It's unfortunate that Joe Public is such an idiot. Yes, he doesn't benefit directly from space exploration, but he has many indirect benefits
...
Ever used [...] Composite forceps in the delivery room?
FWIW, I think if Joe Public has used composite forceps in the delivery room, we have larger problems than NASA funding. For one, we need to fix the healthcare system so that when my wife delivers her next child, it's an obstetrician, not Joe Public, prying the little rugrat out of her dilated vagoogoo.
(My apologies to my as-yet-unconceived (I hope) second child).
Actually, the root cause is that the availability of artificially cheap money (read: credit) by the Federal Reserve misprices risk: this has resulted inâ"at leastâ"the tech bubble in the late 90's and the housing bubble in the 00's.
Ah yes, the old "it's the Fed!" canard. It has nothing to do whatsoever with relaxation of regulatory controls on the bankig industry that are not within the scope of the Fed. Right.
Since no one in power recognizes or at least wants to admit that the Fed is the cause of these problems, expect a new bubble to appear soon.
Hmm, seems to me that the Fed policy of moderate ((unspoken)~4% cost inflation) and (spoken) low wage inflation will correct the issue, since it will bring the money supply more in line with GDP.
The real problem here is that people signed things without reading them over and understanding them.
I think people understand the ARM loan fairly well enough... though there are plenty of thick idiots out there to prove me wrong:). The problem is that they don't think about what might happen in the housing market in the period before the rate adjusts.
The point was that he's the *finance* guy, and the calculation was 20000/60, not usually a challenging task for someone who works with numbers all day.
Except his job is not to work with numbers all day. His job is to make you feel good about your purchase and borrowing decision, since he's the last person you spend significant time with before you take delivery. It helps compensate for the slimey feeling you get after dealing with the sales slob and the sales manager.
YMMV. My experience is pretty much limited to central NJ and (a little bit) eastern PA car dealerships.
Most Slashdotters forget to put IANAL disclaimers in their comments when making legal claims
You should know by now that IANAL is implied for any post of legal opinion on slashdot. With rare exceptions (Ray Beckerman comes to mind), I'd assume the "IANAL" even if the poster writes "IAAL".
Hell, it's not just legal opinion. I take anything written on slashdot with a grain of salt. If it's a topic I know a good bit about, I can normally figure out if a poster is talking out their ass, or if they might have something to add to my understanding.
If it's a topic I know little about, I don't even bother trying to determine if someone knows what's going on. I figure I'm better off at wikipedia for decent base-level information.
Fun game of merry-go-round for a lot of stupid people...while it lasted.
But an even more fun game for those of us who sold in 06 or early 07 and are now looking at buying on the cheap.
A coworker of mine sold his house in April 06 for $825,000. He just bought the same house back, with about 40k in improvements, for $675,000. There were two successive owners in the time he did not own the house. I wish I had his foresight... but I didn't get into the game until 2004, so my profits were much lower.
It's a stupid loan if you do not foresee a collapse in property prices in your area due to near-future restrictions on easy credit. This is what happened to many tens of thousands of people, and why so many people are hammered by a negative equity situation. They cannot sell, because they owe more than the vlaue of their home and do not have cash reserves... and theycannot afford their ballooned payments.
Sure, the lender will (if they are smart) renegotiate with the borrower... but many borrowers find it a better proposition to walk away and declare bankruptcy.
Yes, IO 3 month ARMs are REALLY bad... unless you're just flipping the property. Negative amortisation loans, same deal. Either case, you better know what's going on in the housing market locally before you jump in.
To be a little more complete, the easily available credit also increased demand on real estate, thus driving prices upward drastically... and the combination of tightened credit availability and a slower economy has now caused prices to fall, leaving people in a negative equity situation.
Some of the problem is people signing stupid loans (A 5-1 ARM with a ridiculous teaser rate?). Because credit tightened up, in order to sell the home (or refinance) before the fixed period was up (almost everyone's plan), they would need to take a loss... which they couldn't do because they were in a negative equity situation.
