They use the word "socialist" whenever they want to kill something. There's basically no hope of the US becoming a socialist state anytime soon. And really it's because a lot of hicks are afraid that they won't have their chance to become rich. The only problem is that they won't be getting rich either way, because that's not how our society is set up. Sure there's a few each generation that make it, but in general it's a hoax.
Even more moderate things like ensuring quality healthcare for all is opposed by the conservatives for being socialist. Perhaps that's not a bad thing, given that most of them are so vocally supportive of fascism and corporate profits at the expense of human dignity.
Bullshit. Bill O'Reilly regularly does that, it's just when the "liberal" isn't disagreeing that they do it. Any liberals with actual brain cells don't even try to go on those shows because they get shouted down. I've seen clips where that jack ass O'Reilly will shout down people who lost loved ones in 9/11 for not supporting his extremist views on national security, whether or not they've got a point.
To be fair, when's the last time that the media backed off when accused of being biased in favor of conservative views? Now when's the last time they did it when conservatives were complaining about a liberal bias?
Sure there's MSNBC, but the reality is that pretty much all of the networks have a notable bias in favor of the right. Ever wonder why that death panels story got any airplay? I'll give you a hint, it's not because the networks were exercising any sort of journalistic integrity, it's because the right would accuse them of not being fair and balanced, and they lack the stones to tell the right to just go fuck themselves when the story is a known lie.
Um, last time I checked making a typo wasn't illegal. As opposed to the TSA illegally molesting passengers for the audacity to buy plane tickets. I'm also unaware of any significant number of people with a legitimate cause for complaining about flashbacks induced by such a common misspelling.
Indeed, this isn't like hiring illegal immigrants because you legitimately can't prove you need guest workers before the picking season is over. And quite another to do it because you don't like what the American candidates are demanding.
Theoretically that's how the free market is supposed to function, if you're not offering enough pay and benefits to attract workers you have to either raise your offer or do without. None of this pulling in folks from over seas because you don't feel like paying a living wage.
Considering that a lot of those firms are receiving tax incentives from the government to be here, it seems to be lacking any sort of gratitude for the perks.
I doubt it, in my experience, motivation isn't just a matter of ones own interest. It takes a bit of arrogance to expect something to come of it. Ever wonder why equally motivated folks living in the Ghetto don't get into the Ivy League with similar regularity? It's not because they're all morons or because they're lazy, it's because they don't have the luxury of applying their efforts to something as abstract as going to Harvard.
I think that's a point that a lot of the upper class and other folks that go to those schools fail to grasp. It's a luxury that a lot of folks don't have to spend that much time with nose stuck in a book doing homework.
Some of us had to settle for an equally good education at a state school that we could both get into and afford because we were too busy picking up the slack for our parents as kids.
And even I getting the degree at all have to acknowledge having it easier than some others, that didn't live to see 22 let alone 18 for their high school diploma.
A lot of us didn't have the opportunity to dream of going to such schools due to not being able to afford it. You have to make a hell of a lot of money to afford to go to those schools, or pray for financial aid. Sure there's beginning to be a thing about not leaving graduates with debts, but for a lot of people it's not something that we're realistically able to expect.
In my experience, admittedly not at an ivy league or even private school, scholarships are horribly biased upon who you are and what you're wanting to do. Unfortunately, it matters a lot what your color is and what groups you're affiliated with. It shouldn't matter, but it does, and there's no good way of predicting what sorts of scholarships are going to be available.
But, at the end of the day, I went to a state school here for a fraction of what the Ivy League cost, and the only thing they've got that I don't is connections. Is that really the same thing as a quality education? Of course not, but a quality education doesn't get you much if you don't have the connections to get the interview.
They're not. They're found to expect a pay rate which sets them up for a decent life in the US rather than an upper class one in some other nation.
It's not a case like with agriculture where by the time you can prove that you need guest workers the season is over. There at least is a quasi legitimate problem in need of solving. This is a case of companies using the H-1B visa to artificially deflate wages while claiming that they can't find qualified applicants here. If you don't believe me, look at the job requirements they post. They tend to inflate them way beyond what the jobs really require just so that they can claim that they looked and couldn't find anybody.
