The problem isn't just on the spending side of the books (incidentally, funny how conservatives NEVER criticise wasteful spending on defence or subsidies to business who don't need them). There's a cashflow problem, due to falling tax revenues, due in part to drunken idiots on Wall Street crashing the economy, and drunken idiots in Congress voting for goodies like tax cuts that nobody can afford.
In constant dollars, the Federal Government is receiving approximately the same funding today as it did in the "hey days" of the late 1990s (1997/1998). And over twice per capita - again in constant dollars - as back in the golden years of the 50s (about $6600 per capita today, versus $3000 in the late 50s).
It's really not a revenue problem, and it's not really a spending problem - is a scope issue. The Federal Government is attempting to do so much more than it has in the past, and thus spending is massively increased - and revenue demand by this much larger Federal Government is well beyond historical levels.
The ones that turned a budget surplus into a deficit?
Whilst we had a "budget surplus", we were, in fact, still running up the debt. The national debt has not decreased since the Eisenhower Administration, back in 1957. So while many decry the whole "deficits don't matter" statement, the fact is actually true - a budget deficit or surplus is immaterial, as you can run a surplus on budget and still have your debt increase.
Now be honest, the Democrats in Congress voted - UNANIMOUSLY - against the President's budget as well. The House (who is supposed to originate spending bills) has passed several budgets - and the Senate, led by Harry Reid (D) has refused to even allow debate, let alone a vote, on the budget.
And national budgets that are, on average, worse than the US. Not that the US is a shining example of success, but one needs look no further than Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, or France to see imminent (or current) collapse.
Medicare/Medicaid are already the largest portion of the Federal budget, eclipsing the entire DOD budget (including war costs - which are, actually, on-book).
How about this - assuming you're a programmer, you're no longer allowed to innovate anything related to software or code or instructions that can be executed by a machine of any sort. Now, go forth and innovate and be a market leader.
You asked what computer I could repair while traveling. I told you. Apparently you want to change your question now since your premise (no computers can be fixed when traveling) was shot. As far as a MacBook Air and OSX - sorry, I require a larger screen and Windows to actually get real work done - like designing new laptops and computer/CE peripherals. There simply isn't any serious CAD or PCB design software available for OSX, and the tiny screen is not suited to such tasks anyway.
I repaired my old Dell D505 several times whilst on the road - new keyboard, battery, RAM, HDD, and even backlight inverter. Usually when I was somewhere in Asia. Retired that thing 3 years ago, and so far my new HP hasn't had a problem... It's definitely easy to repair things on the road provided you have a few screwdrivers, the will/resourcefulness to engage the local spare-parts community, and nothing proprietary.
What about power? I have spent the last 15 years traveling with my work, working out of cafes, coffee shops, bars, planes, trains, and automobiles, beaches, and basements. I am incredibly conscious of size and weight because I cary my laptop everywhere, every day. If I'm outside my laptop is on my shoulder or back. 3 punds is the breakpoint. Less than 3 pounds and you can carry it everywhere all day and not notice you've got it. Above that it becomes a problem.
Unless you have severe medical limitations, I suggest you save that $500 premium you're going to spend on an ultra-lightweight laptop and buy a bike or gym membership. If you can't handle carrying around 4-5 pounds, there's something seriously wrong...
If it's like Windows 7, then it does. You just need the Pro or Enterprise version to have virtual PCs. I use the Virtual XP PC all the time within Windows 7 to run some old software that won't work on my 64 bit machine - but runs great in a virtual 32 bit XP machine.
You mean investing that cash horde into other funds, stocks of other companies (liquidity for those who need it), and dividends back to the owners of the company are a bad thing? And what claim does anyone who does NOT work for nor own a chunk of Microsoft have on their money?
In the US, small business is THE engine that drives things. It's something like 20:1, small business to big business, in terms of new net jobs creation. And small, new businesses rarely can get enough credit to make major purchases - savings from cashflow was really the only option available.
Not really. It used some Government tax dollars in an escrow account to pay back some of its Government loans. And the Government has lost billions on GM stock. So we gave GM some money, we got some stock. GM used some of that Government money to pay back Government loans, and the Government sold some of the stock at a loss. Not even close to paying all of it back.
For the last 10 years, the Washington State revenues have increased beyond the rate of inflation plus population growth. There are plenty of revenues coming in to cover the increase in delivery of services AND the increase in the number of people using those services. What has NOT matched the growth of revenues is spending - the Legislature consistently spends even more, adding new programs and wasting money (see the current Seattle Times article about wasted money on expensive SUVs) with glee. The State does not have a revenue problem; it has a significant spending problem, and cranking more dollars into Olympia will not solve the issue.
Hmm... When I ran my business savings was critical. It allowed me to purchase new lathes and mills and other tools to get the business growing faster, and I made a nice net profit when I sold it several years later (mainly because it was a fully-equipped manufacturing facility without any debt or lease payments). But I know, it's better to spend what you don't have than use what you do - it's the American Way!
Slashdot Mirror
Conservatives spent more money during the Bush administration (2001-2007) then President Obama did in his entire term in office.
Just to clarify. You're complaining that in 6 years spending was higher in one Administration than in 3 years of the subsequent Administration.
How is this surprising, really? Now choose any 3 year period between 2001 and 2007, and compare it to any 3 year period of the Obama Administration...
The problem isn't just on the spending side of the books (incidentally, funny how conservatives NEVER criticise wasteful spending on defence or subsidies to business who don't need them). There's a cashflow problem, due to falling tax revenues, due in part to drunken idiots on Wall Street crashing the economy, and drunken idiots in Congress voting for goodies like tax cuts that nobody can afford.