I think that more so than people choosing to live beyond their means, it was people paying too much for properties they bought... the necessary market correction in property prices left a lot of people in bad shape. Speculation that property prices would continue rising is as much to blame as bad lending practices and poor budgeting.
What I can't imagine is why they unveiled it before it was working.
I'd guess it's because they depend on user input for their ranking algorithm. They need their users to provide relevance feedback... so it's a bit of a problem. Without those initial users, they will _NEVER_ get their search engine to work properly.
Well, that seems entirely your fault for browsing porn at sites beginning with "young", you pervert.
Seriously, though, this is why you have multiple users on a machine. I log in as me, my wife logs in as her... no problems. I explain it all away as "for security reasons" since she is less knowledgeable about computers than me... not that it matters, since she enjoys teh pron *almost as much* as me... just not as *often*.
On the other hand, it's interesting watching the mod scores go up and down as the obamabots desperately try to downmod anything that speaks a bit of truth about their candidate.
That works both ways, chief. The Republibots do the same thing. The RonPaulbots also are just as bad, if not worse, since their persecution complex is worse than that of the Republicans (if that's possible).
I wish it were possible to see the moderation history on a post... what moderations, in what order, were applied. This would be especially useful when metamoderating. Though it wouldn't really help, since the over/underrated mods don't go through metamoderation...
So my point here is that "scientific" computer models should be greeted with skepticism, even when they accurately predict. They should be absolutely scorned when they fail to accurately predict. There are a whole bunch of "scientists" out there running computer similations that are far less predictive than this device that is likey based on a geocentric theory of the universe.
ALL models should be greeted with skepticism. Hell, all THEORIES and all HYPOTHESES should be greeted with skepticism.
That is the very foundation of successful application of the scientific method.
There's a big problem with what you're saying, however... you say that a model that does not accurately predict should be scorned. That is false. Models are often revised to account for inaccurate predictions. As one famous scientist explained, it is not the Eureka! moments that drive true discovery, it is the "That's funny..." moments. In other words, the failure of a model to accuately predict will often lead to greater understanding of what is being modeled. Do you think that the General Theory of Relativity should be scorned, even though, as a modeal, it fails to accurately predict the existence of dark energy and dark matter?
So, to sum up -- yes, skepticism is important in all science. But a model that does not predict accurately may still have value to the scientific community... at the very least, it can be the starting point for a revised model that does accurately predict.
2. 9 out of 10 (my guess, might be higher) businesses out there will never consider an OS that is entirely dependent on a working internet connection. (And don't counter with "well, what about web services companies?" I mean top to bottom activities in a single company such as accounting, HR, project management, security services, legal, design, PR, etc.)
A lot of those functions already require web access for most large companies. SAP and Oracle are making sure almost all those systems are going web-based... though for smaller companies, it can be hosted on local servers and dodge the internet.
No. You've copped out and said "It's whatever I want it to be". That's neither useful nor defendable, and it just solidifes my belief that your only reason for posting in this thread is because you don't want to believe what the numbers actually say.
It does not, alright, but I don't need to disprove you -- only to show, that your (attempt at) proof is incomplete.
I'm not trying to prove anything, which is why you're way off base. I provided data that shows a correlation between gross BOP and red|blue state. You, in return, decide to cherrypick some of the data so you can try to make a point. By the way, did you bother to run the data for all sets and see if it contravened my point?
If you had any backgrond at all in statistical analysis (which obviously you don't by your remark about lies, damn lies, and statistics) or even in logical analysis, you'd know that finding an anecdotal datum that doesn't agree with the generalization means diddly-squat. It doesn't do anything except say "Hey, there's a data point that needs to be included in the analysis." And giuess what? It was included.