It's one thing when the individuals are exceptional and quite another when they're just being used to depress wages for the rest of us. The whole point of the H-1B visas theoretically was to fill jobs which couldn't be filled domestically. The problem though is that companies like MS use it as a way of threatening applicants that if they don't accept less that they'll be replaced by people who are thrilled to make that much more money than they otherwise would make.
There really isn't any racism involved with it. It would be totally different if the applications weren't based on a quota system but required the corporations to demonstrate that they couldn't find the qualified individuals after a good faith search.
The fact that the rich are doing it isn't much of a shocker, but the fact that so many middle and low income people are so proud about voting for the people that are bragging about supporting the policies that made it so beggars belief.
In no country that I'm aware of have people so enthusiastically voted down their own interests without at least the veneer of some reason for doing so.
Well, no, they are lying. If they're leaving that out of the phrase they're definitely telling a lie.
It's a case of the free market that they use to justify no oversight being inconvenient when it comes to hiring talent. They need to ship people in on the H1-B visa as a way of adding additional competition, not as a way of filling positions that would go unfilled.
Indeed. The critical thing is almost certainly the back ups and network connection. They've presumably already go the software for doing their jobs picked out and everybody knows how to use it, at least partially.
However, it's almost certainly the case that they haven't gotten their backup system in order and finalized the network.
Asking them what they want should guide things along the way. It might be acceptable to use a service like backblaze to handle the back up process or more likely they'll need to keep it in house for reasons related to regulatory requirements. Without knowing more information it's hard to know what sort of advice to give.
Sigh, you do realize that that's an urban legend, right? Your tongue can't stay stuck there for very long as both your tongue and your breath have heat. You just pull in closer and breath on the pole. It comes unstuck quite quickly.
Doesn't matter. Sweden is a signatory to the WTO. Had it kept going the US would almost certainly have filed a complaint with the WTO that you were creating barriers to the trade of our movies, music, softare and similar things. And you'd've lost.
At which point Sweden would've been required to enact a law banning it or face WTO sanctions.
I don't like the WTO, for the very reason that it undermines national sovereignty and fails to provide nations with the ability to prevent multinational corporations from harming their citizens or nation, bit you are just as much bound by it as we are in the US.
He's using the term colloquially, as in not as a reference to the fallacy. Which is normal, it's just that most people accidentally make the fallacy.
It's really what you think. He made an assumption that it was a suit rather than a complaint to a regulatory agency. Hence rather than suit he should've said complaint, but the logic isn't a case of begging the question. It's insufficient for that fallacy for the words "begging the question" to appear in the argument.
It is very relevant to the situation at hand whether the party filing the complaint was authorized to distribute it or was the owner of the content. As the former would be presumably in violation of the terms of the contract and the latter would be completely full of it.
That's stupid, according to ASCAP the answer would be yes. I mean they are the ones that think it's OK to fine people for having their radio on where somebody else can hear it. So logically I see no reason why they would object to extending the logic to seeing TV.
And don't forget that the sports broadcasters think they have the right to restrict viewing to TVs of a certain size and own the rights to the scores and accounts of the games beyond just the specific recordings.
Yes it does. Only an idiot would assume that because he used beg and question in the same clause that it's begging the question. It's been established that somebody has filed suit, consequently the fallacy that is begging the question doesn't apply.
That's not true. The Federal reserve is a private institution that is headed by federal appointees. As in the chairman and the board of governors. Last I checked Fed Ex didn't require any permission from the federal government to appoint a new CEO.
Yes and no. It's more like a monetary time share. As long as everybody doesn't want to use the condo at the same time, you can easily share it amongst 50 people a year, with each using it a week and 2 weeks for maintenance.
Same goes for money. Alice promises not to use the $1000 while the bank holds it. The bank takes that promise and the money and loans some to Bob who pays for the privilege. The bank pockets some of the money and passes the rest on to Alice.
And as long as things are orderly it works out. Obviously you have more borrowers and more depositors making it more complex. And banks don't lend out all of the money they borrow at any given time, they're required by the FDIC to hold onto a certain amount in order to pay people that want to take their money out sooner than the bank expects.
The worst case scenario is major fraud beyond what the FDIC insures or a run on the bank.
