I was walking down the street the other day and I was thinking to myself: What if they made so that if you owned your house at 65 you could not be foreclosed or forced out of your house for any reason. Also what if they made it so that the utility companies could not shut your utilities down(water, sewage, gas, electricity NOT phone/internet/TV) in this situation as well? wouldn't that solve a lot of problems? I'm just kinda throwing this off the top of my head.
I don't know, but until I see some numbers I will vote to err on the side of compassion.
Much like how I would see a hundred guilty men go free before I would jail a single innocent, I would keep every entitlement program we have before I would see a single undeserving person on the street.
Much like how I would see a hundred guilty men go free before I would jail a single innocent, I would keep every entitlement program we have before I would see a single undeserving person on the street.
Agreed, on both counts. And I've even written my congressman saying such, and letting him know that I don't mind (and would encourage) taxes being raised if necessary.
I was walking down the street the other day and I was thinking to myself: What if they made so that if you owned your house at 65 you could not be foreclosed or forced out of your house for any reason. Also what if they made it so that the utility companies could not shut your utilities down(water, sewage, gas, electricity NOT phone/internet/TV) in this situation as well? wouldn't that solve a lot of problems? I'm just kinda throwing this off the top of my head.
And suddenly brokerages start refusing to fund 30-year mortgages to anyone over 35. Also, every senior in America would suddenly view free utilities as an entitlement because it would essentially become a voluntary tax. This would only push the tax burden down on the young. It's also age-based discrimination by the government.
As I suffer w/o power at home (though I can get on the forums at work), I've noticed that all the privately-owned power companies in my area are taking forever to restore power, whereas the municipal (AKA government-run) power companies are just running along smoothly. Some of that may be due to having a smaller service area, but still, it does make you wonder about the competence of private industry relative to government run organizations, at least when it comes to certain areas.
As I suffer w/o power at home (though I can get on the forums at work), I've noticed that all the privately-owned power companies in my area are taking forever to restore power, whereas the municipal (AKA government-run) power companies are just running along smoothly. Some of that may be due to having a smaller service area, but still, it does make you wonder about the competence of private industry relative to government run organizations, at least when it comes to certain areas.
WHAT?!!!
I thought that private industry was always, ALWAYS better than government at everything.
As I suffer w/o power at home (though I can get on the forums at work), I've noticed that all the privately-owned power companies in my area are taking forever to restore power, whereas the municipal (AKA government-run) power companies are just running along smoothly. Some of that may be due to having a smaller service area, but still, it does make you wonder about the competence of private industry relative to government run organizations, at least when it comes to certain areas.
I'd be interested in reading more about this sort of thing. There are certain things government does really well, but I've always thought it was due to the scale of the thing (NASA funding computer research, current government funded biological and technological research, and things like the FDA/CDC come to mind) rather than because of efficiency of government. I'd be willing to bet electrical grids get more complex to fix by some sort of order of magnitude, so the private companies might have a far more difficult job.
I'd be interested in reading more about this sort of thing. There are certain things government does really well, but I've always thought it was due to the scale of the thing (NASA funding computer research, current government funded biological and technological research, and things like the FDA/CDC come to mind) rather than because of efficiency of government.
Here's an example. Say a power company is wholly private. Do they have a vested interest in reducing consumer power consumption? Or increasing it (thereby expanding their business and driving prices up). Their bottom line is profits: power is simply a means to this end.
Let's say that same job is run by the government. What is their bottom line? Ideally, efficiency and the service (power) itself. They have a heavily vested interest in reducing consumer use of their "product," which is an undeniable boon to society as a whole.
Some things need government competition. Private businesses should be perfectly able to compete, but the government sets a baseline, nevermind the regulatory rules. Power generation, power distribution, water sanitization and distribution/collection, shipping/post, basic medical care, functional education, and Internet access are, in my opinion, fundamental and necessary services. Good government should provide all of these while not preventing private industry from attempting to compete.
Here's an example. Say a power company is wholly private. Do they have a vested interest in reducing consumer power consumption? Or increasing it (thereby expanding their business and driving prices up). Their bottom line is profits: power is simply a means to this end.
Let's say that same job is run by the government. What is their bottom line? Ideally, efficiency and the service (power) itself. They have a heavily vested interest in reducing consumer use of their "product," which is an undeniable boon to society as a whole.
Some things need government competition. Private businesses should be perfectly able to compete, but the government sets a baseline, nevermind the regulatory rules. Power generation, power distribution, water sanitization and distribution/collection, shipping/post, basic medical care, functional education, and Internet access are, in my opinion, fundamental and necessary services. Good government should provide all of these while not preventing private industry from attempting to compete.
