If that's the only definition they give, then it's wrong. Anarchism isn't a single political theory; it's a collection of numerous (sometimes only tenuously related) political theories.
The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good. And it begins with "Anarchy has more than one definition."
They're actually better as individuals than as a group. It's more about the dynamics between Republicans and Democrats than about either group running the country into the ground by itself. There are sincere disagreements about what has to be done, and any attempt to make progress on the things that do get wide agreement are met with accusations of collaboration by extremist minorities.
For which I blame the Republicans far, far more than Democrats, though they are not innocent of it. In part as a reaction to Republican extremism, though not entirely. I don't want to let them off the hook, but when I'm looking for solutions, they all start with ceasing to have elections between "the stupid party" and the "at least we're not completely insane" party.
It's mandatory from the President's point of view. He can't change legislation. The best he could do is to propose new legislation and budget based on that, and some articles on the subject were disappointed that he didn't. But I think it's politically astute in an era where he could copy the last Republican proposal verbatim and still have it declared "socialism" as soon as it hit print.
There are a lot of ways to curb mandatory spending, but the budget isn't the right place to sort them out. It should be done as a separate legislative effort. But it won't happen in an election year, because even talking about reducing spending on these programs is toxic. Obama himself isn't up for election, but all of the Representatives and a third of the Senators are, and none of them wants to talk about it.
Maybe next year. But probably not.
You would have done well if you'd gone on to actually cite them and clarify them rather than just dropping in a one-liner.
The biggest jump was 2008-2009, a budget proposed by Bush, not Obama. Much of this has been dealing with the economic crisis; other parts are dealing with an increasing retired population. This is a problem that any President would have faced, and it's wishful thinking that McCain or Romney had some magical solution. Maybe they would have, maybe not. They certainly wouldn't have faced a Congress who can't take "yes" for an answer, and where newspapers don't even bother writing the standard "Dead on arrival" story for each budget because it's too obvious.
We can do better. We should have done better. But I've got no interest in hatchet-job newspaper articles that are more about ideological carping than sound analysis.
Yes, I can come up with a thousand free market answers. And yes, that pretty much answers your question.
Would you buy a vehicle from any company whatsoever if you knew that parts were difficult to acquire? A manufacturer can play a game with parts availability only if they don't plan to stay in business.
Maybe we should go back to renting our phones from ATT as well.
mandatory (adj): Obligatory; required or commanded by authority.
As the article points out, most of this is going to mandatory programs, which would be the same even if it were Romney or McCain or Sarah Fucking Palin in office.
What this means, for those dumb enough to believe what they read in IBD, is that what Obama has achieved is to reduce the amount of spending on the discretionary side. Agriculture, down 8%. HHS, down 7.6%. Even Homeland Security, down 2.8%. The Pentagon is down over $100 billion.
But hey, by all means, let's make sure that this looks like Obama's doing a bad job, because that was clearly the author's goal before he wrote it. The rest is just a matter of selecting the data until it proves what you wanted it to prove.
When we hear a serious discussion of how to cut benefits (something other than "the poor should die" and "let's give it all to Wall Street, because they're so freaking responsible"), we can have an actual conversation. But articles like this show why anything from Obama, no matter how reasonable, is doomed even before it gets printed.
Step 2 would have to be "flood the world with extra light", because a pinhole camera does a great job of focusing but doesn't bring in a lot of light.
That said... pinhole eyeglasses are a real thing. They're mostly quackery, aimed at reducing the amount of light from a computer display screen and supposedly "strengthening the eye", but that's rubbish.
I find this just a bit ironic, laughing at him for not knowing the terminology, while having literally no conception of what his job is or what it entails.
Should the guy know what an ISP is? Yeah, sure. Maybe he's not competent because he doesn't know. But do you have any conception of what else his job involves? Do you know who else might have been sent to do it? Do you know who else is on the team, buttressing his weaknesses? Do you have even the faintest conception of what it even means to "negotiate cybersecurity with China"?
Government is a job, like any other job, in that it involves some highly specialized and specific requirements that look like irrelevant trivia to people not doing it. You're all programmers here, and I'm sure you get irritated when somebody dismisses some vastly complex task as a "simple matter of programming". It seems a little rich to be so unaware that the same goes for everybody else's job, even a "government job". The overwhelming majority of what you hear about "the government" is frank BS. I'd feel a lot safer if the voters took a bit more effort to understand what the government actually does and why. Hearing the same kind of Fox News-level anti-government propaganda from this supposedly-smarter echo chamber does not fill me with confidence.
I'd argue that it's *precisely* what it's there for. Every single law is there to define and guide your behavior. Most people think it's a good thing to guide you away from murder, theft, rape, arson, etc. It's widely thought to be necessary to live in together in a society; these laws are essentially universal in first-world societies.
The question isn't whether, but how much. Pigovian taxes (ones to encourage/discourage behavior rather than raise revenue) are a gentler method of limiting behavior than banning it outright. It's a good way to resolve tragedies-of-the-commons issues, another thing widely thought to be a reasonable province of government. When everybody doing exactly what's best for them leads to worse outcomes for everybody, we agree to abide by restrictions that leave everybody better off.
It's not always as obvious as regulating access to grazing land. It's an open question of whether we want to treat this as a commons to be managed, and if we do, whether a Pigovian tax is the best way to gently manage it while allowing market forces to continue to operate. But it's hard to take seriously the proposition that government has automatically no place in the question.
Which begs the question as to whether the canabinoids are effective or the placebo effect is what is being observed.
It also brings up the question of why they didn't try an inhaled version rather than an oral version. Marijuana is known to have antiemetic benefits, for example, and delivering it via the lungs is both faster and avoids the problem of vomiting up the drug before it's absorbed. Pills are not the best way to deliver antiemetics; the leading anti-nausea drug (Ondansetron) is frequently delivered rectally or via IV. Delivery by inhalation has substantial advantages.
I really don't know why there aren't inhaled versions. I don't know if it's because research indicated that it wouldn't work, or if it's because it's so difficult to experiment on THC-derived compounds that nobody wanted to put forth the effort.
It is *not* the miracle drug that its proponents like to pretend it is, but it seems to be better than placebo for various indications and has the advantage of being cheap. And it would be readily available, were it not for laws preventing that. Since it appears to be no more dangerous than other commonly-available drugs, I don't see why it remains a Schedule I drug.
Er, yes, I just realized that upon further research. I withdraw my comment, and return to being baffled.
It undercuts the local affiliates, some of which are owned by the networks themselves and others have exclusivity contracts with the networks. It's the affiliates (and their ability to insert local advertising) who lose out. And since there's still a chunk of the market that only gets OTA signals, the broadcasters and affiliates are reluctant to give that up.
Part of the government would be only too happy to let OTA die and reclaim the bandwidth, but other parts are protective of that fraction of the country who only get that signal. They are poor and frequently rural, and they don't want them to be left out.
And bonus: these taxes are specifically excluded when people say "the poor pay no income tax". The poor actually pay a fair bit of tax, and as far as your paycheck is concerned, the "withholding" line looks just like the "FICA" lines. At low wages, the former is tiny, while the latter is quite large. On a rich person's paycheck, the latter is capped so that it comes to practically nothing. Or they'll be paid in forms other than paychecks, so that it IS literally nothing.
But when your goal is to "prove" that the poor are all lazy degenerates, only the former line counts as "taxes" and the latter is ignored.