I divided the total amounts for a few States by each State's population (obtained from U.S. Census). Looking at the dollars remitted by each State is a different view. It was more difficult to research and less relevant, so I chose not to do it
There are plenty of analyses already available with per capita distribution of funds. Guess what? The correlation is there as well. You did it for a few states, which means absolutely nothing. Do it for all the states and see what happens. You were comparing apples to oranges (per capita to BOP ratio) and that is disingenuous at best, since you did not specify what you were doing, or where your new data came from. Go ahead and compare per-capita BOP data by state to red/blue status, I'd be happy to review your analysis. See, because you left out the remits in your calculations, your data is useless... the whole point of the data is to contrast remits with spending and if you leave out the remit data, your numbers are useless. And including only grants is also useless... I see you conveniently didn't bother to address the concerns I had when you originally did that.
Whether the above is true or not, there is nothing wrong with decrying, what one benefits from. In fact, it can (should?) be viewed as honorable honesty: "Even though we benefit from it, we think, it is a terrible idea and should be abolished as soon as possible. That said, we will continue milking it for all it is worth, for as long as you, fools, keep forcing it upon all of us."
That's horseshit rationalization. As said before, no one is forcing it on the people on the receiving end. They could choose to not accept the funds. Instead they choose to take the funds and perpetuate the system they decry.
You believe there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy. Fine, you can believe that -- even if you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the word hypocrisy. For sake of argument, to make the logic easier for you, I'll call it "not practicing what you preach". You beleive "not practicing what you preach" is A-OK. You have the right to believe that. I believe "not practicing what you preach" is immoral. Logically, then, I believe you are immoral.
I'll leave it at that, since you have not shown the ability to do anything but make pseudo-analytic attempts to make the data appear different than it is.
Well, police coverage is a hard one to calculate. Please consider the indirect benefit that the wealthy receive from police coverage... the business owners (and well-paid senior execs, etc) benefit from police coverage because it helps the company's bottom line. It would be a Herculean task to calculate how much it benefits them, but given the pay scales involved, it's probably orders of magnitude higher than the benefit to the average worker.
Or consider the impact on property owners... good police coverage increases their property values immensely, but the increase in value in poor areas is likely much lower in absolute terms.
I think what's missing in your view is that everything that benefits the poor also benefits the rich, since they are the employers of the poor, the owners of property rented by the poor, and the net providers of services to the poor. It's kind of like toxins in the food web... they conentrate as you move up the web. Benefits to the poor are also concentrated as you move up the economic ladder, they end up providing benefits to the wealthy. Think of it as "trickle-up" economics:).
I see your point, but I wonder how the fact that the "average" taxpayer in the poorer states contributes less to the federal government than the "average" taxpayer in the wealthy states will affect the outcome. Even if we were to assume they receive the same benefit, there would still be inequity.
One of the links I provided yesterday lists the per capita spending by state. If you compare this against the median income (a good measure of the 'average' income earner) you'll see that the inequity is still there.
In September (or possible in August, but not likely due to time constraints) I'll be posting an analysis of the numbers in my journal. Spending vs. tax remits vs. median incomes vs. voting history. I'll probably be working through a few drafts, I'd love to have your input before I post the final journal...
One other thing I'll note -- I think it's mistaken to say that the top earners in a state receive the least benefits. If anything, there is a concentrating effect of the benefits that allow the top earners to earn even more in absolute terms (though relative to their earnings, less than the benefit to poorer people). Their income potential is greatly increased by federal spending.
unless the geeks of the world are able to effectively unite and push back
Uniting geeks is like herding cats. It's an oft-abused analogy, but it's true.
While legislation like this is under review, we're too involved in a flamewar about Emacs/Vi or Trek/Wars or Libertarianism or whatever to make an impact on the decisions being made. And even if we could unite and push back, what are we going to do? Blackmail the powers that be by witholding critical systems? Right... see you in jail.
Call your Congressperson who won't give a toasty turd because they *have* to vote for this or risk being accused of being soft on border security?
