Beyond reason eh? I have two words for you... wireless Wireless. Think about it, no more messy cables running to/from your wireless access points. We can give it a new snazzy buzzword too, like Wireless squared or something!
But the earth clock IS behind the moon clock. It just that the sign is reversed, so it is -XX.XX seconds behind. WOOT, I just invented negative time travel, someone give me a grant.
Does "true independence" even matter?
It is not necessary for someone to be "truly independent" in order for his point to be valid. The simple fact that people would consider a purchase that can be made in relative anonymity when they would not otherwise speaks to this.
Not sure where you got the idea that I am from Wisconsin (but then again I missed your link post, so we'll call it a wash)...
While informative, the linked pdf unfortunately does not break down by population density, so it is limited to observations like california has a lot of big cities and alabama doesn't. This does not necessarily prove the relationship that you claim, and your generalization certainly doesnt hold for all states (e.g. Maryland has rather high population density, yet is right up there with the red states you mentioned as a tax sink). I can certainly see the case against some of the poorer states being sinks for federal dollars, but other demographic factors could be in play as well (e.g. west virginia is one of the worst sinks but also has the third oldest population with an average age of 40.3 years). I'm not saying that what you have observed is not true in part. Again, I simply take issue with the broad generalization and accusations against all rural dwellers. I will agree with you that it is an insiduous problem though. If you polled the majority of people in these parts, I would highly doubt if more than a token percentage was even aware that there is an imbalance in the tax burden.
I played with the data at http://comparisons.choosemaryland.org/comparison/i ndex.asp which appears to decently reputable (its primary source seems to be Census Bureau data) in case you are wondering where I am grabbing the examples from.
I never said I was entitled to anything. I merely am not going to go out of my way to fix a problem that I did not facilitate in the first place. And don't make it sound as though I'm in line at the welfare counter demanding money that I didn't earn either, I pay my taxes like everyone else (and bust my ass to do so), and it gets spent on people who often times don't deserve it. I would have to look into the numbers, but it just seems like utility subsidies are not that big of an issue when compared to the bulk of the 30% or so in taxes that the government redistributes in my name.
Obviously I didnt express it adequately in my previous posts, but I do understand where you are coming from. I just take issue with your rather broad generalizations. Not everyone in rural areas is a "leach" except by your very narrow definition of utilities infrastructure. There are many more ways that money is being pulled out of your hands and given to the less worthy and its not constrained to one simple demographic, and I simply don't feel that utilities is the most important of them. You also seem to have a misconceived notion about rural areas, but contrary to your beliefs, the majority of welfare families are in urban environments (and I'll be damned, but some of that money actually comes out of my pocket), hence my objection to singling out rural dwellers as leaches. What really astounds me about your last post though (because most of your points are at least thought out) is that you seem to know so much about me, seeing as you identified me as one of "you people", when you in fact have no clue about my experiences, political leanings, or contributions to society.
But let me sum this up succinctly, so there are no further misunderstandings. I do not want your money. I do not need your money. I am not the one making you pay for part of the infrastructure in rural areas. I would have no problem with a doubling or tripling of my utility bill as I am fortunate enough to afford it. However, I am not going to just give money away to the utility companies, and I am certainly not going to take the time to advocate for something that does not negatively affect me. There are too many things that do that I feel warrant more immediate attention. And that is what it comes down to, utilities subsidation is just not that big of a deal in terms of the money that is taken from your pocket every day.
raju1kabir,
You make it sound as though I personally went out and lobbied to have you pay my utility bill. Honestly, subsidies for infrastructure in rural areas are the least of this countries problems. I would say the same thing to you that I said to Darby. If you don't like the current regulations, get them changed. I would love to see the government stop handing out money to people for poor reasons, but personally I think its a lost cause considering how large a portion of the national budget is devoted to its various forms (welfare, veteran benefits, subsidies, grants, etc). And thats not to say that all of those are bad ideas either, just that their implementations are often substandard. In the end, we all take it in the ass for people that don't pull their weight in society. I simply take issue with laying the blame at the feet of all rural dwellers.
