It's very hard for police unions to fight against something that clearly reduces their physical danger and exposure to complaints. If they save face by pretending that the cameras are making the "bad guys" behave and that it wasn't a police problem in the first place, that's fine by me.
...can be adjusted and even eliminated by a simple majority vote of Congress and the stroke of the pen of the President.
That's basically true of any law. Why is this a big problem? Congress could eliminate the FDIC tomorrow. Or shut down the Interstate Highway system. Or ground all aircraft permanently. It's a pretty good bet that they won't do any of those things, though.
And every penny just goes straight to the Federal Government - nothing back to any taxpayer.
I'm reasonably certain that the Social Security Administration cuts a check to a private citizen now and then.
When was the last time you ate a stock certificate?
So money just disappears when I spend it unless I eat the thing I bought with it? No, the seller gets the money and uses it for something else. The sale of existing stock doesn't count as economic activity, but it doesn't slow it down any. It's just trading one financial asset for another.
But if you have no unmet needs, you sell the stock to buy a different stock, and a small commission goes to your broker, who buys stock with it, and everybody gets a little bit richer, but no economic activity occurs.
If I buy stock and the seller uses the money to buy a different stock, we just have the same situation all over again. Eventually, that money will reach a seller who doesn't buy stock with it. At that point, that person uses the money for something else. There's no way for me to buy stock and just have the money get "stuck" somewhere. It's no different from any other transaction in that sense. The only important difference is that the purchase of stock itself isn't economic activity that counts toward GDP.
So anything that breaks that money out of the market and puts it into the economy is a win.
But this is my fundamental point. There is no money "in the market." If I asked you where all of the dollars "in" the NYSE and all of the market cap of its companies actually is, what would you answer? The correct answer is, "circulating through the economy."
Social Security payments are in the form of IOUs. There isn't a stash of money waiting for anyone who needs it.
All pension plans have a large portion of their savings in the form of IOUs. I have some IOUs from major corporations in my portfolio. Should I be scared?
There are a lot of arugments that get weird and distorted when people don't take into account our hugely skewed income distribution. Stuff like, "The to earners pay most of the taxes already!" and "We're transferring more wealth than ever!" ignore the inconvenient fact that the top earners earn an outsized share of the national income--much more than in the past. All I meant to note was that the variable "taxes as a share of GDP" doesn't reflect any of that.
Nope, I never mentioned the CDC you did.
The first mention of the CDC in this thread is your post here, preceded by a link in your previous post that you later note is supported because it "mentions released information from CDC which you can go read for yourself." Which I did. Which was not supportive of your position on Gardasil.
I never mentioned the NIH either.
My bad. I meant to write NIH. Which you linked to here. Which notably also does not support your statistical contentions.
Got it! The only thing you can do in Google is read the top links, and those links are the only things that matter. Further, anything you can't learn in 5 minutes or less on Google is worthless information.
OK, so you spout factually questionable claims. I challenge you on your sources and you are offended at the very notion that you should spend time doing such a thing. Then you tell me to search Google to support your ridiculous position. When I do so and the initial results continue to crap all over your claims, you're annoyed that I don't spend vastly more time and effort than you have to support your position. Or is the problem that I googled "guardasil vaccine injuries" instead of "guardasil vaccine harm" like you explicitly told me to do in as many words.
Sarcasm aside, wholly shit I'd hate to see how bad you can slaughter a concordance or bibliography.
If you had given me anything remotely resembling a bibliography, I'd have been all over it. The links you gave either didn't support your position or didn't bother to list where they got their data. The few links that I started to chase down from my quickie Google that did have some footnotes turned out to have bullshit footnotes. I'm going to jump out on a limb here and say that if one of us is doing vastly more bibliographic leg work than the other, it's me.
Finally, again you are simply arguing about statistics. The numbers, again, were never the subject of my posts in this thread.
Your first post in this thread that I responded to is here where I noted that your statistical claims in that post are unsupported nonsense. We're still holding firm there. If you're in favor of people making educated decisions based on real risk analysis, don't spread bad numbers. Spread good, well-supported numbers.
