Companies do not create jobs, demand for goods creates jobs, companies fulfill that role of producing. If that company was not there the job would still be there. That is a myth created by the right.
Where's my supercomputer for $1?
Who wouldn't want it? Demand is nigh infinite! Why hasn't it popped into existence from all that pent up demand?
Show me anyone outside the 1% and even 99% of the 1%'ers that would choose to make less money because they where being taxed too heavily on it. That is a complete fallacy.
People don't simply "make money". They trade goods or services to get paid.
There's a difference between working 1 hour to earn $100, and working a week to earn $100. The first sounds like a good deal, the latter sounds like a waste of time.
Everyone has a threshold, and taxes make it so that you earn less for the same effort. If there was a 99% tax so you could spend an hour to make $1, would you still do it?
To eliminate all need for human direct labor you would have to invent a machine that is as flexible as a human and costs less per unit. In other words a human level AI on the cheap. That simply isn't likely to happen anytime soon. (and don't give me any BS about the so called singularity or other paranoid hypothetical dystopian futures) Any scenario where we get human level AI in a robot body for less money than a human would cost is simply science fiction for the foreseeable future.
It is refreshing to see someone else on Slashdot who notices this (unlikely) prerequisite for the robotic dystopia fantasy where humanity is replaced with machines.
Boys excluded from cool activity. Not sexism against boys. Girls get to do cool activity. Sexism against girls, because Christmas lights are pretty.
Yep.
Silly, the overhead administering it is very, very low. Much lower than the private retirement funds.
Private retirement funds invest the money, and pay back from profits. SS does no such productive thing. Government collects 13% and then pays out minus its cut.
Are you really arguing against a system that helped old people live a little more decently? There is no denying that SS provided (and probably still does) a great social service.
SS is a Ponzi scheme that robs the next generation to feed a previous one. The "Rate of Return" of SS has been decreasing with each generation - because the ratio of suckers to payees has been decreasing.
Even if SS became "sustainable", the benefits are wanting. Within families that care for their elders, all SS does is add overhead and extra costs. So SS penalizes families that prepare for retirement and care for their old, to benefit those who ignore retirement and neglect their old.
Why would you want to discourage people planning for retirement and caring for their elders?
If you're lucky, you will get old too and it's very likely you'll see it differently from now.
If I'm lucky, I'll see SS abolished in my lifetime so future generations do not live under its burden. Even if right before my retirement such that I never get a single penny.
Some generation is going to have to bite the bullet, and I'll choose mine if the previous ones are too selfish to do so. I don't hate the future enough to enrich myself at their expense, and I despise your belief that I am so easily bribed.
When compared to the efficient way the other two agencies that command a large portion of the US budget (Health and SS) are run
What the
SS, efficient? How the hell is transfer payments from the young and poor to the old an rich efficient? What metric are you using, money spent to votes bought?
And that you put argument in scare quotes just betrays your unwillingness to examine it as an argument, not some clever takedown of my debate skills, or whatever "totally subtle" jab you thought you were delivering.
I'll bite. Please elaborate the argument contained in your post that I was responding to.
Oh right, I forgot about the literally infinite capability of anyone on the right wing to dismiss primary evidence on the grounds that it disagrees with their beliefs. Sorry. Don't let me interrupt your fantasy, you can engage in those extraordinary mental contortions if you want. It's not like I'm going to stop you.
Here's what I see:
1. Accusation of being right wing. (how is this relevant to the topic?)
2. Accusation of dismissing primary evidence on the basis of beliefs.
3. Accusation of having a fantasy maintained with extraordinary mental contortions.
Are one of those points supposed to be an argument? Accusations are not arguments. So you can't tell the difference between a definition and an implementation, and you don't know what an argument is.
To also touch on the substance of the discussion:
I could cite the powers granted to congress that defy your stupid beliefs, but you'd say there were secondary
Maybe. Considering your reading ability, I wouldn't put much faith in your ability to read my mind. Asserting your ability to provide an argument is not actually an argument.
