Oh no, couldn't cut school aid or free health care! Oh noes! You seriously buy that shit? They pick those because they know people like you will be sucker enough to get all worried and agree to give the government more money. They should cut those, and as much else as they can. They're a living, breathing ponzi scheme and it's unsustainable to keep spending money like that.
Ahaha. Hilarious. "Look it up where he lives" huh? Being a plumber is a description of a trade whereby one makes a living. He is a plumber. He is not a "licensed plumber in the state of Ohio", but he is a plumber. Before you halfwit Obama fangirlz started trying to defend your man-crush from anyone who dare oppose him, if you asked 100 people what someone who deals with residential and commercial pipes, water drainage, etc... is they'd call you a dipshit and say "plumber, moron".
Ahh. You're just wrong is all. I guess there's no point arguing with someone who doesn't think words have meanings. The rest of us understand, however, that if you make your living "plumbing" you're a "plumber".
You're a dipshit who doesn't know that words have meanings. Find out what "Joe the Plumber" did for a living, and compare with the definition of the word "plumber". plumber.
Doctor implies a degree, accountant does not. You can have a job description or make a living as an "accountant" with no license - it's a description of a job, not a description of a degree. Now - a CPA is a different matter. I suggest you learn to use "words", they do have meanings both literal and implied.
No, he _was_ a plumber. I think you should go look up the definition of plumber in the dictionary, and compare with how he made his living. He wasn't a licensed plumber.
That's exactly my point. Perl was developed for specific purposes. It's extremely effective when used for those purposes. When used beyond its scope it is far less effective. This is because of the language design - it's not meant to be maintainable in large systems.
Conversely, it _can_ be maintainable. It's just that most "perl hackers" have no concept of this, and tend to want to use every obscure syntax of the language to make the program more terse. A good programmer (who may or may _not_ be a good perl hacker) can write reasonably maintainable programs in perl.
Yeah, a web templating system is indeed a small application. You don't actually think Amazon uses large Perl applications to run their business systems, do you?
Well, here's the thing. Perl was used for _everything_ there for a while, sysadmins who thought they were developers were developing full blown applications in Perl and finding, surprise surprise, that it wasn't real maintainable. So I think we're seeing less of that these days. But Perl is not dying, that's silly. If anything Perl is just being relegated to what it's _really_ good at, and that's UNIX automation tasks and quick throw-away scripts, and _sometimes_ smallish applications. There's really no better language for these types of things.
I'm fairly certain he was referring to feature size (nm), where AMD is 1.5 years behind. He's undeniably correct there, your (correct) implication that AMD is still in the race on performance, price, and energy use is true but unrelated to his point.
Now, you may ask "so what, they've been ahead in manufacturing". And my answer would be to look at the financials. Smaller processes are cheaper, ergo AMD leaks money like a sieve - _that's_ "so what".
Vista is only really slower in a few areas, like 3D games. This useless assertion that "Windows 7 isn't faster" would only have meaning if they had concrete numbers comparing Windows XP, Vista, and 7.
Or - why would I _expect_ Windows 7 to be faster in Office or in media encoding? Answer - I wouldn't.
You don't get it. Money flows downhill (and uphill). The rationale behind Republican economic policy is if you overtax the top, they'll clam up and stop investing as much, create fewer jobs, etc.. They'll still be rich - so your socialist ideal will go unrealized. They'll still live in $5 million dollar homes and will still douche with gold-laced douches. But they'll decide they might want to sit more of their money out because they get less returns.
Now, money also flows uphill meaning if you put more money in the hands of the middle and lower classes they will spend it. The problem here is the rich are _already rich_. They will be hit a lot less hard by economic downturns than the poor in terms of lifestyle.
But hey - knock yourself out. Let's come back in 8 years and see where the economy is. More importantly, let's come back in 15 years - that's when the real damage will start as we have an even bigger entitlement society.
Nonsense. Tax policies that shrink the taxpayer base and put an undue dependency on wealthy taxpayers simply won't work. First, you get what you have in California - highly unstable tax revenue. When times are good - you make a lot of money. When times aren't good, you have huge deficits - both because the wealthy have less incentive to invest their money in risky ventures due to lower income because of taxes and because the wealthy, in terms of income, get hit harder during hard times. People making $30k a year will still tend to make $30k a year in a downturn.
