>> ^lantern53:

How do you stop greed?
Isn't self-interest the same thing?
I don't think people are thinking through the logical outcomes.
Gov't can only keep you from becoming rich. It can't keep you from becoming poor.
Do you really want the gov't to determine your paycheck?


No, greed and self-interest are not the same. One could have said forty years ago, "How do you stop hate?" and yet here we are, things have steadily improved, for different ethnic and religious groups.

The rest of your post is rather idiotic. The wealth distribution in Sweden is far better than in the U.S. so apparently through effective legislation the government can help the poor. It's not about giving money away, but providing services for middle and lower income people that they'd ordinarily have to pay for, medicine, daycare etc.

Lastly, it's not about the government changing anyone's paycheque, except in that the minimum wage should be raised. It's about fairer taxation and removing the moneyed interests from politics so that real people can again have a voice in the political dialogue.

>> ^M
arineGunrock:

I use a LOT of garlic when I cook, but not nearly as much as that guy. I never need to peel more than 4 or 5 cloves, so this technique isn't really all that handy for the average person, I'd say.







yea unless the average person has to all of a sudden de-velvet (my own term) forty cloves for whatever reason.

@Jinx

Here, educate yourself for free:

Forty percent of the families are on outright welfare, and many of the rest are on various equivalents of welfare that bear different names. Far below half the population is employed. There are reports of a rise in recruitment to criminal gangs — and to radical Islamic groups, too, although none of the authorities can give a clear idea of how Islam is practiced and where.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05muslims.html?pagewanted=all

>> ^marinara:

what exactly did he get wrong?
tea partiers dressed as indians to disguise themselves.
I mean it wasn't a public protest, but it was a disguise


The rest of the story from Wonkette:

Matt Yglesias explains:

Contrary to Perry’s assertion, nobody was “afraid to walk around in public” in colonial Boston out of “fear that they’d be persecuted” for objecting to high taxes. What actually happened was that “disguised men and others then went on board the tea-ships moored at Griffin’s Wharf, and in the course of three hours they emptied three hundred and forty-two chests of tea into the water of the harbor.” Apparently not all the tea partiers actually did wear disguises at all, but clearly the point of wearing disguises wasn’t generalized fear of public expression of dissent but specific fear that acts of vandalism were illegal. For all that’s changed in the subsequent 230 years, this aspect of American life is basically the same. People who want to protest peacefully do so freely, people who want to destroy other people’s property are more likely to wear masks.

No one is saying it is money well spent, except you. But that doesn't mean you can't marvel at what it is. Pyramids are a terrible example of slave labor, but they are still impressive. Governments are good at spending money, every once in awhile, the product of their spending is very impressive...even if ill conceived.

>> ^messenger:

Defending a $320 billion jet program by highlighting its efficiency?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.
The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'

You could make the same comparison in computers, or cars. This isn't a revolution in planes, but an evolution. And is still thrilling to people who love this type of thing. Why would you see an action movie, seen one seen'em all? Then answer is you like seeing them. @Jinx summed it up quite well, it has a huge power plant enabling supersonic flight and maintain a VERY highly stable hover state without using as much fuel. Even with that huge power plant and strange mechanical and aerodynamic arrangements to accommodate vertical abilities, manages to be "stelthy".
The beauty of some things is the combination of abilities that are normally thought to be mutually exclusive. It would be the same as a truck coming out that can carry 2 tons and still get better gas millage than a Prius, very worthy to note. If NASA came out with a new shuttle that was highly refined and enabled 4 times as much payload into space, would you knock it because "shuttles are 30 years old"?

Defending a $320 billion jet program by highlighting its efficiency?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.
The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'

You could make the same comparison in computers, or cars. This isn't a revolution in planes, but an evolution. And is still thrilling to people who love this type of thing. Why would you see an action movie, seen one seen'em all? Then answer is you like seeing them. @Jinx summed it up quite well, it has a huge power plant enabling supersonic flight and maintain a VERY highly stable hover state without using as much fuel. Even with that huge power plant and strange mechanical and aerodynamic arrangements to accommodate vertical abilities, manages to be "stelthy".
The beauty of some things is the combination of abilities that are normally thought to be mutually exclusive. It would be the same as a truck coming out that can carry 2 tons and still get better gas millage than a Prius, very worthy to note. If NASA came out with a new shuttle that was highly refined and enabled 4 times as much payload into space, would you knock it because "shuttles are 30 years old"?