In constant dollars, the Federal Government is receiving approximately the same funding today as it did in the "hey days" of the late 1990s (1997/1998). And over twice per capita - again in constant dollars - as back in the golden years of the 50s (about $6600 per capita today, versus $3000 in the late 50s).
It's really not a revenue problem, and it's not really a spending problem - is a scope issue. The Federal Government is attempting to do so much more than it has in the past, and thus spending is massively increased - and revenue demand by this much larger Federal Government is well beyond historical levels.
The ones that turned a budget surplus into a deficit?
Whilst we had a "budget surplus", we were, in fact, still running up the debt. The national debt has not decreased since the Eisenhower Administration, back in 1957. So while many decry the whole "deficits don't matter" statement, the fact is actually true - a budget deficit or surplus is immaterial, as you can run a surplus on budget and still have your debt increase.
Source: National Debt to the Penny
Now be honest, the Democrats in Congress voted - UNANIMOUSLY - against the President's budget as well. The House (who is supposed to originate spending bills) has passed several budgets - and the Senate, led by Harry Reid (D) has refused to even allow debate, let alone a vote, on the budget.
The government can spend money it didn't get from citizens by issuing bonds.
Or in the case of the Federal Government, simply running the printing press - no bonds really required.
The facts are otherwise: "Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks ... tends to give most of its money to Democrats."
But a cookie-flavored donut would freaking ROCK...
Most people would not consider 10% of the market a significant slice...
it really burns you that apple is the biggest company in the world
Not even close. Many companies have more employees and more revenue, and even more profit.
with the best-selling phone
Sorry, Samsung Galaxy series is the best-selling smartphone.
with the greatest customer satisfaction,
SONOS, among other CE companies, has a greater customer satisfaction rating.
Suck it
Yes, indeed!
And national budgets that are, on average, worse than the US. Not that the US is a shining example of success, but one needs look no further than Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, or France to see imminent (or current) collapse.
Medicare/Medicaid are already the largest portion of the Federal budget, eclipsing the entire DOD budget (including war costs - which are, actually, on-book).
How about this - assuming you're a programmer, you're no longer allowed to innovate anything related to software or code or instructions that can be executed by a machine of any sort. Now, go forth and innovate and be a market leader.
Because her OWN FUCKING STATEMENT about wanting to export the product backs up the clerk's contention.
You asked what computer I could repair while traveling. I told you. Apparently you want to change your question now since your premise (no computers can be fixed when traveling) was shot. As far as a MacBook Air and OSX - sorry, I require a larger screen and Windows to actually get real work done - like designing new laptops and computer/CE peripherals. There simply isn't any serious CAD or PCB design software available for OSX, and the tiny screen is not suited to such tasks anyway.
I repaired my old Dell D505 several times whilst on the road - new keyboard, battery, RAM, HDD, and even backlight inverter. Usually when I was somewhere in Asia. Retired that thing 3 years ago, and so far my new HP hasn't had a problem... It's definitely easy to repair things on the road provided you have a few screwdrivers, the will/resourcefulness to engage the local spare-parts community, and nothing proprietary.
What about power? I have spent the last 15 years traveling with my work, working out of cafes, coffee shops, bars, planes, trains, and automobiles, beaches, and basements. I am incredibly conscious of size and weight because I cary my laptop everywhere, every day. If I'm outside my laptop is on my shoulder or back. 3 punds is the breakpoint. Less than 3 pounds and you can carry it everywhere all day and not notice you've got it. Above that it becomes a problem.
Unless you have severe medical limitations, I suggest you save that $500 premium you're going to spend on an ultra-lightweight laptop and buy a bike or gym membership. If you can't handle carrying around 4-5 pounds, there's something seriously wrong...
If it's like Windows 7, then it does. You just need the Pro or Enterprise version to have virtual PCs. I use the Virtual XP PC all the time within Windows 7 to run some old software that won't work on my 64 bit machine - but runs great in a virtual 32 bit XP machine.
He's a teacher, not a priest...
Not that anger scales well...
You mean investing that cash horde into other funds, stocks of other companies (liquidity for those who need it), and dividends back to the owners of the company are a bad thing? And what claim does anyone who does NOT work for nor own a chunk of Microsoft have on their money?
In the US, small business is THE engine that drives things. It's something like 20:1, small business to big business, in terms of new net jobs creation. And small, new businesses rarely can get enough credit to make major purchases - savings from cashflow was really the only option available.
Didn't Gm pay almost all of it back.
Not really. It used some Government tax dollars in an escrow account to pay back some of its Government loans. And the Government has lost billions on GM stock. So we gave GM some money, we got some stock. GM used some of that Government money to pay back Government loans, and the Government sold some of the stock at a loss. Not even close to paying all of it back.
For the last 10 years, the Washington State revenues have increased beyond the rate of inflation plus population growth. There are plenty of revenues coming in to cover the increase in delivery of services AND the increase in the number of people using those services. What has NOT matched the growth of revenues is spending - the Legislature consistently spends even more, adding new programs and wasting money (see the current Seattle Times article about wasted money on expensive SUVs) with glee. The State does not have a revenue problem; it has a significant spending problem, and cranking more dollars into Olympia will not solve the issue.
Hmm... When I ran my business savings was critical. It allowed me to purchase new lathes and mills and other tools to get the business growing faster, and I made a nice net profit when I sold it several years later (mainly because it was a fully-equipped manufacturing facility without any debt or lease payments). But I know, it's better to spend what you don't have than use what you do - it's the American Way!
Find me a politician or a judge who does not have a lawyer background - very few and far between!