If they really were creating money out of nothing, you'd see inflation. The reason that's not the case is because you could, and in the past they did, do it with cash money. Alice would get a promissory note and Bob would get a few Benjamins or whatever. And because there's only one sum of money at any given time there is no change in the currency supply and hence no inflation or deflation caused by it.
Supply side economics has been known to be bunk for a very long time indeed. It's like the cockroach of economics theory. Keynesian economics is probably the only economic theory that's proven to be more resilient. The two theories have their place and should be retained, however they're both solutions to an unusual constellation of events.
Had Regan been President during Bush's 2001-2009 term he almost certainly would have raised taxes on the rich. The reason I say that is the year after he gave the rich the biggest tax cut in the nations history, he recognized that he'd gone to far and raised the tax rate a bit. It was still significantly lower than what it had been, but he admitted that it had gone a bit too far for the good of the nation.
Considering how many conservatives have forgotten that Regan had done that, I would be shocked if they give up on supply side economics anytime soon. In the same way that it'll be a shock if the conservatives admit that IVF kills more embryos than stem cell research and that global warming is real and man made. It just isn't compatible with the stubborn refuse to change attitude that has come to characterize the conservative movement of the US.
Probably because there is no logic to it. There's been a considerable amount of conservative anger about proposals in the US to require that companies book their profits in the US before they're allowed to book their losses here. The reason being that they'd been able to get deductions without having to pay taxes here, in effect subsidizing the investments they were making in other countries without providing the US tax payers doing the subsidizing with any benefits.
And really of the proposed ways of handling the problem, it's probably the most moderate as corporations would still be allowed to not book profits from overseas operations in the US, they just wouldn't be allowed to offset domestic profits with overseas losses.
There's a reason for that. The anti-tax folks don't want to name the cuts they'd make in order for it to work out to a balanced budget. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with wanting low taxes, but there is something inherently wrong with Bush/Regan style tax cuts which not only aren't backed by spending cuts, but are really backed by spending increases of a substantial amount. At some point somebody has to find the money and it seems to usually end up in the lap of the Democratic party. The alternative being at some point defaulting on the loans.
Most of the folks complaining about the tax burden are unwilling to allow the spending which is focused on benefiting them to be cut. It's easy to call for cuts when the cuts don't affect you but quite a bit harder to actually be the one to make the sacrifice. Likewise it's easier to cut programs that you don't expect to need than ones that you do expect to need. And easier to cut things you hope to never need than the ones you hope to someday need.
You do realize that Bush was probably the most notable proponent of spontaneous wealth generation that the country has ever known, right? The lock box was Gore's thing, and I don't recall the specifics, but it was kind of moot as he wasn't allowed to take office.
Bush OTOH ran this country into the ground by cutting taxes on the wealthiest on the basis that they would do more investing, even as he blew up the DoD budget to gigantic proportions and ran the debt up to somewhere around $10tn.
At least with Gore and the lockbox we don't really know precisely what he meant. And with good reason, the conservatives get away with that crap all the time, and the Democrats haven't been doing themselves any favors allowing the conservatives to do it. Not sure stooping to that level is wise, but the voters seem dumb enough to fall for it.
What you have to realize is that most economists aren't very smart, and they don't really know much about their own field. For instance the great recession wasn't foreseen by more than a handful of them. And the federal reserve is being run by people who think that growth in the economy can't occur withotu inflation and that you can avoid a period of stagnation without a recession/depression. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that, once there's been excessive valuation being formed, you get stagnation or you get a bubble bursting, ultimately it's one, the other or both.
This is a manufactured view of reality based upon the myth of globalization. We were promised that globalization would improve our lives, and quite frankly, it's obvious to anybody with half a mind that it hasn't worked out that way. Corporations have moved their operations offshore, produce products which are dangerous because it would be too costly to ensure otherwise and there's been little flow of goods in the opposite direction because tariffs to remedy trade imbalances are prohibited by the WTO.
Just because we've signed onto agreements like that which have distorted the markets and encouraged corporations to behave in this fashion does not mean that it is good to eliminate corporate taxes. In fact it's counter productive because corporate tax deductions are the best way of steering the economy that we ever had. It allowed us to take a more moderate approach rather than banning or requiring specific approaches in dealing with problems.
