every coward troll can peep out whenever they're bored or feeling malicious. Is this the future we want?
You could also not be part of the twitter/facebook/whatever social site movement. Then you don't see or receive said comments. The real deal is if you interact with the public, you can get _all_ of the public. It's the cost of an open forum.
We had none of this garbage. None. I knew I didn't even have to say a word to my guys...why? Because we're all adults and professionals and we know better than to do that shit.
Listen, it's 2012 and almost every single one of your employees has been through some sort of mandatory sexual harassment training at some point in their careers. If you have someone who hasn't (recent college grad with no other work history or an intern or something) pull them aside and handle it.
If this is an issue w/your staff, you should make some other changes, not just the woman you brought on board.
The use of the term shit is offensive. Oh, and if you raise your voice, that's threatening. And don't forget that your perfume is offensive. Now everyone get in their cube, don't talk to a fellow employee without an HR person and corporate lawyer present. Have a wonderfully happy day!
Of course the vast majority of that debt was spent while Republicans were in power and getting the US involved in very costly wars. Not all, granted, but a majority I am sure. Obama is trying to do something to improve the lot of all Americans, obviously the Right can't have that, only the quality of life for the very rich and powerful should be improved. The Republicans seem bent on opposing anything that might improve the US at the moment, so that no credit can be given to Obama and the Democrats. This is counter productive and a disservice to your country IMHO.
Obama has been looking for ways to release money into the economy as stimulus. I would much rather see it given to teachers than spent making and expending explosives where brown people live.
He's already been doing that since he's been in office with no results. This is just an election ploy to get votes.
And ask anyone old enough to remember the oil shortages and gas lines of the 1970's how that may work out for you one day.
You obviously didn't read my post. Conservation for utilization. I don't want forests cut all down, but rotational cutting works. And yes I do remember those shortages (though there were obvious shenanigans going on with that as well). So where is the alternative for the gasoline engine? You are going to be hard pressed to beat it I'm afraid.
snark- Now I can continue raping the planet and dumping all kinds of crap into the atmosphere and not worry about that global warming nonsense. And the corn failure in the USA - no biggie. And the retreating glaciers? whatevs./snark
It always makes me chuckle that folks who wish to 'save the planet' all seem to think that if you are not with them you are totally opposite of them. I do believe in conservation for utilization and not just burning through resources knowing that there is a limited supply. I do believe that so-called clean energy (show me a battery, and I'll show you all kinds of unfriendly toxins) has a place in society, but not for the masses. Don't hate me for my large truck. It does serve a purpose. It has mobility. Ask any electric car user how that worked out for them when the power was out on the east coast for a week.
It's been about 5 years or so since all IT was outsourced. We're right on time for managers to start the in-house cycle again. Good luck in the next 5 years and see you all again on the jobmarket in 2017!
This would be part of the 50Billion dollar bailout to increase the number of H1B workers since there are no longer enough trained IT workers in the U.S. Then the Govt (insert your political party here) can claim that they created "X" amount of jobs, even if they go to H1B workers.
The problem with it all is the "Lowest Common Denominator" aspect that is used. U.S. Mail was/is good. But it has to be there for everyone (according to cradle to grave government ruling). To include the infrastructure to support folks in the sticks. Roads, same deal. Power, ditto. Emergency services, Airline seats (ever see what we the people subsidize the airlines per seat for small airports just so those citizens can have access to resources?), etc, etc .
Not that I don't like living away from population centers, but supporting the "last mile" while trying to make the resources available equal to all is just not cost effective and needs to be sliced away.
Incorrect. Organized school sports provide opportunities to sharpen physical skills. But since most organized sports have few leadership positions (quarterback, etc.) there isn't much opportunity to learn leadership even within that sport. And, unless you consider a career in some field requiring physical skills (construction, general laborer, etc.) sports skills don't translate well to those of politics or business.
Incorrect. Sticking with football, the quarterback may appear to the leader of a team (don't think NFL teams, think HS), however the captain of the team is not necessarily the QB. It could be a lineman, linebacker, reciever, db, whatever. The captains are chosen because of their leadership skills. And those leadership skills (motivational and organizational) do cross the streams to all career paths. I can easily name athletes (football to stay on topic) who have done very well in politics, business, and yes, even IT. And I'm not talking about folks who were professional athletes (though many have moved on to be a business/political success).