What you were implying was that you as an urban dweller are making it possible for me the rural dweller to live in comfort because your share of the distributed cost of utilities is higher in relation to the actual utilities you consume. I then pointed out (albeit poorly) that the only reason you can even BE an urban dweller is because of the resources generated by the rural dwellers. It is YOUR choice to live in the city and absorb the extra utility costs, so quit bitching about it. You then stated a bunch of bullshit that "people living in rural areas *are* leaches. They are the primary example of the culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility." To which I replied that there are lazy people(read: leaches) in the urban environment too. It doesn't all come down to the utility bill when tallying someone up as a leach, and frankly I consider alot of the leaching that goes on in the city to be far worse. Furthermore the only evidence that you offer is the aforementioned utilities problem and farming subsidies, which hardly supports the whole "culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility" claim (hardly an unbiased statement). Hence I called them baseless. And by the way "every dollar of *yours*" is a little dramatic, unless you actually spend your entire income on electricity and heating. There will always be inconsistencies in the system. If you enjoy living in the city petition to get the regulations regarding utilities changed or deal with it. Myself, I prefer not to live there.
Sounds great but I would point out that urban environments would collapse without the rural areas providing resources. You didnt think all that food was grown in the store did you?
You also fail to factor in the economics of the situation. I can live BETTER (by my standards) for CHEAPER outside of the city. I can own a house and grow my wealth instead of renting from month to month (or purchasing imo a crappier house for the same money). I'm sorry you feel slighted by government regulations that force utilities costs to be distributed over the whole population, but that doesn't mean that I need to feel guilty, nor should I have to live somewhere I DON'T LIKE just because you feel that it will make the world better (which is very much debateable).
And don't even get me started on the whole "productive members of society" bullshit. I have seen lazy people in cities and out, and I have seen people that bust their asses on farms, in the suburbs and in the middle of the city. These accusations are baseless and biased.
Of course you have to consider the flip side. If the loser must pay, the little guy may not bring a legitimate complaint to court for fear of going bankrupt with the court costs if he loses...
Its ironic that you would use the case of Katrina, since the blame would most squarely fall on the shoulders of government for dropping the ball. Who was in charge of maintaining the levy system anyway? For evacuations?
I would also argue that people in industry would have a great deal more insight into the issue than any legislator/goverment lackey. And the investment we are talking about is not individuals betting on the stock market, but the strategic use of resources to insure the survival of a company. Companies don't just jump to a random 'stable' market, they tend to branch out into markets where their expertise can provide an advantage. In this case, alternative fuels would be a natural extension for many companies in the energy sector.
Slashdot Mirror
Beyond reason eh? I have two words for you... wireless Wireless. Think about it, no more messy cables running to/from your wireless access points. We can give it a new snazzy buzzword too, like Wireless squared or something!
The rest of the comments for this article. :D
But the earth clock IS behind the moon clock. It just that the sign is reversed, so it is -XX.XX seconds behind. WOOT, I just invented negative time travel, someone give me a grant.
Does "true independence" even matter? It is not necessary for someone to be "truly independent" in order for his point to be valid. The simple fact that people would consider a purchase that can be made in relative anonymity when they would not otherwise speaks to this.
Not sure where you got the idea that I am from Wisconsin (but then again I missed your link post, so we'll call it a wash)... While informative, the linked pdf unfortunately does not break down by population density, so it is limited to observations like california has a lot of big cities and alabama doesn't. This does not necessarily prove the relationship that you claim, and your generalization certainly doesnt hold for all states (e.g. Maryland has rather high population density, yet is right up there with the red states you mentioned as a tax sink). I can certainly see the case against some of the poorer states being sinks for federal dollars, but other demographic factors could be in play as well (e.g. west virginia is one of the worst sinks but also has the third oldest population with an average age of 40.3 years). I'm not saying that what you have observed is not true in part. Again, I simply take issue with the broad generalization and accusations against all rural dwellers. I will agree with you that it is an insiduous problem though. If you polled the majority of people in these parts, I would highly doubt if more than a token percentage was even aware that there is an imbalance in the tax burden. I played with the data at http://comparisons.choosemaryland.org/comparison/i ndex.asp which appears to decently reputable (its primary source seems to be Census Bureau data) in case you are wondering where I am grabbing the examples from.
Where to begin....
I never said I was entitled to anything. I merely am not going to go out of my way to fix a problem that I did not facilitate in the first place. And don't make it sound as though I'm in line at the welfare counter demanding money that I didn't earn either, I pay my taxes like everyone else (and bust my ass to do so), and it gets spent on people who often times don't deserve it. I would have to look into the numbers, but it just seems like utility subsidies are not that big of an issue when compared to the bulk of the 30% or so in taxes that the government redistributes in my name.
