Dropping out of the Euro, or even the EU, wouldn't be a problem.

Turning to Putin for help, that would be a problem.

So what is your point with this? You want to bring back modern slavery? If you get an education paid by the state, you are not allowed to leave the state? Like in Soviet times?

It works in North Korea. OK, that's hyperbole, but someone has to counteract the usual "you mean like Somalia" bullshit every time someone says something remotely libertarian.

You donâ(TM)t actually know what you are talking about do you.

Most of the loans in question here were in fact loaned by German and French bankers to the Greeks prior to the 2008, Deutsche bank was one of the biggest. They could get somewhat higher returns loaning to Greece and they had some security because Greece was in the Eurozone. That security unravelled with the 2008 crash.

The ECB, EU, IMF gave massive loans to Greece in 2010, and most of it immediately went to extricate the German and French banks from their bad greek loans. If the Greeks has defaulted on the original loans then there would have been a massive banking crisis in Germany and France. The 2010 EU bailout was to save their banks more than it was to help the Greeks.

The Greeks just got more debt piled on top of too much debt and its totally destroyed their economy. Recently released IMF studies confirm the Greeks canâ(TM)t sustain their current debt load and it has to be restructed or they have to default. If they stay the current course with austerity and more and more bailout loans they are doomed.

If the Greeks had been smart they would have exited the EU and defaulted on the debt in 2009 and the people who made the bad loans, the German and French bankers, would have paid the price. Instead they got off scot free.

Iceland immediately defaulted in a similar situation, they had some short term pain but they rebounded, while the Greece has gotten nothing but worse and worse under the yoke of a corrupt European and global banking system.

For banking and loans to work there is a simple rule, if you are foolish enough to make a bad loan to someone who probably wonâ(TM)t pay it back, then you pay the price when they default. Instead the people who make the bad loans (i.e. bankers) get to keep their bonuses profits and everyone else gets to pay for their stupidity, greed and corruption.

I'm not sure how someone could call the citizen's refusal to pay taxes, and the government's refusal to collect them, "fiscal conservatism". This reads like an unholy mating of "1984" Newspeak and MSNBC talking heads. It's lawlessness. Fiscal conservatism would be low taxes and low spending-- "small government". That's just what it is; you don't have to agree with it, that's what it's called. But what they have is big (spending) government, yet an unwillingness to demand compliance from the citizens. Even the basement-dwelling internet Marxist understands that a welfare state must be funded.

Putin can't afford to pay anything--Russia's broke too (if not quite as broke as Greece). But if they're stupid enough, the Greek government might not figure that out until it's too late.

The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

If you're remember aircraft carriers in old dubbed anime, you're probably remembering Robotech; the Macross had two aircraft carriers attached to it as arms.

Because, if we talk about why a woman has three kids of unknown paternity at all, it reflects badly on her life choices and since that is her choice, we as a society must accept it. Anything else is "hate".

As in, this fictitious woman, I must hate her for even mentioning she might exist somewhere, as you have already implied in your post ... " my convenient self-serving narrative is not instantly and universally accepted as true and relevant"

The fact is, there is such a person, somewhere out there. The fact that you can't figure out hyperbole mixed in with my point, is proof that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. Your response is one of pure emotion. (I rest my case)

And there is probably more than one, since similar people are trotted out by the "Living Wage" proponents all the time. So, if it isn't true, then the "living wage" people are lying about it being "normal" and we don't need a "living wage" to help support this non-real person.

The lie is either we accept anecdotal evidence or we don't. Pick one. If it is acceptable for proponent of the cause you support ("living wage") then it is equally acceptable to use that as a case against it.

Please don't try to convince me that the proponents don't use such people in their propaganda.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes....

FYI, I realize that I violated my own rules on talking to supporters of "Living Wage" because they are simpletons. In simple terms, for my point to be valid, there must exist more than zero people that fit this description, and for your point to be valid there has to be none. Having watched any number of day time talk shows "Who's your baby's daddy?" I am confident that there exists at least one that resembles ...

https://www.google.com/search?...

Microsoft has been pushing for renewable revenue streams. Switching to subscription is going to kill Windows, regardless of whether or not Windows is subscription. If you look at the moves MS is doing lately, they seem to be offering up a lot of trial balloons for all sorts of various Subscription models. They have decided against Windows (for now) but having paid attention for a long time, I know that is temporary.

My meaning was, it doesn't matter what is actually "subscription", but it is going to kill Windows. And it will likely kill off Office as well.

Having both Office 365 and Google's Docs at work, I can tell you most people prefer Google Docs for just about everything. It is really that much of a better ONLINE experience.

Yeah, screw liberty and justice .... and freedom, lets live under threat of ever expanding state! YEHAH /Merica!

You don't even actually understand who pays for things, do you?

The intention of the subsidies was clear, they wanted to force the states into having their own Health Care Exchange; they wanted all the Republican held states to suffer. They stated it so. And they also stated that it wasn't a tax, because nobody would have voted for a "tax increase" and a violation of Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K/yr.

But that doesn't matter now. Now that it is a tax, it can be repealed as such. Who is gonna vote against someone repealing a tax? Oh right, liberals.

If you were actually proud of how they've trashed the health care system with a hyper-partisan piece of monstrous legislation, you'd actually attach your /. handle to your post. But you didn't, because you know that whole thing is a disaster.

Is a flat out lie. Yeah it sound great and triggers emotional responses (fear, anger) of simpleminded people who can't see beyond "Single Mom with three kids" working in a Min Wage job, because they are completely unqualified for any other kind of job. We aren't allowed to talk about why she has three kids from four fathers (well, we know two of the kids fathers, the third is in dispute until Paternity test is done). The point being, "living wage" is a simpleton view of the world, and is wholly unworkable and creates more problems than it solves.

And while I am talking about it, there is no point convincing people who believe in the "Living Wage" lie to change their view, because they can't, any more than my wife can stop fearing spiders. It is an emotional response, and no amount of logic matters at that point.

I have to read the manual before I try installing this one?