Start some sort of grassroots support for our rights? Sure... like you'll get any press or publicity when the media is controlled by the corporate masters. The majority of the voting public isn't going to look past their sports and reality TV and decorating/cooking shows long enough to feel the breeze as their rights fly by them on the way to the dump.
Man, I must be depressed or something, because right now I really feel that *we can not make a difference*. The people in power have already taken everything they need to stay in power, and we have to bend over and take it, because a huge majority of the voting public doesn't give a flying fuck because they are not really inconvenienced as far as they can tell.
Sorry for the rant.
All I can say is, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter".
What, it'll cause lawmaking to grind to a halt and only the most well-considered and constitutionally-sound laws to be passed?
No, it'll just expand the bribery to the judges who rule on Constitutionality, or, as it is now, keep it with the people who put those Judges on the bench.
Seriously, our judicial branch, while more resistant to the corporate smegma that rule this country, is slowly becoming part of the corporatocracy.
There's no reason why the federal government should be spending one red cent on bike paths'
Oh yeah? What if the bike path is on the border of two states and is used only for commerce between the two states? What about THAT, huh?
Seriously, though...
They are called "representatives" for a reason, they represent the interests of their local community.
Are you sure about that? They are supposed to represent their local community, but that is not the same thing as representing the interests of their local community. Sure, usually they will coincide, but Representatives should also serve all the people of the US, not just their constituents. There's got to be a balance there. I don't think a nation of people acting purely out of self-interest (which is what I infer from your position) is what was intended when this nation was created, Ayn Rand be damned.
Only the "grants" section (%13 of the total) can be considered "welfare".
Define welfare. You seem to not be using the same terms others are using. Retirement may or may not be included in the definition of welfare, but disability definitely is. Procurement contracts? There is profit built in to those... and that profit should definitely be treated as welfare. Salaries and Wages? Depends on what they are for... but like the other payments, they stimulate the local enconomy and thus can be considered welfare. Loans? Sorry, part of that is welfare (the amount the state saved by not having to go to private financiers). Insurance? That's welfare plain and simple. The fed paid for something that benefited the state.
For example, one of the most Illiberal state of the Union -- Vermont -- received $2.19 per person,
Vermont is one of the most Illiberal states? You mean conservative states? Or did you mean liberal? And anyway, Red/Blue == Republican/Democrat != Conservative/Liberal. And if you look at how Vermont votes, you might be surprised. Vermont is not one of the most liberal states in the Union, they split tickets often. They have a Republican governor, in case you had not noticed. They also voted to not allow assisted suicide, which aligns with conservatives.
Besides, you apparently conveniently ignore the fact that I never said "all", I said "most" and "corrolates strongly". Pointing out exceptions does not contravene my point.
another "red" state such as Missouri -- only $1.47 per person.
Per person? You are really confused. It's per dollar remitted. And 1.47 per dollar remitted means they got back almost 1.5 times what they paid in, so I fail to see how this data point does anything but support what I've written.
It follows, then, that Republican states are benefited by (voluntarily! since they aren't forced to accept federal funds) the progressive tax scheme that they claim to decry.
What was that about lies, damn lies, and then statistics?..
The problem isn't the statistics. The problem is that you have yet to make a point other than "So what, it's not really hypocrisy", and now, "well it's not really welfare because I say it's not".
From the kuro5hin link you provided, the analysis is a bit off. Example:
One important factor about what these numbers imply is that when a candidate wins the rural vote, he tends to win the less populous states which are still large in area. These states tend to be net importers of government goods and services. One important item in this flow is highway funding. Larger states simply have more area to cross with federally-supported roads. Hence; the rural winner is likely to be backed by "gain" states.
Highway funding (in relation to federal tax remittance) is not inversely proportional to population density, which the writer assumes. Instead, it is roughly proportional to federal gas taxes remitted (TEA 21, 1998 requires 90.5% equity in gas taxes/highway funds, but actual equity is over 95%). This means that states with high highway utilization receive more in highway funding... and these states are, in general, the states with high population density.
