The choice between Boener's plan and Reid's plan is like being asked if you'd rather be shot in the thigh or the calf. I mean, I guess I'd rather be shot in the calf. but they're both still no good and will do absolutely nothing to help the country in the long run.
Oh, I know, I'm just saying in contrast to Obushma. He at least left office with a (for all intensive purposes) balanced budget. He didn't pass the buck off to a successor. He actually got things balanced. He never ran the surplus people claim as he just stole the money from SS, but his last budget was balanced.
By 1800s, you mean the year 2000 right? Spending 18.2% of GDP as opposed to the current 25%. Because the government has added so much in the past 10 years that we just can't live without now.
I think the Tea Party is upset that no one is actually cutting anything though. It's not like this is a legitimate plan that either side is presenting that puts us on a path to a balanced budget. Both plans don't even come close to balancing the budget within 10 years and still ad tons of money to the deficit and even the cuts that they do make are years down the road when there's no guarantee they happen. Personally, I'm a huge advocate for cuts. Even though I am a pure federalist and advocate any downsizing of the federal government, I would be perfectly willing to compromise and approve tax increases and a steady 5 year plan that balanced the budget, but none of these plans come even remotely close to doing that. Any plan that doesn't actually cap spending and include a balanced budget amendment or tie spending to under 19% of GDP is a complete load of crock. (Average budget under Clinton was 18.5% with 18.2% in 2000, so it's not archaic like some people claim)
I don't? Could you define it for me? I'm sorry, I'm quite horrible with these esoteric words. Perhaps a chart and graph or a video could better explain it.
Right, the Tea Party is the "Villain" here when the plan you support only cuts $1 Billion from this years budget and still adds $7 Trillion to our debt over 10 years. Anyone that thinks republicans are being extreme here in wanting cuts doesn't realize that no one is actually cutting anything. All of their cuts come years down the road after congress has completely changed and the successors have no obligation to keep the word of the predecessors. This whole Reid vs Boener plan is one of the biggest bunch of garbage smoke and mirrors dance we've ever seen in the US. It's just people yelling about ideals that no one actually backs up.
It's not that there wasn't enough dialogue. There's plenty of it, but it's the wrong dialogue and its delivery was poor. I'd blame the actors on delivery, but the ones that had issues with delivery in the new films are fantastic in others, so at that point I must refer solely to the director.
Ehhh, I don't think it has anything to do with greed. I think it has to do with that George Lucas is a great producer but a horrible director. Any director that says "I don't like the talking parts" should never be a director. If you think he is any different now than he was then, all you need to do is look at the original script to Empire Strikes Back. which features Darth Vader's subterranean castle with gargoyles and lava and that Luke's real father wasn't Darth Vader nor was Leia his sister. The thing that kept Lucas under control wasn't less licensing, it was smaller budget constraints and a lack of a team of yes men. No one dare tell Lucas that anything he did with Episodes I-III was garbage, He had a blank check to make the movies and a team telling him he could do no wrong. I couldn't expect anything different to happen.
It already happens in universities, so I don't see why this situation is any different. If anything, it's better for the employees because then they can better argue more competitive wages and this could expose any unfair compensation or favoritism. Variable and merit based pay is far better than the alternative.
More or less. The reality is, because we have unions that have awarded teachers with undeserving tenure (automatically earned within 2-3 years as opposed to difficultly earned in 7 years in college) and equal pay regardless of performance, we pay good teachers less money than they deserve. If you look at GRE scores of teachers, they're among the bottom, but the salary they receive is reflective of that. However, we already spend more per student than anywhere else in the world (tied for first), so we can't really afford to pay for more. If we want to attract more high profile individuals to the classroom, we need to up the pay, and the only way we can afford to do that is to get rid of the bad teachers. I would much rather have a class with 40 students and a great teacher than a 2 classes with 20 students and one great teacher and one bad teacher. A bad teacher makes a much more serious negative impact on a student than most realize. Once you fall behind, it's a game of catch up, and in a troubled system, good luck. Good teachers deserve $100,000+ a year. Bad teachers need to find a new job.
He was going to be in and out of hotel rooms, meetings, and other locations from the sound of it. Constantly being mobile in this situation. So, a little more reasonable .