Slashdot Mirror
They use the word "socialist" whenever they want to kill something. There's basically no hope of the US becoming a socialist state anytime soon. And really it's because a lot of hicks are afraid that they won't have their chance to become rich. The only problem is that they won't be getting rich either way, because that's not how our society is set up. Sure there's a few each generation that make it, but in general it's a hoax.
Even more moderate things like ensuring quality healthcare for all is opposed by the conservatives for being socialist. Perhaps that's not a bad thing, given that most of them are so vocally supportive of fascism and corporate profits at the expense of human dignity.
Bullshit. Bill O'Reilly regularly does that, it's just when the "liberal" isn't disagreeing that they do it. Any liberals with actual brain cells don't even try to go on those shows because they get shouted down. I've seen clips where that jack ass O'Reilly will shout down people who lost loved ones in 9/11 for not supporting his extremist views on national security, whether or not they've got a point.
To be fair, when's the last time that the media backed off when accused of being biased in favor of conservative views? Now when's the last time they did it when conservatives were complaining about a liberal bias?
Sure there's MSNBC, but the reality is that pretty much all of the networks have a notable bias in favor of the right. Ever wonder why that death panels story got any airplay? I'll give you a hint, it's not because the networks were exercising any sort of journalistic integrity, it's because the right would accuse them of not being fair and balanced, and they lack the stones to tell the right to just go fuck themselves when the story is a known lie.
Um, last time I checked making a typo wasn't illegal. As opposed to the TSA illegally molesting passengers for the audacity to buy plane tickets. I'm also unaware of any significant number of people with a legitimate cause for complaining about flashbacks induced by such a common misspelling.
Indeed, this isn't like hiring illegal immigrants because you legitimately can't prove you need guest workers before the picking season is over. And quite another to do it because you don't like what the American candidates are demanding.
Theoretically that's how the free market is supposed to function, if you're not offering enough pay and benefits to attract workers you have to either raise your offer or do without. None of this pulling in folks from over seas because you don't feel like paying a living wage.
Considering that a lot of those firms are receiving tax incentives from the government to be here, it seems to be lacking any sort of gratitude for the perks.
I doubt it, in my experience, motivation isn't just a matter of ones own interest. It takes a bit of arrogance to expect something to come of it. Ever wonder why equally motivated folks living in the Ghetto don't get into the Ivy League with similar regularity? It's not because they're all morons or because they're lazy, it's because they don't have the luxury of applying their efforts to something as abstract as going to Harvard.
I think that's a point that a lot of the upper class and other folks that go to those schools fail to grasp. It's a luxury that a lot of folks don't have to spend that much time with nose stuck in a book doing homework.
Some of us had to settle for an equally good education at a state school that we could both get into and afford because we were too busy picking up the slack for our parents as kids.
And even I getting the degree at all have to acknowledge having it easier than some others, that didn't live to see 22 let alone 18 for their high school diploma.
A lot of us didn't have the opportunity to dream of going to such schools due to not being able to afford it. You have to make a hell of a lot of money to afford to go to those schools, or pray for financial aid. Sure there's beginning to be a thing about not leaving graduates with debts, but for a lot of people it's not something that we're realistically able to expect.
In my experience, admittedly not at an ivy league or even private school, scholarships are horribly biased upon who you are and what you're wanting to do. Unfortunately, it matters a lot what your color is and what groups you're affiliated with. It shouldn't matter, but it does, and there's no good way of predicting what sorts of scholarships are going to be available.
But, at the end of the day, I went to a state school here for a fraction of what the Ivy League cost, and the only thing they've got that I don't is connections. Is that really the same thing as a quality education? Of course not, but a quality education doesn't get you much if you don't have the connections to get the interview.
They're not. They're found to expect a pay rate which sets them up for a decent life in the US rather than an upper class one in some other nation.
It's not a case like with agriculture where by the time you can prove that you need guest workers the season is over. There at least is a quasi legitimate problem in need of solving. This is a case of companies using the H-1B visa to artificially deflate wages while claiming that they can't find qualified applicants here. If you don't believe me, look at the job requirements they post. They tend to inflate them way beyond what the jobs really require just so that they can claim that they looked and couldn't find anybody.