If you keep taxes at least somewhat more distributed among incomes, you have a more stable tax revenue. It will of course go up and down, but it's less likely to have massive, volatile swings.
I voted McCain, but I'm not like massively disappointed he lost. Obama may do some things right and fix some of the shit we had to deal with from Dubya. His economic policies simply won't work, but his foreign policy may do this country good and it sounds like he's making some good initial steps. I just wonder how long it will take to pull out of the recession with his flawed economic policies and what the economy will look like in 8 years when it's shown socialism only works in tiny little countries like Canada.
Yeah, Hauser's law would seem to validate my point. Why raise taxes and drive away investment of capital if it won't raise government revenue?
As for TV's and the like, where exactly do you think this money comes from? And it's unclear to me how you think prices won't go up as taxes go up? Do you think these corporations will just eat the new costs of business and magnanimously accept lower profits? Or will they pass on costs?
The middle class is dying because the poor breed like rabbits. This isn't really debatable, just look at birth rates by income and education levels. That's why most of this is academic anyway - as health care becomes an "entitlement", life expectancies grow, and the birth rate of the most productive segment of the population dwindles even as the least productive segment spits out kid after kid we're quite simply fucked. It's an unsustainable model.
As for the rich, they'll move their money to safer investments or overseas to developing economies. These developing economies will gladly lure them in with low tax rates. No point in arguing, I guess, this is simply a fact. All other things equal, higher marginal tax rates will increase unemployment. Of course, all other things aren't all equal so who knows what will really happen. I tell you what - come back in 2 years when shit's even worse off than it is now and I can gloat.
Multi-million dollar yachts? You do know someone built that, right? And the wood was chopped by someone, the paint was made by someone, someone painted the boat, etc... And the company that sells the yacht takes the money and expands and hires more people. $4000 hookers spend the money they make, too. You "demand siders" seem to think money just disappears into luxury items and that we can create wealth out of nowhere for the poor people to all go out and buy TV's or whatever the hell.
Funny Obama gets compared to JFK, but Kennedy was actually a precursor to Reaganomics and wanted tax cuts fromt he top-down and wanted tax equity in this country.
First, some logic. Explain this to me, please. How is it not socialism if someone pays less in taxes than they actually get back from the government? How is a shrinking tax base not socialism? If only 40% of Americans pay taxes, and some percent actually get more money back from the government than they pay in, how is this not redistribution of wealth? Also explain how if there are fewer taxpayers in this country what happens to government income when the rich pull out of the economy and go for safer investments, or in boom and bust cycles? For extra credit, explain why government revenue actually goes up when top-down tax plans are enacted? Also, you do understand that Obama will tax the top more but that government revenue is guaranteed to go down, right?
Here's a question for you. Who pays wages in this country? Rich people or poor people? Now, let's say I'm filthy rich. Suddenly, Obama is gunning for me and the amount of money I can make from putting my money in play goes way down while the risk remains the same. Would it be wiser to just take my money and wallow in it, or to continue to invest in new businesses, stocks, etc...? Personally, I'd just wait out his administration and wallow in my money.
The strawman is that "republicans" are labeling any progressive tax plan as socialism. Is this a party platform? Are any sane Republicans proposing a non-progressive tax?
More importantly, the past is irrelevent. Wartime taxes continued because Eisenhower wanted a balanced budget. Not sure how you think the miserable economic situation under his (and previous high-tax) administrations is any kind of advertisement for it.
I think the main point of the Republicans is that Obama is a socialist. His tax plans are necessarily limited because he won't get elected by just saying "I want to redistribute the wealth in this nation". Wait, OK - so he did actually say that. I guess what I mean is he won't get elected by proposing policies which implement this goal. He'll just bide his time, he'll have 8 years to start moving more in that direction. A horrible presidency like Bush's grants him guaranteed 8 years barring a massive mistake.
He had no chance. George Bush fucked McCain twice - in the 2000 election and by being the worst president in history and a Republican. McCain could have picked Colin Powell or Jesus Christ as his running mate and run a perfect campaign with a $5 billion budget and he would have lost. He might have lost by less, but he would have lost. You don't elect someone from the same party as the worst president in history immediately after said worst president in history's term.