Starz Play alone brings in 2,500+ titles. The site is blocked at work, but some online sources put it at over 20,000 in 2009. So yeah, thousands. I have a movie night every Sunday, and we always finds something to watch on Netflix.
Except they didn't up the price for that same plan. Comparing a DVD plan with streaming now to an old plan that had no streaming isn't really fair I'd say. 1 DVD with no streaming is $8/month. That's pretty darn cheap.
I agree they're not spinning it the best, but to come out and blame the studios probably wouldn't be the best either since they're already on shaky ground. Really, this is just motivation for me to finally end my DVD subscription part of the plan. I honestly haven't used it in 6 months and the DVDs are sitting in my house. If I want a DVD, I typically use Redbox.
No, they're not giving DVD plans free streaming any more. According to the blog, DVD rental prices went down, but DVD rentals + streaming went up. Before when they added streaming, they didn't increase the price of the DVD plans I believe, or if they did, it wasn't significant, now they're charging extra for it. That lends itself to the notion that streaming is more expensive now.
You're not paying more because netflix just decided to charge more. You're paying more because studios have increased their price and because of a weakening dollar. Netflix is just trying to stay in business.
Umm, I have netflix on every TV in my house, my laptop, my desktop, my phone, my iPad, and soon my 3DS. My wife and I simultaneously watch content in different rooms all the time. Also, sure, you get 100s of shows, but you only get 1 show per channel at a time, and unless you record it, it's gone. With Netflix I can watch thousands of titles at any moment I want. Sure you do get slightly faster access with TV, but a lot of shows update on Netflix the next day. Also Netflix has tons of great features like party watching on Xbox 360. I watch movies with my best friend who lives 1,000 miles away all the time. I don't see cable having significant benefits over netflix unless there is a particular show you watch that they don't host or you HAVE to watch it the moment it airs. Personally, I've got the patience to wait.
Slashdot Mirror
If you took that budget and adjusted it for inflation to today, it would still remain balanced.
The choice between Boener's plan and Reid's plan is like being asked if you'd rather be shot in the thigh or the calf. I mean, I guess I'd rather be shot in the calf. but they're both still no good and will do absolutely nothing to help the country in the long run.
Oh, I know, I'm just saying in contrast to Obushma. He at least left office with a (for all intensive purposes) balanced budget. He didn't pass the buck off to a successor. He actually got things balanced. He never ran the surplus people claim as he just stole the money from SS, but his last budget was balanced.
By 1800s, you mean the year 2000 right? Spending 18.2% of GDP as opposed to the current 25%. Because the government has added so much in the past 10 years that we just can't live without now.
I think the Tea Party is upset that no one is actually cutting anything though. It's not like this is a legitimate plan that either side is presenting that puts us on a path to a balanced budget. Both plans don't even come close to balancing the budget within 10 years and still ad tons of money to the deficit and even the cuts that they do make are years down the road when there's no guarantee they happen. Personally, I'm a huge advocate for cuts. Even though I am a pure federalist and advocate any downsizing of the federal government, I would be perfectly willing to compromise and approve tax increases and a steady 5 year plan that balanced the budget, but none of these plans come even remotely close to doing that. Any plan that doesn't actually cap spending and include a balanced budget amendment or tie spending to under 19% of GDP is a complete load of crock. (Average budget under Clinton was 18.5% with 18.2% in 2000, so it's not archaic like some people claim)
I don't? Could you define it for me? I'm sorry, I'm quite horrible with these esoteric words. Perhaps a chart and graph or a video could better explain it.
Gawd I miss Clinton.
Right, the Tea Party is the "Villain" here when the plan you support only cuts $1 Billion from this years budget and still adds $7 Trillion to our debt over 10 years. Anyone that thinks republicans are being extreme here in wanting cuts doesn't realize that no one is actually cutting anything. All of their cuts come years down the road after congress has completely changed and the successors have no obligation to keep the word of the predecessors. This whole Reid vs Boener plan is one of the biggest bunch of garbage smoke and mirrors dance we've ever seen in the US. It's just people yelling about ideals that no one actually backs up.
... if the US Government had the same budget as a Peter Jackson movie we wouldn't be in this fiscal mess, now would we? ;-)
Well, we couldn't really afford anything then could we. I mean, that doesn't even cover congress's salary.
It's not that there wasn't enough dialogue. There's plenty of it, but it's the wrong dialogue and its delivery was poor. I'd blame the actors on delivery, but the ones that had issues with delivery in the new films are fantastic in others, so at that point I must refer solely to the director.