Thanks, that's a very concise way of putting it and explains the need for government in that realm. I can see that easily spreading into the realm of Internet provision too. Right now the best things for companies that provide internet to do is get more people hooked on it and figure out new ways to monetize usage. There's not a ton of effective competition in a lot of local regions (if you don't count satellite).
Of the current GOP candidates, at least those that appeared in yesterdays debate, the only person that is halfway to a human being is Jon Huntsman. Unfortunately, he polls way too badly to be nominated and has no appeal to the GOP base.
The candidate I'm somewhat scared about is Perry, due to his charisma. He is a grade a loon and an utter embecile though. This can be quite the advantage, but could turn bad if Perry pulls another Bush tactic of "I'm just like you [voters]" and the american people fall for it again (which is unfortunately not out of the question).
Not very happy with Obama's presidencey, but another 4 years of Obama are about 100 times more preferable to anybody the Republicans are going to nominate. Here I stand crossing my fingers and clicking my heals twice that the Democratic Party will grow a backbone in the next couple of years. You know, hope dies last.
Obama could have closed down Guantanamo Bay. He did not. Obama could have, very reasonably, put an end to both wars and american troops overseas. He has done major steps towards it, but he hasn't fulfilled it yet. Obama could have ended all the freaking "faith-based initiative" crap. He did not. Obama could have taken down the PATRIOT ACT. He did not. Obama promised a more open government for the U.S. and he certainly did not deliver on that. Obama could have whipped the Democrats into shape and made them push through with everything that the new Healthcare in the U.S. should have been, and instead the Democrats crumbled and the health care is a joke and will probably be repealed anyway for some arbitrary reason. etc.
Additionally, Obama's administration has continued unconstitutional acts such as the abuse of prisoners, curtailing the freedom of the press and engaged in military action for which he did not have the authority (though congress probably would have granted him).
That Obama is likely the best the left has to offer is probably true, but still bad because he could do so much better than he has so far. Your statement is a sad reflection of reality.
Obama could have closed down Guantanamo Bay. He did not.
But he has taken steps towards it, and it's not like he can just open the gates and say "see you later, fellas", you gotta have somewhere to put the fuckers you have there - these places do not spring up overnight, and I recall making an argument here as to why his slowness at building and renovating replacements was unreasonable to attack.
Obama could have, very reasonably, put an end to both wars and american troops overseas. He has done major steps towards it, but he hasn't fulfilled it yet.
Shit takes time. You can't just yank out an army so dug in they have a fucking infrastructure overnight.
Obama could have taken down the PATRIOT ACT. He did not.
I'll say this. Obama has clearly failed to use his most valuable asset to fight for the American people. His charisma and the bully pulpit. I'm upset that he hasn't been more vocal in fighting for what he campaigned for and honestly, it's become clear that he has failed at playing the game of politics.
Obama could have closed down Guantanamo Bay. He did not.
But he has taken steps towards it, and it's not like he can just open the gates and say "see you later, fellas", you gotta have somewhere to put the fuckers you have there - these places do not spring up overnight, and I recall making an argument here as to why his slowness at building and renovating replacements was unreasonable to attack.
You have federal prisons inside the united states that these people could be transferred to and they could finally be tried. However, apparently the Obama administration has continued the degrading treatment of federal prisoners (as documented in a link I posted above) or at least not done anything about it. In fact some Republicans in yesterdays debate commended Obama for not closing down Guantanamo.
Obama could have, very reasonably, put an end to both wars and american troops overseas. He has done major steps towards it, but he hasn't fulfilled it yet.
Shit takes time. You can't just yank out an army so dug in they have a fucking infrastructure overnight.
It's been two and a half years and things could be a lot farther along than they are.
Obama could have taken down the PATRIOT ACT. He did not.
Can he? I thought that was a senate thing.
Yes, he could. It is federal legislation which requires either the signature or a veto of the president. Obama signed the extension of the PATRIOT Act in May of this year. He could have simply vetoed this shit.
You have federal prisons inside the united states that these people could be transferred to and they could finally be tried. However, apparently the Obama administration has continued the degrading treatment of federal prisoners (as documented in a link I posted above) or at least not done anything about it.
Every state refused to let the prisoners be transferred there and raised a ruckus. Individual congressmen on both sides of the aisle did the same.
He could have simply vetoed this shit.
THIS is my only complaint with Obama: he is a good president by all reasonable measures of a modern US president, but he never does the one thing I shall always hope for and Buzz Aldrin his opponents.