I know. Good thing people vote based on the tones of speeches versus actual policy, huh? I'm resigned..I mean hopeful about Obama. But the cult of personality that has arisen around him is a joke. Morons crying in the street when if you asked them what his policies were and how it would directly impact them they couldn't tell you jack shit. Seriously. Jesus Christ.
Ahh. You've bought that common misconception. Corporations are not persons. They have certain rights people also have. In my area, animals have the right not to be abused/tortured. People have that same right. Animals are not people.
Anti-corporatists are truly the new commie hippy of our generation. Anyway, I do disagree with the stupid windfall tax - it's just populist rabble rousing. But the wealth from state owned land with oil has to go somewhere.
Strawman. A tax where anyone making over, say, $300k pays 99.99% taxes and everyone below pays.01% taxes is also progressive and certainly on the socialist side of things. Just because a given plan is progressive does not make it also socialist. However some progressive plans are certainly socialist in motivation.
What makes Obama a socialist is the fact that he espouses socialist ideals. He can't put those into practice all at once, but he'd love to get the ball rolling.
What the Republicans tried to do was demonstrate that Obama has a wealth redistribution agenda and that he will just take baby steps to reach that goal. His initial tax plan is just one small step, doesn't even seem all that unreasonable. Then the 2010 plan will go a little more in that direction. Barring disaster he'll be elected in 2012 again (Bush has cost this country Democratic leadership for a long time). He'll continue more of the same - more entitlement programs, socialized medicine, higher taxes on anyone middle class or above (say $100k/yr), etc...
Your first point is stupid, where do you think the oil revenue should have gone? Should they have drawn straws for who gets it?
Your second point is right, though. "Windfall taxes" are usually tools of douchebag populist Democrats. Palin is a moron and exhibits the worst of the Republican party, poor fiscal ideology and religious kookery.
How is this insightful? I assume you're referring to oil payouts? I'm unclear how you think this money came from taxing rich people and giving the income to poor people, but I think you're just playing some lame game of "gotcha" so I'm not that interested in the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh no, couldn't cut school aid or free health care! Oh noes! You seriously buy that shit? They pick those because they know people like you will be sucker enough to get all worried and agree to give the government more money. They should cut those, and as much else as they can. They're a living, breathing ponzi scheme and it's unsustainable to keep spending money like that.
C or perl. Ahahaha. Yeah, what's sad is you're right people probably would have said it. Those people were retarded then and they're retarded now.
Ahaha. Hilarious. "Look it up where he lives" huh? Being a plumber is a description of a trade whereby one makes a living. He is a plumber. He is not a "licensed plumber in the state of Ohio", but he is a plumber. Before you halfwit Obama fangirlz started trying to defend your man-crush from anyone who dare oppose him, if you asked 100 people what someone who deals with residential and commercial pipes, water drainage, etc... is they'd call you a dipshit and say "plumber, moron".
Ahh. You're just wrong is all. I guess there's no point arguing with someone who doesn't think words have meanings. The rest of us understand, however, that if you make your living "plumbing" you're a "plumber".
You're a dipshit who doesn't know that words have meanings. Find out what "Joe the Plumber" did for a living, and compare with the definition of the word "plumber". plumber.
Doctor implies a degree, accountant does not. You can have a job description or make a living as an "accountant" with no license - it's a description of a job, not a description of a degree. Now - a CPA is a different matter. I suggest you learn to use "words", they do have meanings both literal and implied.
No, he _was_ a plumber. I think you should go look up the definition of plumber in the dictionary, and compare with how he made his living. He wasn't a licensed plumber.
Here, I'll help you out: plumber.
If Joe actually WAS a plumber, as he said he was, he wouldn't have taken so much heat.
He actually WAS a plumber. You do know that, right?
That's exactly my point. Perl was developed for specific purposes. It's extremely effective when used for those purposes. When used beyond its scope it is far less effective. This is because of the language design - it's not meant to be maintainable in large systems.
Conversely, it _can_ be maintainable. It's just that most "perl hackers" have no concept of this, and tend to want to use every obscure syntax of the language to make the program more terse. A good programmer (who may or may _not_ be a good perl hacker) can write reasonably maintainable programs in perl.
Yeah, a web templating system is indeed a small application. You don't actually think Amazon uses large Perl applications to run their business systems, do you?