Ehhh, I don't think it has anything to do with greed. I think it has to do with that George Lucas is a great producer but a horrible director. Any director that says "I don't like the talking parts" should never be a director. If you think he is any different now than he was then, all you need to do is look at the original script to Empire Strikes Back. which features Darth Vader's subterranean castle with gargoyles and lava and that Luke's real father wasn't Darth Vader nor was Leia his sister. The thing that kept Lucas under control wasn't less licensing, it was smaller budget constraints and a lack of a team of yes men. No one dare tell Lucas that anything he did with Episodes I-III was garbage, He had a blank check to make the movies and a team telling him he could do no wrong. I couldn't expect anything different to happen.
Does it even matter who wins in terms of sales? Both are successful consoles. That said, PS3 sucks.
It already happens in universities, so I don't see why this situation is any different. If anything, it's better for the employees because then they can better argue more competitive wages and this could expose any unfair compensation or favoritism. Variable and merit based pay is far better than the alternative.
More or less. The reality is, because we have unions that have awarded teachers with undeserving tenure (automatically earned within 2-3 years as opposed to difficultly earned in 7 years in college) and equal pay regardless of performance, we pay good teachers less money than they deserve. If you look at GRE scores of teachers, they're among the bottom, but the salary they receive is reflective of that. However, we already spend more per student than anywhere else in the world (tied for first), so we can't really afford to pay for more. If we want to attract more high profile individuals to the classroom, we need to up the pay, and the only way we can afford to do that is to get rid of the bad teachers. I would much rather have a class with 40 students and a great teacher than a 2 classes with 20 students and one great teacher and one bad teacher. A bad teacher makes a much more serious negative impact on a student than most realize. Once you fall behind, it's a game of catch up, and in a troubled system, good luck. Good teachers deserve $100,000+ a year. Bad teachers need to find a new job.
He was going to be in and out of hotel rooms, meetings, and other locations from the sound of it. Constantly being mobile in this situation. So, a little more reasonable .
No one needs 4 G+ accounts. That's selfish. Quit hogging the internet.
That's expecting a Keynsian to understand the broken window fallacy.
Starz Play alone brings in 2,500+ titles. The site is blocked at work, but some online sources put it at over 20,000 in 2009. So yeah, thousands. I have a movie night every Sunday, and we always finds something to watch on Netflix.
Apparently we're not. I have over 300 titles in my queue, and plenty more that I haven't added. There is PLENTY of content on Netflix.
Now that we have iPads and Kindles, can we get rid of the libraries? They make great lofts. I love exposed brick.
Except they didn't up the price for that same plan. Comparing a DVD plan with streaming now to an old plan that had no streaming isn't really fair I'd say. 1 DVD with no streaming is $8/month. That's pretty darn cheap.
I agree they're not spinning it the best, but to come out and blame the studios probably wouldn't be the best either since they're already on shaky ground. Really, this is just motivation for me to finally end my DVD subscription part of the plan. I honestly haven't used it in 6 months and the DVDs are sitting in my house. If I want a DVD, I typically use Redbox.
No, they're not giving DVD plans free streaming any more. According to the blog, DVD rental prices went down, but DVD rentals + streaming went up. Before when they added streaming, they didn't increase the price of the DVD plans I believe, or if they did, it wasn't significant, now they're charging extra for it. That lends itself to the notion that streaming is more expensive now.
You're not paying more because netflix just decided to charge more. You're paying more because studios have increased their price and because of a weakening dollar. Netflix is just trying to stay in business.
Umm, I have netflix on every TV in my house, my laptop, my desktop, my phone, my iPad, and soon my 3DS. My wife and I simultaneously watch content in different rooms all the time. Also, sure, you get 100s of shows, but you only get 1 show per channel at a time, and unless you record it, it's gone. With Netflix I can watch thousands of titles at any moment I want. Sure you do get slightly faster access with TV, but a lot of shows update on Netflix the next day. Also Netflix has tons of great features like party watching on Xbox 360. I watch movies with my best friend who lives 1,000 miles away all the time. I don't see cable having significant benefits over netflix unless there is a particular show you watch that they don't host or you HAVE to watch it the moment it airs. Personally, I've got the patience to wait.