In a technological field, I'd rather work for the captain of the high school chess club than the football team. Not that I have anything against individual jocks, but there's the affinity problem. Ex jocks like to surround themselves with other ex jocks. Likewise, ex chess players surround themselves with ex chess players. And in highly technical fields, I'll prefer the intellectual.
The labeling of athletes already has indicated that you have a slanted view of them. Just because someone is physically gifted, does in no way limit their intellectual prowess. I too could generalize and throw in that working for the captain of the chess club (again, one leader for the team, just like sports which negates your previous argument for me) might be way to painful since his social skills are probably quite introverted (not good for politics or business).
There is physical risk in every sport. Don't drink the press koolaid. There are more injuries in cheer-leading then in football*. Organized school sports provide plenty of opportunity to learn and sharpen leadership/organizational skills.
"Out of the United States' 2.9 million female high school athletes, only 3% are cheerleaders, yet cheerleading accounts for 65% of all catastrophic injuries in girls' high school athletics. Since the NCAA has yet to recognize cheerleading as an official college sport, there are no solid numbers on college cheerleading, yet when it comes to injuries, 67% of female athlete injuries at the college level are due to cheerleading mishaps.[citation needed] LiveScience.com recaps new evidence showing that the most dangerous sport for high school and college females is cheerleading: Another study found that between 1982 and 2007, there were 103 fatal, disabling or serious injuries recorded among female high school athletes, with the vast majority (67) occurring in cheerleading."
"Oil is a fungible commodity, sold on the global market to the highest bidder, as McAuliff points out."
It has nothing to do with some grand conspiracy. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. America is competing on the world market for cheap energy. The locality of drilling only determines who gets first sale profits and the quality of the crude. Other than that, the highest bidder gets the oil. Simple as that.
Now personally, I think we should maintain our strategic reserve for times of natural disasters and regional conflict (war). The idea of tapping into it to spook the speculators is flat out wrong. It's also not working anymore. The hedge fund managers are starting to become immune to this political tactic.
Agreed. And I think there is another point that is missed on the consumer. If you owned an oil company or you have stocks in said petro company where is your incentive to lower prices? There isn't any. You are making cash hand over fist. I mean, no one is bitching about he cost of their IPad when Apple is sitting on a 100 billion worth of cash. But then again, some folks think Apple is "green."
In american America, people monitor the government. In soviet America, the government monitors the people.
Just an observation and being an election year, is that when this type of stuff went on before it was always Bush's "plan", yet not one word against Obama to do anything about it. Not surprising, but interesting.
How many of you remember the old days when DARPA made a CAD package with tax dollars and felt the citizens should have full access to that source code?
People wanted for the longest time for the Govt to operate as a business to find efficiencies and cost savings. Well, operating as a business means that income needs to be generated by investments. So that is what they are doing, using their income (tax) to generate more income (patent holdings).
Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
So what size SUV are you talking about? Midsize or full size? What about a pick-up truck or van (commercial, personal, minivan)? It's a slippery slope with that type of legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
They just tell you it's in everyone's best interest.
Don't confuse the agenda by using facts and data.
Think about it, the copyright and patent law make something that is supposed to be just a way to protect a business model into a criminal offence.
Really? You think this is what government should be doing?
Sure. It's a criminal offense to walk into a bank/store/shop and steal products/money. The only difference is that it's electronic media.
Would people really feel "forced" if there was a tax financed single payer system financed by taxes? Does someone feel "forced" to pay for police and other services with taxes? Would anyone rather have a private company to call in case of fire, than pay tax money for that service? Am I making a weird extrapolation between police and healthcare?
I think part of it is that it's a federal system, not state driven like it should be. Federal taxes should be much lower, since they should only be required to provide fewer services (Print money, Declare War, maintain an army/navy, international treaties, interstate and international trade, post office, and laws to enforce the Constitution). Now based on that list, Federal taxes should be way lower. You want better medical services, or better welfare, move to a different state. Or just go to where you can get a job. Like North Dakota (they are hiring from what I hear). Don't like the weather there? Well, then keep living in squalor and leeching of the tax dollars of those who earn a living for both of you.
But then again, there was this vague agreement between the States and Federal Governments: "Spending money for the betterment of the general welfare." That is where the wheels begin to go off the tracks when politicians and lawyers get involved.