Obviously I didnt express it adequately in my previous posts, but I do understand where you are coming from. I just take issue with your rather broad generalizations. Not everyone in rural areas is a "leach" except by your very narrow definition of utilities infrastructure. There are many more ways that money is being pulled out of your hands and given to the less worthy and its not constrained to one simple demographic, and I simply don't feel that utilities is the most important of them. You also seem to have a misconceived notion about rural areas, but contrary to your beliefs, the majority of welfare families are in urban environments (and I'll be damned, but some of that money actually comes out of my pocket), hence my objection to singling out rural dwellers as leaches. What really astounds me about your last post though (because most of your points are at least thought out) is that you seem to know so much about me, seeing as you identified me as one of "you people", when you in fact have no clue about my experiences, political leanings, or contributions to society.
But let me sum this up succinctly, so there are no further misunderstandings. I do not want your money. I do not need your money. I am not the one making you pay for part of the infrastructure in rural areas. I would have no problem with a doubling or tripling of my utility bill as I am fortunate enough to afford it. However, I am not going to just give money away to the utility companies, and I am certainly not going to take the time to advocate for something that does not negatively affect me. There are too many things that do that I feel warrant more immediate attention. And that is what it comes down to, utilities subsidation is just not that big of a deal in terms of the money that is taken from your pocket every day.
raju1kabir, You make it sound as though I personally went out and lobbied to have you pay my utility bill. Honestly, subsidies for infrastructure in rural areas are the least of this countries problems. I would say the same thing to you that I said to Darby. If you don't like the current regulations, get them changed. I would love to see the government stop handing out money to people for poor reasons, but personally I think its a lost cause considering how large a portion of the national budget is devoted to its various forms (welfare, veteran benefits, subsidies, grants, etc). And thats not to say that all of those are bad ideas either, just that their implementations are often substandard. In the end, we all take it in the ass for people that don't pull their weight in society. I simply take issue with laying the blame at the feet of all rural dwellers.
What you were implying was that you as an urban dweller are making it possible for me the rural dweller to live in comfort because your share of the distributed cost of utilities is higher in relation to the actual utilities you consume. I then pointed out (albeit poorly) that the only reason you can even BE an urban dweller is because of the resources generated by the rural dwellers. It is YOUR choice to live in the city and absorb the extra utility costs, so quit bitching about it. You then stated a bunch of bullshit that "people living in rural areas *are* leaches. They are the primary example of the culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility." To which I replied that there are lazy people(read: leaches) in the urban environment too. It doesn't all come down to the utility bill when tallying someone up as a leach, and frankly I consider alot of the leaching that goes on in the city to be far worse. Furthermore the only evidence that you offer is the aforementioned utilities problem and farming subsidies, which hardly supports the whole "culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility" claim (hardly an unbiased statement). Hence I called them baseless. And by the way "every dollar of *yours*" is a little dramatic, unless you actually spend your entire income on electricity and heating. There will always be inconsistencies in the system. If you enjoy living in the city petition to get the regulations regarding utilities changed or deal with it. Myself, I prefer not to live there.
Sounds great but I would point out that urban environments would collapse without the rural areas providing resources. You didnt think all that food was grown in the store did you? You also fail to factor in the economics of the situation. I can live BETTER (by my standards) for CHEAPER outside of the city. I can own a house and grow my wealth instead of renting from month to month (or purchasing imo a crappier house for the same money). I'm sorry you feel slighted by government regulations that force utilities costs to be distributed over the whole population, but that doesn't mean that I need to feel guilty, nor should I have to live somewhere I DON'T LIKE just because you feel that it will make the world better (which is very much debateable). And don't even get me started on the whole "productive members of society" bullshit. I have seen lazy people in cities and out, and I have seen people that bust their asses on farms, in the suburbs and in the middle of the city. These accusations are baseless and biased.
Of course you have to consider the flip side. If the loser must pay, the little guy may not bring a legitimate complaint to court for fear of going bankrupt with the court costs if he loses...
Its ironic that you would use the case of Katrina, since the blame would most squarely fall on the shoulders of government for dropping the ball. Who was in charge of maintaining the levy system anyway? For evacuations?
I would also argue that people in industry would have a great deal more insight into the issue than any legislator/goverment lackey. And the investment we are talking about is not individuals betting on the stock market, but the strategic use of resources to insure the survival of a company. Companies don't just jump to a random 'stable' market, they tend to branch out into markets where their expertise can provide an advantage. In this case, alternative fuels would be a natural extension for many companies in the energy sector.