Excluding highway spending and gas taxes remitted to the federal goverment would give us a clearer picture, and without running the numbers, I'm guess we'd see an even greater discrepancy between red and blue states regarding remits/funding.
I don't think anyone is seriously denying that the welfare queens of the union tend to be red states; it's just that the conservatives try really hard not to draw attention to that fact.
Good point. Liberals don't mind drawing attention to it, since progressive taxation is part of their belief system. Conservatives don't want people knowing that they talkthe talk but don't walk the walk.
Using and liking are different things. "This sucks, but we'll use it as long as it is forced upon us," -- is honest.
Admission of hypocrisy does not absolve one of hypocrisy.
Really, honesty about one's lack of adherence to principles does not mean that one is suddenly principled. It just means that one is honest.
In short, someone can be honest about what they're doing while still doing the wrong thing.
If I am honest and tell everyone that I stole from you, because I don't think it's right that you have more money than me, does that mean that stealing from you is the right and honest thing to do?
No.
Also, I'd like to make it clear that no one is forcing those red state beneficiaries to receive funds in excess of what they pay to the federal government. They could help fix the system by refusing the funds... then they are not participating in the redistribution of wealth, which reduces the extent of the redistribution, which is exactly what they claim to want. Instead, they increase wealth redistribution by taking money from the wealthy states, in direct contradiction of what they claim to want.
It's cut-and-dried hypocrisy, they are working to extend the system that they claim to hate.
Slashdot Mirror
...
FWIW, I think if Joe Public has used composite forceps in the delivery room, we have larger problems than NASA funding. For one, we need to fix the healthcare system so that when my wife delivers her next child, it's an obstetrician, not Joe Public, prying the little rugrat out of her dilated vagoogoo.
(My apologies to my as-yet-unconceived (I hope) second child).
Ah yes, the old "it's the Fed!" canard. It has nothing to do whatsoever with relaxation of regulatory controls on the bankig industry that are not within the scope of the Fed. Right.
Hmm, seems to me that the Fed policy of moderate ((unspoken)~4% cost inflation) and (spoken) low wage inflation will correct the issue, since it will bring the money supply more in line with GDP.
I think people understand the ARM loan fairly well enough... though there are plenty of thick idiots out there to prove me wrong :). The problem is that they don't think about what might happen in the housing market in the period before the rate adjusts.
Except his job is not to work with numbers all day. His job is to make you feel good about your purchase and borrowing decision, since he's the last person you spend significant time with before you take delivery. It helps compensate for the slimey feeling you get after dealing with the sales slob and the sales manager.
YMMV. My experience is pretty much limited to central NJ and (a little bit) eastern PA car dealerships.
You should know by now that IANAL is implied for any post of legal opinion on slashdot. With rare exceptions (Ray Beckerman comes to mind), I'd assume the "IANAL" even if the poster writes "IAAL".
Hell, it's not just legal opinion. I take anything written on slashdot with a grain of salt. If it's a topic I know a good bit about, I can normally figure out if a poster is talking out their ass, or if they might have something to add to my understanding.
If it's a topic I know little about, I don't even bother trying to determine if someone knows what's going on. I figure I'm better off at wikipedia for decent base-level information.
IANAL. Of course.
But an even more fun game for those of us who sold in 06 or early 07 and are now looking at buying on the cheap.
A coworker of mine sold his house in April 06 for $825,000. He just bought the same house back, with about 40k in improvements, for $675,000. There were two successive owners in the time he did not own the house. I wish I had his foresight... but I didn't get into the game until 2004, so my profits were much lower.
It's a stupid loan if you do not foresee a collapse in property prices in your area due to near-future restrictions on easy credit. This is what happened to many tens of thousands of people, and why so many people are hammered by a negative equity situation. They cannot sell, because they owe more than the vlaue of their home and do not have cash reserves... and theycannot afford their ballooned payments.