Well, here's the thing. Perl was used for _everything_ there for a while, sysadmins who thought they were developers were developing full blown applications in Perl and finding, surprise surprise, that it wasn't real maintainable. So I think we're seeing less of that these days. But Perl is not dying, that's silly. If anything Perl is just being relegated to what it's _really_ good at, and that's UNIX automation tasks and quick throw-away scripts, and _sometimes_ smallish applications. There's really no better language for these types of things.
I know. Most science fiction is totally based on a plausible and non-ludicrous plot.
I'm fairly certain he was referring to feature size (nm), where AMD is 1.5 years behind. He's undeniably correct there, your (correct) implication that AMD is still in the race on performance, price, and energy use is true but unrelated to his point.
Now, you may ask "so what, they've been ahead in manufacturing". And my answer would be to look at the financials. Smaller processes are cheaper, ergo AMD leaks money like a sieve - _that's_ "so what".
Vista is only really slower in a few areas, like 3D games. This useless assertion that "Windows 7 isn't faster" would only have meaning if they had concrete numbers comparing Windows XP, Vista, and 7.
Or - why would I _expect_ Windows 7 to be faster in Office or in media encoding? Answer - I wouldn't.
You don't get it. Money flows downhill (and uphill). The rationale behind Republican economic policy is if you overtax the top, they'll clam up and stop investing as much, create fewer jobs, etc.. They'll still be rich - so your socialist ideal will go unrealized. They'll still live in $5 million dollar homes and will still douche with gold-laced douches. But they'll decide they might want to sit more of their money out because they get less returns.
Now, money also flows uphill meaning if you put more money in the hands of the middle and lower classes they will spend it. The problem here is the rich are _already rich_. They will be hit a lot less hard by economic downturns than the poor in terms of lifestyle.
But hey - knock yourself out. Let's come back in 8 years and see where the economy is. More importantly, let's come back in 15 years - that's when the real damage will start as we have an even bigger entitlement society.
Nonsense. Tax policies that shrink the taxpayer base and put an undue dependency on wealthy taxpayers simply won't work. First, you get what you have in California - highly unstable tax revenue. When times are good - you make a lot of money. When times aren't good, you have huge deficits - both because the wealthy have less incentive to invest their money in risky ventures due to lower income because of taxes and because the wealthy, in terms of income, get hit harder during hard times. People making $30k a year will still tend to make $30k a year in a downturn.
If you keep taxes at least somewhat more distributed among incomes, you have a more stable tax revenue. It will of course go up and down, but it's less likely to have massive, volatile swings.
I voted McCain, but I'm not like massively disappointed he lost. Obama may do some things right and fix some of the shit we had to deal with from Dubya. His economic policies simply won't work, but his foreign policy may do this country good and it sounds like he's making some good initial steps. I just wonder how long it will take to pull out of the recession with his flawed economic policies and what the economy will look like in 8 years when it's shown socialism only works in tiny little countries like Canada.
Yeah, Hauser's law would seem to validate my point. Why raise taxes and drive away investment of capital if it won't raise government revenue?
As for TV's and the like, where exactly do you think this money comes from? And it's unclear to me how you think prices won't go up as taxes go up? Do you think these corporations will just eat the new costs of business and magnanimously accept lower profits? Or will they pass on costs?
The middle class is dying because the poor breed like rabbits. This isn't really debatable, just look at birth rates by income and education levels. That's why most of this is academic anyway - as health care becomes an "entitlement", life expectancies grow, and the birth rate of the most productive segment of the population dwindles even as the least productive segment spits out kid after kid we're quite simply fucked. It's an unsustainable model.
As for the rich, they'll move their money to safer investments or overseas to developing economies. These developing economies will gladly lure them in with low tax rates. No point in arguing, I guess, this is simply a fact. All other things equal, higher marginal tax rates will increase unemployment. Of course, all other things aren't all equal so who knows what will really happen. I tell you what - come back in 2 years when shit's even worse off than it is now and I can gloat.
Multi-million dollar yachts? You do know someone built that, right? And the wood was chopped by someone, the paint was made by someone, someone painted the boat, etc... And the company that sells the yacht takes the money and expands and hires more people. $4000 hookers spend the money they make, too. You "demand siders" seem to think money just disappears into luxury items and that we can create wealth out of nowhere for the poor people to all go out and buy TV's or whatever the hell.