But clearly the most important thing is to delegitimize and shame those who disagree with you. They don't know anything, after all.
Primary
"federal government" != "Constitution"
That you can't tell the difference demonstrates all that one needs to know about your "argument". The name of the object pointer is not the name of the object. The purpose of the government definition document is not the purpose of the government implementation.
Yeah, and that's absolutely and undeniably bullshit and frankly you should feel ashamed to be pressing the point when the primary purposes of the government are exactly what the preamble establishes.
The Preamble describes the primary purposes of the Constitution.
The Constitution then assigns and limits powers to the federal government. The purpose of the federal government is not the same as the purpose of the Constitution, because the document and the system it defines are different things.
Have you ever confused a man page with the tool it described?
It's hard to feel shamed by a person who casually makes unjustified substitutions.
No, it's not. The purpose of Wal-Mart's price matching policy is to drive competition out of business.
While they may wish to be the only store around, it'll take far more than price-matching to drive the competition out of business.
Saying that it's the policy's one true purpose is silly.
i kan reed (749298) said:
Uh, actually, that constitution you mention lists a few more things than "common defense and currency"
Trying to disprove your user name?
The Federal government was to provide for the common defense, and currency, primarily.
"t 4-5 female vets do the job of one male vet." this just keep driving me up a wal. So by your "logic" a female vet works 3 hours a day?
An observation is not logic.
But by this observation, yes - if 4 part-time female vets are needed to do the same job as 1 full time male vet, then they are working the equivalent of 3 hours a day. On average - that number may not be the actual number of working hours per day.
When you consider that they're working part time and having families (pregnancy, maternity leave, taking care of kid's events), that number sounds plausible. It's the equivalent of working 2 days a week instead of 6.
What an rude, arrogant thing to say.
I may or may not be rude and arrogant. But I note that you did not claim it was the wrong thing to say. Based on your latest post, that's because my statement was true.
I've made two points in this discussion thread:
1. The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce by collecting/authorizing an internet sales tax.
2. State use taxes are simply a relabeled sales tax on inter-state transactions and are thus unconstitutional under current federal law.
Read the bill. Or even just read a news article about it. It wasn't a tax. It was a bill that would have unconstitutionally tried to force STATES to collect taxes for other STATES.
Neither of my points care what the text of the rejected federal sales tax bill says. Your response is irrelevant - which means my comment is accurate. You are not paying attention to the content of my posts when you respond to them. That's the charitable interpretation.
You presume to correct a misunderstanding that is not there. Your behavior is rude and arrogant - which makes your accusations of the same in me seem like projection.
You can't even summarize your own article correctly. From your link: "the bill
That's not one state forcing another state to act. Businesses are not states. Why don't you take your own advice on reading up and getting a clue?
Nice theory, but it doesn't work. States set their OWN sales taxes. It's not a Federal tax, and it varies from state to state. And apparently you forgot the part where I pointed out that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to collect taxes on behalf of states. There is no law anywhere -- sure as HELL not in the Constitution -- that gives the Federal government that kind of taxation power. It's taxing powers are spelled out very clearly in black and white.
You are not following the discussion and you do not understand the points being raised.
The authority of the federal government to collect taxes on behalf of the states is not in question. The federal government can collect a sales tax because it wants to, just like it collects an income tax.
What the federal government does with a hypothetical federal sales tax revenue is its own business - it can then pass federal laws to give money to states based on a set of rules. (subject to some equitable standard; no giving all the money to a single state)
State laws have NOTHING to do with such a tax system.
You just changed the definition of Social Justice Warrior (SJW).
I have not. I previously said people who do X are SJW. I did not say that all SJW do X. There is no contradiction between what I said earlier and now, and there has been no change in definition because the previous statement was not a definition at all.
I see you have also completely ignored all of my questions in favor of incompetently criticizing a single point as a "gotcha!". Answer the questions.
Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.