You have federal prisons inside the united states that these people could be transferred to and they could finally be tried. However, apparently the Obama administration has continued the degrading treatment of federal prisoners (as documented in a link I posted above) or at least not done anything about it. In fact some Republicans in yesterdays debate commended Obama for not closing down Guantanamo.
Do you not recall that when this was proposed all of the Congressmen and Senators that SCREAMED that you can't let terrorists on American soil? Or that the Senate voted to keep the prisoners in Guantanamo? Here let me link to it for you
It's been two and a half years and things could be a lot farther along than they are.
There are contracts, between the US and Iraq/Afganistan and between the US and private companies that have to be maintained. The current President is bound by a lot of the policies of the previous Presidents.
Obama could have taken down the PATRIOT ACT. He did not.
Can he? I thought that was a senate thing.
Yes, he could. It is federal legislation which requires either the signature or a veto of the president. Obama signed the extension of the PATRIOT Act in May of this year. He could have simply vetoed this shit.
Sure he could have, but there is a lot more around it. Apparently the extension you're talking about is only a small portion of the whole Patriot Act, The vast majority of it is permanent law. It doesn't help that the Senate got nearly 3/4ths to vote yea for it. IIRC it wouldn't take much more for it be law without the President's signature.
It would be a good thing to remember that the President is only the executor of the law, he does not make it. He is bound by it. He can do nothing about the Patriot Act because it is federal law, he has to execute it in good faith. If he does not Congress can take action against him. The same goes for a great of the things that people generally say the President should just "Do" or "Fix". He is not a dictator. He does not have a huge amount of unilateral powers.
As for him pushing the dems and making getting the laws pushed through that we'd like, you forget that it takes one Senator, just one, to halt ANY legislation. And by and large they hasn't been enough Democrats to break that filibuster.
but he never does the one thing I shall always hope for and Buzz Aldrin his opponents.
I also would have liked a greater use of the bully pulpit. The opposition is going to hate you anyway - you might as well give them a reason to do so.
I'm not happy with Obama, but I'm not dissatisfied either. I recognize the sheer difficulty of dealing with a lot of the challenges that have been dealt with, so while the compromises that have been made stick badly in my craw, progress is still progress.
It's been two and a half years and things could be a lot farther along than they are.
I'm not a huge military buff, but I'm pretty sure that reducing operations in a foreign theater is way more complex than "Get the hell out!"
This is a real campaign ad. It is also up on Ron Pauls own channel, though I'm using a different mirror: This ad proves more about the insanity of Ron Paul than anything about Rick Perry (though Perry is also completely nuts). Really? Tie someone a noose for supporting Al Gore's presidential campaign after the absolute disaster that was the presidency of Bush Jr? Really?
Okay, apparently the ad is about the 1988 presidential campaign, rather than the 2000 campaign. But still what the fuck?
Sure you do. Just nuke the desert until the sand turns to glass. It'll make it much easier to find the oil that way!
Fallout would keep anyone from going there for half a century at least. Note that today's bombs are much, much bigger than the ones we used over Japan, and while reconstruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki began relatively immediately (four years, with no environmental testing until construction began), everything we know now says that it shouldn't have.
Sure you do. Just nuke the desert until the sand turns to glass. It'll make it much easier to find the oil that way!
Fallout would keep anyone from going there for half a century at least. Note that today's bombs are much, much bigger than the ones we used over Japan, and while reconstruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki began relatively immediately (four years, with no environmental testing until construction began), everything we know now says that it shouldn't have.
They're bigger, true, but that doesn't necessarily mean the amount of fallout will be that much bigger. It all depends on what percentage of the explosion comes from the relatively clean fusion component vs. the dirtier fission component (most modern nukes have multiple stages of fission and fusion that feed into each other to jack up the overall yield). Given how I think most of the details are classified, we really can't say for certain (plus I'm not a nuclear physicist anyway).
Of course, I was just quoting Howard Stern's statement about "turning the desert to glass to find the oil more easily" anyway and wasn't serious.
Sure you do. Just nuke the desert until the sand turns to glass. It'll make it much easier to find the oil that way!
Fallout would keep anyone from going there for half a century at least. Note that today's bombs are much, much bigger than the ones we used over Japan, and while reconstruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki began relatively immediately (four years, with no environmental testing until construction began), everything we know now says that it shouldn't have.
DUDE. no worries. I beat Fallout 3 AND New Vegas. No problem. drop the nukes. Send me fallout, I will beat it for you. Then we walk around looking down through the glass floor for the oil.
Sure you do. Just nuke the desert until the sand turns to glass. It'll make it much easier to find the oil that way!