It's one thing when the individuals are exceptional and quite another when they're just being used to depress wages for the rest of us. The whole point of the H-1B visas theoretically was to fill jobs which couldn't be filled domestically. The problem though is that companies like MS use it as a way of threatening applicants that if they don't accept less that they'll be replaced by people who are thrilled to make that much more money than they otherwise would make.
There really isn't any racism involved with it. It would be totally different if the applications weren't based on a quota system but required the corporations to demonstrate that they couldn't find the qualified individuals after a good faith search.
The fact that the rich are doing it isn't much of a shocker, but the fact that so many middle and low income people are so proud about voting for the people that are bragging about supporting the policies that made it so beggars belief.
In no country that I'm aware of have people so enthusiastically voted down their own interests without at least the veneer of some reason for doing so.
Well, no, they are lying. If they're leaving that out of the phrase they're definitely telling a lie.
It's a case of the free market that they use to justify no oversight being inconvenient when it comes to hiring talent. They need to ship people in on the H1-B visa as a way of adding additional competition, not as a way of filling positions that would go unfilled.
Indeed. The critical thing is almost certainly the back ups and network connection. They've presumably already go the software for doing their jobs picked out and everybody knows how to use it, at least partially.
However, it's almost certainly the case that they haven't gotten their backup system in order and finalized the network.
Asking them what they want should guide things along the way. It might be acceptable to use a service like backblaze to handle the back up process or more likely they'll need to keep it in house for reasons related to regulatory requirements. Without knowing more information it's hard to know what sort of advice to give.
Sigh, you do realize that that's an urban legend, right? Your tongue can't stay stuck there for very long as both your tongue and your breath have heat. You just pull in closer and breath on the pole. It comes unstuck quite quickly.
They avoided WTO sanctions without having to completely lick boot. Hardly the result you seem to think it is.
Doesn't matter. Sweden is a signatory to the WTO. Had it kept going the US would almost certainly have filed a complaint with the WTO that you were creating barriers to the trade of our movies, music, softare and similar things. And you'd've lost.
At which point Sweden would've been required to enact a law banning it or face WTO sanctions.
I don't like the WTO, for the very reason that it undermines national sovereignty and fails to provide nations with the ability to prevent multinational corporations from harming their citizens or nation, bit you are just as much bound by it as we are in the US.
He's using the term colloquially, as in not as a reference to the fallacy. Which is normal, it's just that most people accidentally make the fallacy.
It's really what you think. He made an assumption that it was a suit rather than a complaint to a regulatory agency. Hence rather than suit he should've said complaint, but the logic isn't a case of begging the question. It's insufficient for that fallacy for the words "begging the question" to appear in the argument.
It is very relevant to the situation at hand whether the party filing the complaint was authorized to distribute it or was the owner of the content. As the former would be presumably in violation of the terms of the contract and the latter would be completely full of it.
That's stupid, according to ASCAP the answer would be yes. I mean they are the ones that think it's OK to fine people for having their radio on where somebody else can hear it. So logically I see no reason why they would object to extending the logic to seeing TV.
And don't forget that the sports broadcasters think they have the right to restrict viewing to TVs of a certain size and own the rights to the scores and accounts of the games beyond just the specific recordings.
Yes it does. Only an idiot would assume that because he used beg and question in the same clause that it's begging the question. It's been established that somebody has filed suit, consequently the fallacy that is begging the question doesn't apply.
That's not true. The Federal reserve is a private institution that is headed by federal appointees. As in the chairman and the board of governors. Last I checked Fed Ex didn't require any permission from the federal government to appoint a new CEO.
Yes and no. It's more like a monetary time share. As long as everybody doesn't want to use the condo at the same time, you can easily share it amongst 50 people a year, with each using it a week and 2 weeks for maintenance.
Same goes for money. Alice promises not to use the $1000 while the bank holds it. The bank takes that promise and the money and loans some to Bob who pays for the privilege. The bank pockets some of the money and passes the rest on to Alice.
And as long as things are orderly it works out. Obviously you have more borrowers and more depositors making it more complex. And banks don't lend out all of the money they borrow at any given time, they're required by the FDIC to hold onto a certain amount in order to pay people that want to take their money out sooner than the bank expects.
The worst case scenario is major fraud beyond what the FDIC insures or a run on the bank.