Exactly. We need diplomacy, not bombs. We need to stop trying to be the world's "policeman", stop propping up dictators, stop propping up the rebels to take down the dictators we earlier propped up, and slash military spending. Consider Switzerland, for example.
Well, so sorry to offend some folks, but I'd rather the U.S. be the world's "policeman" then someone else do it. Because like it or lump it, there will always be a top Nation.
In days past, this was solved differently. The kid would've had his ass kicked. People had more respect for each other back then. Nowadays, every coward troll can peep out whenever they're bored or feeling malicious. Is this the future we want?
You could also not be part of the twitter/facebook/whatever social site movement. Then you don't see or receive said comments. The real deal is if you interact with the public, you can get _all_ of the public. It's the cost of an open forum.
We had none of this garbage. None. I knew I didn't even have to say a word to my guys...why? Because we're all adults and professionals and we know better than to do that shit.
Listen, it's 2012 and almost every single one of your employees has been through some sort of mandatory sexual harassment training at some point in their careers. If you have someone who hasn't (recent college grad with no other work history or an intern or something) pull them aside and handle it.
If this is an issue w/your staff, you should make some other changes, not just the woman you brought on board.
The use of the term shit is offensive. Oh, and if you raise your voice, that's threatening. And don't forget that your perfume is offensive. Now everyone get in their cube, don't talk to a fellow employee without an HR person and corporate lawyer present. Have a wonderfully happy day!
Of course the vast majority of that debt was spent while Republicans were in power and getting the US involved in very costly wars. Not all, granted, but a majority I am sure.
Obama is trying to do something to improve the lot of all Americans, obviously the Right can't have that, only the quality of life for the very rich and powerful should be improved. The Republicans seem bent on opposing anything that might improve the US at the moment, so that no credit can be given to Obama and the Democrats. This is counter productive and a disservice to your country IMHO.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Obama has been looking for ways to release money into the economy as stimulus. I would much rather see it given to teachers than spent making and expending explosives where brown people live.
He's already been doing that since he's been in office with no results. This is just an election ploy to get votes.
We just need to stop keeping gas prices artificially low. At that point this car vs. truck vs. SUV crap will all work itself out.
And that will surely fix the lower prices for food and goods that are delivered via trucks.
And ask anyone old enough to remember the oil shortages and gas lines of the 1970's how that may work out for you one day.
You obviously didn't read my post. Conservation for utilization. I don't want forests cut all down, but rotational cutting works. And yes I do remember those shortages (though there were obvious shenanigans going on with that as well). So where is the alternative for the gasoline engine? You are going to be hard pressed to beat it I'm afraid.
snark- /snark
Now I can continue raping the planet and dumping all kinds of crap into the atmosphere and not worry about that global warming nonsense. And the corn failure in the USA - no biggie. And the retreating glaciers? whatevs.
It always makes me chuckle that folks who wish to 'save the planet' all seem to think that if you are not with them you are totally opposite of them. I do believe in conservation for utilization and not just burning through resources knowing that there is a limited supply. I do believe that so-called clean energy (show me a battery, and I'll show you all kinds of unfriendly toxins) has a place in society, but not for the masses. Don't hate me for my large truck. It does serve a purpose. It has mobility. Ask any electric car user how that worked out for them when the power was out on the east coast for a week.
It's been about 5 years or so since all IT was outsourced.
We're right on time for managers to start the in-house cycle again.
Good luck in the next 5 years and see you all again on the jobmarket in 2017!
This would be part of the 50Billion dollar bailout to increase the number of H1B workers since there are no longer enough trained IT workers in the U.S. Then the Govt (insert your political party here) can claim that they created "X" amount of jobs, even if they go to H1B workers.
The problem with it all is the "Lowest Common Denominator" aspect that is used. U.S. Mail was/is good. But it has to be there for everyone (according to cradle to grave government ruling). To include the infrastructure to support folks in the sticks. Roads, same deal. Power, ditto. Emergency services, Airline seats (ever see what we the people subsidize the airlines per seat for small airports just so those citizens can have access to resources?), etc, etc .
Not that I don't like living away from population centers, but supporting the "last mile" while trying to make the resources available equal to all is just not cost effective and needs to be sliced away.
There is physical risk in every sport.
Correct.