Funny Obama gets compared to JFK, but Kennedy was actually a precursor to Reaganomics and wanted tax cuts fromt he top-down and wanted tax equity in this country.
First, some logic. Explain this to me, please. How is it not socialism if someone pays less in taxes than they actually get back from the government? How is a shrinking tax base not socialism? If only 40% of Americans pay taxes, and some percent actually get more money back from the government than they pay in, how is this not redistribution of wealth? Also explain how if there are fewer taxpayers in this country what happens to government income when the rich pull out of the economy and go for safer investments, or in boom and bust cycles? For extra credit, explain why government revenue actually goes up when top-down tax plans are enacted? Also, you do understand that Obama will tax the top more but that government revenue is guaranteed to go down, right?
Here's a question for you. Who pays wages in this country? Rich people or poor people? Now, let's say I'm filthy rich. Suddenly, Obama is gunning for me and the amount of money I can make from putting my money in play goes way down while the risk remains the same. Would it be wiser to just take my money and wallow in it, or to continue to invest in new businesses, stocks, etc...? Personally, I'd just wait out his administration and wallow in my money.
The strawman is that "republicans" are labeling any progressive tax plan as socialism. Is this a party platform? Are any sane Republicans proposing a non-progressive tax?
More importantly, the past is irrelevent. Wartime taxes continued because Eisenhower wanted a balanced budget. Not sure how you think the miserable economic situation under his (and previous high-tax) administrations is any kind of advertisement for it.
I think the main point of the Republicans is that Obama is a socialist. His tax plans are necessarily limited because he won't get elected by just saying "I want to redistribute the wealth in this nation". Wait, OK - so he did actually say that. I guess what I mean is he won't get elected by proposing policies which implement this goal. He'll just bide his time, he'll have 8 years to start moving more in that direction. A horrible presidency like Bush's grants him guaranteed 8 years barring a massive mistake.
He had no chance. George Bush fucked McCain twice - in the 2000 election and by being the worst president in history and a Republican. McCain could have picked Colin Powell or Jesus Christ as his running mate and run a perfect campaign with a $5 billion budget and he would have lost. He might have lost by less, but he would have lost. You don't elect someone from the same party as the worst president in history immediately after said worst president in history's term.
I know. Good thing people vote based on the tones of speeches versus actual policy, huh? I'm resigned..I mean hopeful about Obama. But the cult of personality that has arisen around him is a joke. Morons crying in the street when if you asked them what his policies were and how it would directly impact them they couldn't tell you jack shit. Seriously. Jesus Christ.
Ahh. You've bought that common misconception. Corporations are not persons. They have certain rights people also have. In my area, animals have the right not to be abused/tortured. People have that same right. Animals are not people.
Anti-corporatists are truly the new commie hippy of our generation. Anyway, I do disagree with the stupid windfall tax - it's just populist rabble rousing. But the wealth from state owned land with oil has to go somewhere.
Strawman. A tax where anyone making over, say, $300k pays 99.99% taxes and everyone below pays .01% taxes is also progressive and certainly on the socialist side of things. Just because a given plan is progressive does not make it also socialist. However some progressive plans are certainly socialist in motivation.
What makes Obama a socialist is the fact that he espouses socialist ideals. He can't put those into practice all at once, but he'd love to get the ball rolling.
What the Republicans tried to do was demonstrate that Obama has a wealth redistribution agenda and that he will just take baby steps to reach that goal. His initial tax plan is just one small step, doesn't even seem all that unreasonable. Then the 2010 plan will go a little more in that direction. Barring disaster he'll be elected in 2012 again (Bush has cost this country Democratic leadership for a long time). He'll continue more of the same - more entitlement programs, socialized medicine, higher taxes on anyone middle class or above (say $100k/yr), etc...
Your first point is stupid, where do you think the oil revenue should have gone? Should they have drawn straws for who gets it?
Your second point is right, though. "Windfall taxes" are usually tools of douchebag populist Democrats. Palin is a moron and exhibits the worst of the Republican party, poor fiscal ideology and religious kookery.
How is this insightful? I assume you're referring to oil payouts? I'm unclear how you think this money came from taxing rich people and giving the income to poor people, but I think you're just playing some lame game of "gotcha" so I'm not that interested in the answer.
Ok. Excuse me, I'm confused. When was the last time the US didn't have a progressive income tax?