>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.

So... why aren't you in there bidding on next-gen fighter development contracts?

>> ^robbersdog49:

I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.
The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'


You could make the same comparison in computers, or cars. This isn't a revolution in planes, but an evolution. And is still thrilling to people who love this type of thing. Why would you see an action movie, seen one seen'em all? Then answer is you like seeing them. @Jinx summed it up quite well, it has a huge power plant enabling supersonic flight and maintain a VERY highly stable hover state without using as much fuel. Even with that huge power plant and strange mechanical and aerodynamic arrangements to accommodate vertical abilities, manages to be "stelthy".

The beauty of some things is the combination of abilities that are normally thought to be mutually exclusive. It would be the same as a truck coming out that can carry 2 tons and still get better gas millage than a Prius, very worthy to note. If NASA came out with a new shuttle that was highly refined and enabled 4 times as much payload into space, would you knock it because "shuttles are 30 years old"?

I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.

The only reaction this video got from me was a 'why has it taken them so long to do this and why do people think it's impressive?'

If you wanted to know, you'd have found it on Google in less time than it takes to stick your foot in it even further on the Sift. You're too lazy to talk to. I'm done.>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^messenger:
Nope. You're a lazy idiot. You've been told by people who know better, and you can't even be bothered to Google it or check Wikipedia. Or maybe you think facts just obscure things.>> ^robbersdog49:
Last time I looked the UK is in Europe and I can tell you right now the period isn't the thousands separator. Where the hell are you getting this info from? I've never seen a comma used as a decimal point, not in France, Spain, Germany or Belgium (the other european countries I have actually been to). You are wrong.
I'd love to know how you're 'checking' your facts before compounding an error.


Huh?
Which bit of this don't you understand? Fact is that numerical notation is the same here in Europe (I'd write one million, two hundred and eighty two thousand three hundred and forty five pounds and sixty eight pence as £1,282,345.68). Show me how you're checking your facts and I'll show you where you're going wrong.

>> ^messenger:

Nope. You're a lazy idiot. You've been told by people who know better, and you can't even be bothered to Google it or check Wikipedia. Or maybe you think facts just obscure things.>> ^robbersdog49:
Last time I looked the UK is in Europe and I can tell you right now the period isn't the thousands separator. Where the hell are you getting this info from? I've never seen a comma used as a decimal point, not in France, Spain, Germany or Belgium (the other european countries I have actually been to). You are wrong.
I'd love to know how you're 'checking' your facts before compounding an error.



Huh?

Which bit of this don't you understand? Fact is that numerical notation is the same here in Europe (I'd write one million, two hundred and eighty two thousand three hundred and forty five pounds and sixty eight pence as £1,282,345.68). Show me how you're checking your facts and I'll show you where you're going wrong.

ETA: It seems where you're going wrong is you don't seem to know that the UK is in Europe. Well it is. I'm willing to accept that other european countries may work differently, although I've never noticed it when I've travelled in europe.

@marbles:

First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, but I used the term conspiracy theory, not conspiracy. Conspiracy theory has a separate and more strongly suggestive definition (this one from Merriam-Webster): "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

I openly acknowledge that the government of the United States has and does commit conspiracies, as you define the word. (You mentioned Operation Northwoods in a separate comment; a post on Letters of Note from few weeks ago may be of interest to you, too, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/08/possible-actions-to-provoke-harrass-or.html.) The actions described therein, and other such actions, I would aptly describe as conspiracies (were they to be enacted).

Definitions aside, my problem with posts like that of @blastido_factor is that most of their so-called conspiracies are easily debunked. They're old chestnuts. A few minutes' worth of Google searches can disprove them.

It may be helpful to distinguish between what I see as the two main "conspiracies" surrounding 9/11: (1) that 9/11 was, to put it briefly, an "inside job," and (2) that certain members of the government of the United States conspired to use the events of 9/11 as justification for a series of military actions (many of which are ongoing) against people and countries that were, in fact, uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks. The first I find no credible evidence for. The second I consider a more tenable position.


The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside?

Once again, much of what you mention can be attributed to poor communication between the FAA and the government agencies responsible for responding to the attacks (and, for that matter, between the various levels of government agencies). And again, this is one of the major criticism levied by the various 9/11 investigations. From page forty-five of the 9/11 Commission: "The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet."