Incorrect. Organized school sports provide opportunities to sharpen physical skills. But since most organized sports have few leadership positions (quarterback, etc.) there isn't much opportunity to learn leadership even within that sport. And, unless you consider a career in some field requiring physical skills (construction, general laborer, etc.) sports skills don't translate well to those of politics or business.
Incorrect. Sticking with football, the quarterback may appear to the leader of a team (don't think NFL teams, think HS), however the captain of the team is not necessarily the QB. It could be a lineman, linebacker, reciever, db, whatever. The captains are chosen because of their leadership skills. And those leadership skills (motivational and organizational) do cross the streams to all career paths. I can easily name athletes (football to stay on topic) who have done very well in politics, business, and yes, even IT. And I'm not talking about folks who were professional athletes (though many have moved on to be a business/political success).
In a technological field, I'd rather work for the captain of the high school chess club than the football team. Not that I have anything against individual jocks, but there's the affinity problem. Ex jocks like to surround themselves with other ex jocks. Likewise, ex chess players surround themselves with ex chess players. And in highly technical fields, I'll prefer the intellectual.
The labeling of athletes already has indicated that you have a slanted view of them. Just because someone is physically gifted, does in no way limit their intellectual prowess. I too could generalize and throw in that working for the captain of the chess club (again, one leader for the team, just like sports which negates your previous argument for me) might be way to painful since his social skills are probably quite introverted (not good for politics or business).
There is physical risk in every sport. Don't drink the press koolaid. There are more injuries in cheer-leading then in football*. Organized school sports provide plenty of opportunity to learn and sharpen leadership/organizational skills.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerleading#Dangers_of_cheerleading
"Out of the United States' 2.9 million female high school athletes, only 3% are cheerleaders, yet cheerleading accounts for 65% of all catastrophic injuries in girls' high school athletics. Since the NCAA has yet to recognize cheerleading as an official college sport, there are no solid numbers on college cheerleading, yet when it comes to injuries, 67% of female athlete injuries at the college level are due to cheerleading mishaps.[citation needed] LiveScience.com recaps new evidence showing that the most dangerous sport for high school and college females is cheerleading: Another study found that between 1982 and 2007, there were 103 fatal, disabling or serious injuries recorded among female high school athletes, with the vast majority (67) occurring in cheerleading."
All they are doing is following the Walmart business model in a larger scale.
Because the USA is run by Big Business, who can give unlimited money to candidates for office. You can be fired here for no stated reason at all.
Sorry, but TSA is a Government Agency. Now is that big business? Depends on your view. It could be since they treat the constituency like an ATM.
Oil is fungible
It has nothing to do with some grand conspiracy. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. America is competing on the world market for cheap energy. The locality of drilling only determines who gets first sale profits and the quality of the crude. Other than that, the highest bidder gets the oil. Simple as that.
Now personally, I think we should maintain our strategic reserve for times of natural disasters and regional conflict (war). The idea of tapping into it to spook the speculators is flat out wrong. It's also not working anymore. The hedge fund managers are starting to become immune to this political tactic.
Agreed. And I think there is another point that is missed on the consumer. If you owned an oil company or you have stocks in said petro company where is your incentive to lower prices? There isn't any. You are making cash hand over fist. I mean, no one is bitching about he cost of their IPad when Apple is sitting on a 100 billion worth of cash. But then again, some folks think Apple is "green."
In american America, people monitor the government.
In soviet America, the government monitors the people.
Just an observation and being an election year, is that when this type of stuff went on before it was always Bush's "plan", yet not one word against Obama to do anything about it. Not surprising, but interesting.
"thus within reach of challenging the fossil fuel hegemony" vs "leave it in a sunny area"
I can run my lights all night long, which ironically enough is when I need them.
And don't call it "Green" when there are some nice large battery stores that need to be dealt with in a few years.
And don't forget the reason that divorce costs so much....because it's totally worth it.
How many of you remember the old days when DARPA made a CAD package with tax dollars and felt the citizens should have full access to that source code?
People wanted for the longest time for the Govt to operate as a business to find efficiencies and cost savings. Well, operating as a business means that income needs to be generated by investments. So that is what they are doing, using their income (tax) to generate more income (patent holdings).
Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
So what size SUV are you talking about? Midsize or full size? What about a pick-up truck or van (commercial, personal, minivan)? It's a slippery slope with that type of legislation.
"How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?"
Should be interesting to get goods into a city when trucks can't get downtown.