Fallout would keep anyone from going there for half a century at least. Note that today's bombs are much, much bigger than the ones we used over Japan, and while reconstruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki began relatively immediately (four years, with no environmental testing until construction began), everything we know now says that it shouldn't have.
DUDE. no worries. I beat Fallout 3 AND New Vegas. No problem. drop the nukes. Send me fallout, I will beat it for you. Then we walk around looking down through the glass floor for the oil.
This is Fallout 1, modded so that you are naked and only have a lead pipe in your inventory. Every NPC and creature is an aggroed invulnerable Deathclaw.
Modern airbursting nukes are relatively clean, compared to the bombs dropped on Japan. The only reason there would have been a lot of fallout in a Cold War nuclear exchange was all the groundbursting nukes used to take out underground missile silos.
Comments
I thought that private industry was always, ALWAYS better than government at everything.
Let's say that same job is run by the government. What is their bottom line? Ideally, efficiency and the service (power) itself. They have a heavily vested interest in reducing consumer use of their "product," which is an undeniable boon to society as a whole.
Some things need government competition. Private businesses should be perfectly able to compete, but the government sets a baseline, nevermind the regulatory rules. Power generation, power distribution, water sanitization and distribution/collection, shipping/post, basic medical care, functional education, and Internet access are, in my opinion, fundamental and necessary services. Good government should provide all of these while not preventing private industry from attempting to compete.
The candidate I'm somewhat scared about is Perry, due to his charisma. He is a grade a loon and an utter embecile though. This can be quite the advantage, but could turn bad if Perry pulls another Bush tactic of "I'm just like you [voters]" and the american people fall for it again (which is unfortunately not out of the question).
Not very happy with Obama's presidencey, but another 4 years of Obama are about 100 times more preferable to anybody the Republicans are going to nominate. Here I stand crossing my fingers and clicking my heals twice that the Democratic Party will grow a backbone in the next couple of years. You know, hope dies last.
a) any reasonable candidate on Earth would have done differently
b) Obama himself had any control over
?
The reality is that a president like Obama is pretty-much the best the left is likely to muster in the next decades.
Obama could have, very reasonably, put an end to both wars and american troops overseas. He has done major steps towards it, but he hasn't fulfilled it yet.
Obama could have ended all the freaking "faith-based initiative" crap. He did not.
Obama could have taken down the PATRIOT ACT. He did not.
Obama promised a more open government for the U.S. and he certainly did not deliver on that.
Obama could have whipped the Democrats into shape and made them push through with everything that the new Healthcare in the U.S. should have been, and instead the Democrats crumbled and the health care is a joke and will probably be repealed anyway for some arbitrary reason.
etc.
Additionally, Obama's administration has continued unconstitutional acts such as the abuse of prisoners, curtailing the freedom of the press and engaged in military action for which he did not have the authority (though congress probably would have granted him).
That Obama is likely the best the left has to offer is probably true, but still bad because he could do so much better than he has so far. Your statement is a sad reflection of reality.
I'll say this. Obama has clearly failed to use his most valuable asset to fight for the American people. His charisma and the bully pulpit. I'm upset that he hasn't been more vocal in fighting for what he campaigned for and honestly, it's become clear that he has failed at playing the game of politics.
It would be a good thing to remember that the President is only the executor of the law, he does not make it. He is bound by it. He can do nothing about the Patriot Act because it is federal law, he has to execute it in good faith. If he does not Congress can take action against him. The same goes for a great of the things that people generally say the President should just "Do" or "Fix". He is not a dictator. He does not have a huge amount of unilateral powers.
As for him pushing the dems and making getting the laws pushed through that we'd like, you forget that it takes one Senator, just one, to halt ANY legislation. And by and large they hasn't been enough Democrats to break that filibuster.
I'm not happy with Obama, but I'm not dissatisfied either. I recognize the sheer difficulty of dealing with a lot of the challenges that have been dealt with, so while the compromises that have been made stick badly in my craw, progress is still progress. I'm not a huge military buff, but I'm pretty sure that reducing operations in a foreign theater is way more complex than "Get the hell out!"
This ad proves more about the insanity of Ron Paul than anything about Rick Perry (though Perry is also completely nuts). Really? Tie someone a noose for supporting Al Gore's presidential campaign after the absolute disaster that was the presidency of Bush Jr? Really?
Okay, apparently the ad is about the 1988 presidential campaign, rather than the 2000 campaign. But still what the fuck?
Of course, I was just quoting Howard Stern's statement about "turning the desert to glass to find the oil more easily" anyway and wasn't serious.