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the biggest mistakes made by a lot of the conspiracy theorists who fall into the first cateory (see above) is that they judge the events of 9/11 in the context of post-9/11 security. National security, on every level, was entirely different before 9/11 than it is now. That's not to say that the possibility of this kind of attack wasn't considered within the intelligence community pre-9/11. We know that it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate). But was anyone adequately prepared to handle it? No.

In any event, when's the last time you looked at a map of Washington, DC? If you look at a satellite photo, you'll notice that the runways at Ronald Reagan airport are, literally, only a few thousand feet away from the Pentagon. Was a no-fly zone in place over Washington by 9:37 AM? I honestly don't know. But it's misleading to suggest that planes don't routinely fly near the Pentagon. They do.


And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?

In truth, I don't know enough about ballistics to speak for how well a titanium engine would withstand an impact with a reinforced wall at hundreds of miles an hour. But, if you're suggesting that a plane never hit the building, here's a short list of what you're wilfully ignoring: the clipped light poles, the damage to the power generator, the smoke trails, the hundreds of witnesses, the deaths of everyone aboard Flight 77, and the DNA evidence confirming the identities of 184 of the Pentagon's 189 fatalities (64 of which were the passengers on Flight 77).

Regarding the debris: It's misleading to claim that only small amounts of debris were recovered. This from Allyn E. Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer on the scene: "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts." In addition, there are countless photos of plane wreckage both inside and outside the building (http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+wreckage).


Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found?

You help prove my point with this one: "almost always located." Again, I'm no expert on the recovery of black boxes, but here's a point to consider: if the black boxes were within the rubble at the WTC site, you're looking to find four containers that (undamaged, nonetheless) are roughly the size of two-liter soda bottles amidst the rubble of two buildings, each with a footprint of 43,000 square feet and a height of 1,300 feet (for a combined volume of 111,000,000 cubic feet, or 3,100,000,000 liters). (You might want to check my math. And granted, that material was enormously compacted when the towers collapsed. But still, it's a large number. And it doesn't include any of the space below ground level or any of the other buildings that collapsed.) Add to that the fact that they could have been damaged beyond recognition by the collapse of the buildings and the subsequent fires. To me, that hardly seems worthy of conspiracy.


Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.

Here, finally, we find some common ground. I couldn't agree more. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more ardent critic of America's foreign policy.

>> ^marbles:
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is ...

>> ^bcglorf:

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.
So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.
Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...
I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.
And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).
In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.
Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.
Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives
Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.
Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.


I'm picturing an infomercial right about now. Buy our world class American installed dictator right now and you'll receive many happy decades of watching your wife get raped, your lawn regularly razed, and your children going without food or education. But wait! There's more! In thirty of forty years (basically whenever we feel like it) we'll send in an army and take your lawn for ourselves so you don't have to worry about the dictator razing it any more!!!! Special discounts apply if you order before Libya.

1. America put Saddam in power, his atrocities are in large part America's fault
2. America has enabled many other dictators around the world, it's what they do when a leader doesn't follow their wishes
3. Knowing full well what outcomes these dictatorships have had (as intended) in the past, how do you know we wont get similar results this time?

We're talking about a country here, it has people that want different things, of course some Libyans are going to be happy that Gaddafi is removed, many will have wanted other outcomes, neither of us can speak for them, we are not Libyan. You say a few people dieing/getting bombed is ok to save a possible genocide. Would you kill your family to save your village? The people dieing in Libya are someones family, they are real, just because you aren't Libyan doesn't mean you can't feel empathy for them. Wake up man, you and your country are not the center of the world, you can't force your will on others unfairly without at least some repercussions. Your day is coming, and it's coming faster than you might think.

I can't find any info about sales cost collection. I don't know if that study you're siting costs of enforcement as well.

Income tax, from the stats I saw, was over 98% efficient, even with an IRS around to enforce it. The other issue is the latency of collecting sales tax compared to income tax. It allows the gov't to avoid borrowing money so soon, or during times of surplus, the gov't could actually gain interest on that collected money.