Simple logic. "Medical procedures" have risk, risk should yield a choice. True or false? If you say "True" then we agree and there is nothing further to discuss on that point. If you say "false" then you lied early on.
True, but so general as to be totally meaningless. Drinking water from your tap has risk. Eating ice cream has risk. Playing miniature golf has risk. That's why we use numbers to quantify that risk. I don't see people leaping into threads about mini golf pointing out that people should carefully evaluate the risks of mini golf before playing. This tells me that either vaccines are really a lot more dangerous than mini golf (a position I don't see a lot of support for), or that people are badly misevaluating the measured risks.
If your grand philosophical point is that medical procedures have risks and that anybody who disagrees with the specifics of your arguments is arguing that medical procedures don't have risks, I don't really see how you can claim the high ground by taking a stand against sophistry.
If there are deliberate adjustments to the facts, omission of facts, or fabricated information to sway people's freedom of choice...
I'm right with you there. That's why I'm calling out your bad statistics.
Following that I touched on the common misinformation method of splitting risk and only advertising the number someone wants, instead of providing a real number which is a summation of all problems.
That's not a useful number at all, which I think is your problem. You end up bundling "redness at the injection site" which is pretty much a side effect of sticking needles in people with "head explodes immediately after injection." If half of the subjects get redness at the injection site and one person's head explodes after 100 million doses, is it honest to say, "Theres a 50% chance of a reaction, such as having your head explode"? Because that's what you're doing, and that's what I object to.
I gave a method of finding alternative statistics which you choose to ignore.
OK, I'll bite. You referenced the CDC and NIH and I pointed out that their numbers totally reject your numbers. Now you're not happy that I'm using the CDC and NIH and failing to use your unnamed alternative knowledge sources that are, like, totally better than the CDC and NIH that you referenced earlier. OK. Let's do it.
Should we just google 'gardasil vaccine injury' and see what we get?
First link is something pointing out that Gardasil is safe by any reasonable measure. Probably not a kosher source of alternative knowledge from your perspective, so I'll skip those. Moving on.
There's this, which has numbers but no references. Here's one with references, so that's a good start. 48 deaths! Wow! Wait, the reference is just to VAERS, which we talked about earlier. Just the VAERS root site, not even the actual document. Well, let's try again.
Lots more stuff, just going back to VAERS. Did I mention that the VAERS analysis has been done to death? Lots of web sites with personal anecdotes (probably also reported to VAERS, so thank goodness that's covered). Some (most, maybe) of those may be very true. But again, we're talking about roughly 60,000,000 doses, and we're not accumulating anything like a significant probability of serious reaction. Which is why we use statistics. Like so:
National Geographic gives the odds of being hit by lightning in any given year as 1 in 700,000. That means that we'd expect 85 of those women to be struck this year. If they all reported "hit by lightning" to VAERS, "hit by lightning" would surpass a bunch of the other things they've reported as "side effects" that people are panicking about.
Followed by more attempted ad hominem and riducule.
All to defend you being a liar...
That's a gorgeous juxtaposition. Dude, I'm attacking your data, not you. If you want to reduce the amount of damage, bring better data next time.
Anyway, I'd say that the decline in congestion during 2011 and 2012 might be largely due to the fact that 2011 saw much higher retail gas prices than 2012 and people changed their habits over then ext two years or so.
So now we change the whole topic from "Freedom to choose" to simply "Gardasil is good" and "I don't like your statistics. Got it.
I think of it far more generally than that. I'd say if I were to summarize it's, "People who claim to be trying to educate you by getting you to look at potential side effects of vaccines are often wildly overstating the case, and their claims often fall apart under scrutiny." Your Gardasil claims are simply an example case of that. In any case, there's no "your statistics" in this case. Statistics come from data. The numbers you're throwing out don't seem to have that property. They appear to just be made up on the spot. They're just numbers without anything to justify them. That's what I don't like. That's not "education." That's just pissing in the pool of human knowledge.
If I were writing a dissertation I would surely spend many months gathering different and distinct sources.
Surely there's some middle road between "PhD dissertation" and "numbers I pulled out of thin air for a Slashdot post" isn't there?
Facts, shmacts. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
-Homer J. Simson