Sure, the lender will (if they are smart) renegotiate with the borrower... but many borrowers find it a better proposition to walk away and declare bankruptcy.
Yes, IO 3 month ARMs are REALLY bad... unless you're just flipping the property. Negative amortisation loans, same deal. Either case, you better know what's going on in the housing market locally before you jump in.
To be a little more complete, the easily available credit also increased demand on real estate, thus driving prices upward drastically... and the combination of tightened credit availability and a slower economy has now caused prices to fall, leaving people in a negative equity situation.
Some of the problem is people signing stupid loans (A 5-1 ARM with a ridiculous teaser rate?). Because credit tightened up, in order to sell the home (or refinance) before the fixed period was up (almost everyone's plan), they would need to take a loss... which they couldn't do because they were in a negative equity situation.
I think that more so than people choosing to live beyond their means, it was people paying too much for properties they bought... the necessary market correction in property prices left a lot of people in bad shape. Speculation that property prices would continue rising is as much to blame as bad lending practices and poor budgeting.
I'd guess it's because they depend on user input for their ranking algorithm. They need their users to provide relevance feedback... so it's a bit of a problem. Without those initial users, they will _NEVER_ get their search engine to work properly.
Just my guess...
Or perhaps just usage habits that don't lend to crashes. I'm currently over 3 years without an XP crash on a system that is used daily by two users.
Sure, just another datum...
But if you can't keep an XP system from frequently crashing, I would assume that the issue is PEBKAC or hardware, not with XP.
Well, that seems entirely your fault for browsing porn at sites beginning with "young", you pervert.
Seriously, though, this is why you have multiple users on a machine. I log in as me, my wife logs in as her... no problems. I explain it all away as "for security reasons" since she is less knowledgeable about computers than me... not that it matters, since she enjoys teh pron *almost as much* as me... just not as *often*.
No, they just disagree who the owner is :)
That works both ways, chief. The Republibots do the same thing. The RonPaulbots also are just as bad, if not worse, since their persecution complex is worse than that of the Republicans (if that's possible).
I wish it were possible to see the moderation history on a post... what moderations, in what order, were applied. This would be especially useful when metamoderating. Though it wouldn't really help, since the over/underrated mods don't go through metamoderation...
ALL models should be greeted with skepticism. Hell, all THEORIES and all HYPOTHESES should be greeted with skepticism.
That is the very foundation of successful application of the scientific method.
There's a big problem with what you're saying, however... you say that a model that does not accurately predict should be scorned. That is false. Models are often revised to account for inaccurate predictions. As one famous scientist explained, it is not the Eureka! moments that drive true discovery, it is the "That's funny..." moments. In other words, the failure of a model to accuately predict will often lead to greater understanding of what is being modeled. Do you think that the General Theory of Relativity should be scorned, even though, as a modeal, it fails to accurately predict the existence of dark energy and dark matter?
So, to sum up -- yes, skepticism is important in all science. But a model that does not predict accurately may still have value to the scientific community... at the very least, it can be the starting point for a revised model that does accurately predict.
A lot of those functions already require web access for most large companies. SAP and Oracle are making sure almost all those systems are going web-based... though for smaller companies, it can be hosted on local servers and dodge the internet.
Meh, it's a tie.
No. You've copped out and said "It's whatever I want it to be". That's neither useful nor defendable, and it just solidifes my belief that your only reason for posting in this thread is because you don't want to believe what the numbers actually say.
I'm not trying to prove anything, which is why you're way off base. I provided data that shows a correlation between gross BOP and red|blue state. You, in return, decide to cherrypick some of the data so you can try to make a point. By the way, did you bother to run the data for all sets and see if it contravened my point?
If you had any backgrond at all in statistical analysis (which obviously you don't by your remark about lies, damn lies, and statistics) or even in logical analysis, you'd know that finding an anecdotal datum that doesn't agree with the generalization means diddly-squat. It doesn't do anything except say "Hey, there's a data point that needs to be included in the analysis." And giuess what? It was included.