Regardless, it's still very difficult to fashion a consumption tax that is progressive enough anyway to allow for a healthy economy.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Admittedly, I haven't read much about administrating sales tax before, but this study from WA State seems to contradict your numbers. For small retailer the cost of collection was around 6% and that went down to less than 1% for large retailers. That would seem very efficient. Would it be different if it were a National Sales tax? Asking, cause I don't know the answer.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports
/retailers_cost_study/default.aspx
>> ^heropsycho:
The problems with consumption taxes are:
A. Not progressive enough, which could admittedly be overcome, but how you could would be tedious. What are retailers gonna do, ask to see your tax statement everytime you buy something? It would have to be based on type of purchase, which would be very difficult to structure it to be progressive enough.
B. As I've mentioned numerous times, sales taxes cost too much to collect. Income taxes are over 90% efficient. For every dollar charged, it only costs less than ten cents to collect and enforce income tax. Last I checked, it costs about forty cents on the dollar to collect and enforce a sales tax. You'd then have to charge everyone more taxes to make up for the inefficiencies.
That's honestly where I'd advocate abolishing sales tax within every state, and have the state legislature raise everyone's income tax a small percentage, so everyone would pay slightly more in income tax, but no sales tax. If done correctly, everyone would pay less in taxes overall, and the state governments would get more in tax revenues due to eliminating inefficiencies inherent in a sales tax. That should be something everyone could get behind.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@Peroxide I am hardly right wing, and many state use something other than income tax. Usually sales tax, which is at a flat rate. So, it is already there to be seen really. The US government used to subside nearly completely on tariffs as well, which is also flat. Long tradition of flat, sales taxes around the world, so I don't know exactly what you mean by your comment. Consumption taxes seem more fair as it taxes people who do and use things as they do and use them. Which I think was one of the arguments that was being thrown around as to the level of fairness. If you drive a gas hog of a car, you pay more consumption tax....makes sense to me! If you wanted to make it progressive, you could change the rate on certain things, or offer food stampish things to people that are low income, basically forfeiting their tax back to them in the way of rebates. Lots of different ways to handle it. I just know that now, I can't file my taxes without the help of a computer. And even then, I don't know if it is right. At any time the government could audit me and really, I wouldn't know how valid their claim would be. How many of you are sure that you aren't guilty of tax fraud? Have you read the X million lines of tax codes?

Admittedly, I haven't read much about administrating sales tax before, but this study from WA State seems to contradict your numbers. For small retailer the cost of collection was around 6% and that went down to less than 1% for large retailers. That would seem very efficient. Would it be different if it were a National Sales tax? Asking, cause I don't know the answer.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports/retailers_cost_study/default.aspx

>> ^heropsycho:

The problems with consumption taxes are:
A. Not progressive enough, which could admittedly be overcome, but how you could would be tedious. What are retailers gonna do, ask to see your tax statement everytime you buy something? It would have to be based on type of purchase, which would be very difficult to structure it to be progressive enough.
B. As I've mentioned numerous times, sales taxes cost too much to collect. Income taxes are over 90% efficient. For every dollar charged, it only costs less than ten cents to collect and enforce income tax. Last I checked, it costs about forty cents on the dollar to collect and enforce a sales tax. You'd then have to charge everyone more taxes to make up for the inefficiencies.
That's honestly where I'd advocate abolishing sales tax within every state, and have the state legislature raise everyone's income tax a small percentage, so everyone would pay slightly more in income tax, but no sales tax. If done correctly, everyone would pay less in taxes overall, and the state governments would get more in tax revenues due to eliminating inefficiencies inherent in a sales tax. That should be something everyone could get behind.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@Peroxide I am hardly right wing, and many state use something other than income tax. Usually sales tax, which is at a flat rate. So, it is already there to be seen really. The US government used to subside nearly completely on tariffs as well, which is also flat. Long tradition of flat, sales taxes around the world, so I don't know exactly what you mean by your comment. Consumption taxes seem more fair as it taxes people who do and use things as they do and use them. Which I think was one of the arguments that was being thrown around as to the level of fairness. If you drive a gas hog of a car, you pay more consumption tax....makes sense to me! If you wanted to make it progressive, you could change the rate on certain things, or offer food stampish things to people that are low income, basically forfeiting their tax back to them in the way of rebates. Lots of different ways to handle it. I just know that now, I can't file my taxes without the help of a computer. And even then, I don't know if it is right. At any time the government could audit me and really, I wouldn't know how valid their claim would be. How many of you are sure that you aren't guilty of tax fraud? Have you read the X million lines of tax codes?