If they really were creating money out of nothing, you'd see inflation. The reason that's not the case is because you could, and in the past they did, do it with cash money. Alice would get a promissory note and Bob would get a few Benjamins or whatever. And because there's only one sum of money at any given time there is no change in the currency supply and hence no inflation or deflation caused by it.
Supply side economics has been known to be bunk for a very long time indeed. It's like the cockroach of economics theory. Keynesian economics is probably the only economic theory that's proven to be more resilient. The two theories have their place and should be retained, however they're both solutions to an unusual constellation of events.
Had Regan been President during Bush's 2001-2009 term he almost certainly would have raised taxes on the rich. The reason I say that is the year after he gave the rich the biggest tax cut in the nations history, he recognized that he'd gone to far and raised the tax rate a bit. It was still significantly lower than what it had been, but he admitted that it had gone a bit too far for the good of the nation.
Considering how many conservatives have forgotten that Regan had done that, I would be shocked if they give up on supply side economics anytime soon. In the same way that it'll be a shock if the conservatives admit that IVF kills more embryos than stem cell research and that global warming is real and man made. It just isn't compatible with the stubborn refuse to change attitude that has come to characterize the conservative movement of the US.
Probably because there is no logic to it. There's been a considerable amount of conservative anger about proposals in the US to require that companies book their profits in the US before they're allowed to book their losses here. The reason being that they'd been able to get deductions without having to pay taxes here, in effect subsidizing the investments they were making in other countries without providing the US tax payers doing the subsidizing with any benefits.
And really of the proposed ways of handling the problem, it's probably the most moderate as corporations would still be allowed to not book profits from overseas operations in the US, they just wouldn't be allowed to offset domestic profits with overseas losses.
There's a reason for that. The anti-tax folks don't want to name the cuts they'd make in order for it to work out to a balanced budget. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with wanting low taxes, but there is something inherently wrong with Bush/Regan style tax cuts which not only aren't backed by spending cuts, but are really backed by spending increases of a substantial amount. At some point somebody has to find the money and it seems to usually end up in the lap of the Democratic party. The alternative being at some point defaulting on the loans.
Most of the folks complaining about the tax burden are unwilling to allow the spending which is focused on benefiting them to be cut. It's easy to call for cuts when the cuts don't affect you but quite a bit harder to actually be the one to make the sacrifice. Likewise it's easier to cut programs that you don't expect to need than ones that you do expect to need. And easier to cut things you hope to never need than the ones you hope to someday need.
You do realize that Bush was probably the most notable proponent of spontaneous wealth generation that the country has ever known, right? The lock box was Gore's thing, and I don't recall the specifics, but it was kind of moot as he wasn't allowed to take office.
Bush OTOH ran this country into the ground by cutting taxes on the wealthiest on the basis that they would do more investing, even as he blew up the DoD budget to gigantic proportions and ran the debt up to somewhere around $10tn.
At least with Gore and the lockbox we don't really know precisely what he meant. And with good reason, the conservatives get away with that crap all the time, and the Democrats haven't been doing themselves any favors allowing the conservatives to do it. Not sure stooping to that level is wise, but the voters seem dumb enough to fall for it.
What you have to realize is that most economists aren't very smart, and they don't really know much about their own field. For instance the great recession wasn't foreseen by more than a handful of them. And the federal reserve is being run by people who think that growth in the economy can't occur withotu inflation and that you can avoid a period of stagnation without a recession/depression. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that, once there's been excessive valuation being formed, you get stagnation or you get a bubble bursting, ultimately it's one, the other or both.
This is a manufactured view of reality based upon the myth of globalization. We were promised that globalization would improve our lives, and quite frankly, it's obvious to anybody with half a mind that it hasn't worked out that way. Corporations have moved their operations offshore, produce products which are dangerous because it would be too costly to ensure otherwise and there's been little flow of goods in the opposite direction because tariffs to remedy trade imbalances are prohibited by the WTO.
Just because we've signed onto agreements like that which have distorted the markets and encouraged corporations to behave in this fashion does not mean that it is good to eliminate corporate taxes. In fact it's counter productive because corporate tax deductions are the best way of steering the economy that we ever had. It allowed us to take a more moderate approach rather than banning or requiring specific approaches in dealing with problems.