There are plenty of analyses already available with per capita distribution of funds. Guess what? The correlation is there as well. You did it for a few states, which means absolutely nothing. Do it for all the states and see what happens. You were comparing apples to oranges (per capita to BOP ratio) and that is disingenuous at best, since you did not specify what you were doing, or where your new data came from. Go ahead and compare per-capita BOP data by state to red/blue status, I'd be happy to review your analysis. See, because you left out the remits in your calculations, your data is useless... the whole point of the data is to contrast remits with spending and if you leave out the remit data, your numbers are useless. And including only grants is also useless... I see you conveniently didn't bother to address the concerns I had when you originally did that.
That's horseshit rationalization. As said before, no one is forcing it on the people on the receiving end. They could choose to not accept the funds. Instead they choose to take the funds and perpetuate the system they decry.
You believe there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy. Fine, you can believe that -- even if you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the word hypocrisy. For sake of argument, to make the logic easier for you, I'll call it "not practicing what you preach". You beleive "not practicing what you preach" is A-OK. You have the right to believe that. I believe "not practicing what you preach" is immoral. Logically, then, I believe you are immoral.
I'll leave it at that, since you have not shown the ability to do anything but make pseudo-analytic attempts to make the data appear different than it is.
Well, police coverage is a hard one to calculate. Please consider the indirect benefit that the wealthy receive from police coverage... the business owners (and well-paid senior execs, etc) benefit from police coverage because it helps the company's bottom line. It would be a Herculean task to calculate how much it benefits them, but given the pay scales involved, it's probably orders of magnitude higher than the benefit to the average worker.
:).
Or consider the impact on property owners... good police coverage increases their property values immensely, but the increase in value in poor areas is likely much lower in absolute terms.
I think what's missing in your view is that everything that benefits the poor also benefits the rich, since they are the employers of the poor, the owners of property rented by the poor, and the net providers of services to the poor. It's kind of like toxins in the food web... they conentrate as you move up the web. Benefits to the poor are also concentrated as you move up the economic ladder, they end up providing benefits to the wealthy. Think of it as "trickle-up" economics
I see your point, but I wonder how the fact that the "average" taxpayer in the poorer states contributes less to the federal government than the "average" taxpayer in the wealthy states will affect the outcome. Even if we were to assume they receive the same benefit, there would still be inequity.
One of the links I provided yesterday lists the per capita spending by state. If you compare this against the median income (a good measure of the 'average' income earner) you'll see that the inequity is still there.
In September (or possible in August, but not likely due to time constraints) I'll be posting an analysis of the numbers in my journal. Spending vs. tax remits vs. median incomes vs. voting history. I'll probably be working through a few drafts, I'd love to have your input before I post the final journal...
One other thing I'll note -- I think it's mistaken to say that the top earners in a state receive the least benefits. If anything, there is a concentrating effect of the benefits that allow the top earners to earn even more in absolute terms (though relative to their earnings, less than the benefit to poorer people). Their income potential is greatly increased by federal spending.
Uniting geeks is like herding cats. It's an oft-abused analogy, but it's true.
While legislation like this is under review, we're too involved in a flamewar about Emacs/Vi or Trek/Wars or Libertarianism or whatever to make an impact on the decisions being made. And even if we could unite and push back, what are we going to do? Blackmail the powers that be by witholding critical systems? Right... see you in jail.
Call your Congressperson who won't give a toasty turd because they *have* to vote for this or risk being accused of being soft on border security?
Start some sort of grassroots support for our rights? Sure... like you'll get any press or publicity when the media is controlled by the corporate masters. The majority of the voting public isn't going to look past their sports and reality TV and decorating/cooking shows long enough to feel the breeze as their rights fly by them on the way to the dump.
Man, I must be depressed or something, because right now I really feel that *we can not make a difference*. The people in power have already taken everything they need to stay in power, and we have to bend over and take it, because a huge majority of the voting public doesn't give a flying fuck because they are not really inconvenienced as far as they can tell.
Sorry for the rant.
All I can say is, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter".
No, it'll just expand the bribery to the judges who rule on Constitutionality, or, as it is now, keep it with the people who put those Judges on the bench.
Seriously, our judicial branch, while more resistant to the corporate smegma that rule this country, is slowly becoming part of the corporatocracy.
Oh yeah? What if the bike path is on the border of two states and is used only for commerce between the two states? What about THAT, huh?
Seriously, though...
Are you sure about that? They are supposed to represent their local community, but that is not the same thing as representing the interests of their local community. Sure, usually they will coincide, but Representatives should also serve all the people of the US, not just their constituents. There's got to be a balance there. I don't think a nation of people acting purely out of self-interest (which is what I infer from your position) is what was intended when this nation was created, Ayn Rand be damned.
Define welfare. You seem to not be using the same terms others are using. Retirement may or may not be included in the definition of welfare, but disability definitely is. Procurement contracts? There is profit built in to those... and that profit should definitely be treated as welfare. Salaries and Wages? Depends on what they are for... but like the other payments, they stimulate the local enconomy and thus can be considered welfare. Loans? Sorry, part of that is welfare (the amount the state saved by not having to go to private financiers). Insurance? That's welfare plain and simple. The fed paid for something that benefited the state.
Vermont is one of the most Illiberal states? You mean conservative states? Or did you mean liberal? And anyway, Red/Blue == Republican/Democrat != Conservative/Liberal. And if you look at how Vermont votes, you might be surprised. Vermont is not one of the most liberal states in the Union, they split tickets often. They have a Republican governor, in case you had not noticed. They also voted to not allow assisted suicide, which aligns with conservatives.
Besides, you apparently conveniently ignore the fact that I never said "all", I said "most" and "corrolates strongly". Pointing out exceptions does not contravene my point.
Per person? You are really confused. It's per dollar remitted. And 1.47 per dollar remitted means they got back almost 1.5 times what they paid in, so I fail to see how this data point does anything but support what I've written.
It follows, then, that Republican states are benefited by (voluntarily! since they aren't forced to accept federal funds) the progressive tax scheme that they claim to decry.
The problem isn't the statistics. The problem is that you have yet to make a point other than "So what, it's not really hypocrisy", and now, "well it's not really welfare because I say it's not".
Highway funding (in relation to federal tax remittance) is not inversely proportional to population density, which the writer assumes. Instead, it is roughly proportional to federal gas taxes remitted (TEA 21, 1998 requires 90.5% equity in gas taxes/highway funds, but actual equity is over 95%). This means that states with high highway utilization receive more in highway funding... and these states are, in general, the states with high population density.
Excluding highway spending and gas taxes remitted to the federal goverment would give us a clearer picture, and without running the numbers, I'm guess we'd see an even greater discrepancy between red and blue states regarding remits/funding.
Good point. Liberals don't mind drawing attention to it, since progressive taxation is part of their belief system. Conservatives don't want people knowing that they talkthe talk but don't walk the walk.
Admission of hypocrisy does not absolve one of hypocrisy.
Really, honesty about one's lack of adherence to principles does not mean that one is suddenly principled. It just means that one is honest.
In short, someone can be honest about what they're doing while still doing the wrong thing.
If I am honest and tell everyone that I stole from you, because I don't think it's right that you have more money than me, does that mean that stealing from you is the right and honest thing to do?
No.
Also, I'd like to make it clear that no one is forcing those red state beneficiaries to receive funds in excess of what they pay to the federal government. They could help fix the system by refusing the funds... then they are not participating in the redistribution of wealth, which reduces the extent of the redistribution, which is exactly what they claim to want. Instead, they increase wealth redistribution by taking money from the wealthy states, in direct contradiction of what they claim to want.
It's cut-and-dried hypocrisy, they are working to extend the system that they claim to hate.