Maybe the executive branch should just unilaterally put off getting under the limit. It worked for Obamacare - why not this too?
Yes, I am implying that Socialism is better over the long term. Although, it's still not good enough.
The people have to choose to give or the system will fail. Government-sponsored socialism, via taxation and regulation of lifestyles, is always going to fail over the long-term. This is because corruption, hypocrisy, fraud, dependency/laziness, etc. inevitably eat at its foundation.
Voluntary socialism, however, does work. We forget that it is ultimately the individuals that shape how happy we are - not any forced government or economic model. People give and feel good about themselves, encouraging them to give more. Those who receive are lifted out of poverty and eventually gain enough self-respect to move up (assuming social mobility is available in the economy). I know it sounds like it's straight out of an old Sunday School lesson from church to some, but it IS that simple.
(One could carry this to an even more extreme, basic truth - that the unadulterated basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer to all of society's economic ills. Too many people, however, just see the words "Jesus Christ" or "Gospel" and are immediately repulsed - without any critical thought about its base principles. They start yelling about "freedom of religion", child molesting priests, hypocritical televangelists, "religion is the source of all war", anti-"God Hates Fags" rhetoric, "separation of church and state", weird religious cults, etc. Just getting to those basic truths about faith in God/yourself/others, hope, charity, honesty, the Golden Rule, etc. that would lead to happiness is surrounded by too many stumbling blocks.)
And economics is an attempt to quantify philosophy (with numbers and theories). Since religion is just a subset of philosophy - usually with an all-knowing, all-powerful deity or two mixed in, they are a lot alike - especially when you try to convince someone else that their Keynes/Marx/Greenspan economic theories are wrong.
Yes, license plates are for identifying cars. The 4th Amendment, however, was preserved due to the sheer volume of cars out there. A government official (police, FBI, etc.) had to "manually" focus on a single car at a time when there was a reason to pay attention to it. The extra work required to track too many people at once protected the 4th amendment.
Today's tech, however, can now passively track everyone with no effort - which blows away that illusory wall between the 4th amendment and license plate tracking. The moment some government official decides that they're a "person of interest" (whatever that means to that official at that time), they have a practically infinite amount of data to use against them already.
Why am I a "privacy nut" for seeing this problem and talking about it?
More importantly, why are you not concerned with this overreach?
Privacy nuts are usually branded as paranoid against the government, but I submit that people who call us "privacy nuts" have their own deep seated and subtle paranoia of their neighbors. If one really thinks about it, why else would one allow the government to track everyone everywhere in their cars if they weren't worried about some "what if" scenario where the guy next door could be "evil" and could hurt them?
Gay Agenda, Tax and spend liberal, Hostile...
Where in the hell did I use all of those right wing, catch phrases people use when they're usually too lazy to think for themselves and just chirp what some ratings whores like FoxNews personalities or Rush Limbaugh have said?
Put your preconceptions about what you may think Tea Party people are like for just a second, and consider this basic fact: The country is going into so much debt that the simple ability to build those roads, help the destitute, or even defend our country's borders from invaders will disappear when the government defaults in one form or another.
The unbalanced budget MUST stop, or economic forces will stop it for us - and NOBODY will like the end result of the latter - except the federal government's creditors, I suppose.
The Americans who worry about that are grouped in with the label "Tea Party", but that fear has NOTHING to do with racism, hating liberal ideologies, etc. It's just basic math - compounded interest, and spending more than you make. We're so spoiled as Americans that we assume that we're immune from collapse as an empire - and that's what we are and have always been - an economic and military powered empire. Maybe this is what happened to the Romans - maybe they got caught up in their Pompeii-style porn, betting on their version of fantasy football (gladiators), overbuilding their military but not wanting to actually serve in it ("let's pay someone else to fight for us"), etc.?
Your quote in there makes it seem like the tea part is not extreme, but they are, very extreme....
Or maybe there are many who agree with most of what the Tea Party wants - balanced budget - and not some of the more ridiculous things a few crazies rant about ("Kill the EPA! End Obamacare now - even if there is no better alternative.. Obama is evil! Pull our troops out of everywhere - who cares what happens next! End ALL domestic intelligence gathering NOW, regardless of the implications!" Etc.)
Racism absolutely does exist (amongst ALL races). Hell - there are racist black people that not only hate white people but hate darker-skinned blacks.
Also, the people that identify themselves as "Tea Party" types are NOT all racists. I consider myself one who is really worried about the horrible, annual federal deficit and out of control social programs, so I align with those Tea Party principles. That does NOT make me a racist. If anything, I want the government to balance its books just so they can actually CONTINUE the social programs, and to not balance the budget would eventually have the government default and kill the social programs, which would harm poor minorities than any idiot burning a cross in a Mississippi lawn today.
That racist stereotype is ridiculous, yet it is perpetuated by many.
The ones that care are called:
a) Racist bigots (for affiliating with "Tea Party Extremists" when they only want a balanced budget and reasonable cuts to defense and wasteful spending).
b) Gun zealots when they stand up for their right to bear arms (especially when someone invokes dead children as their weapon of degradation against gun rights). And no - aside from reasonable bans on fully automatic weapons and other heavy military hardware, there's not really a good middleground by half measures like magazine size caps or unenforceable registration laws.
Selfish jerks for wanting wasteful social spending cuts on the poor that seems to be fine with using SNAP funds for booze, etc. (Yes, they're a minority, but a substantial one.)
Intolerant bigots for wanting to worship who or what they may - and want laws reflecting their beliefs (as long as they don't conflict with basic civil rights - and I don't mean the ever expansion of civil rights to include every minority created by individuals for their own benefit.)
Ignorant racists for questioning this administration.
Ignorant terrorist supporters for questioning the last administration.
The groups described above are generally either directly assaulted by (or blatantly marketed to) elements in the press because they think for themselves - and whether they're right or wrong, they're - well - dangerous...
I imagine that 1000 years into the future some 20th century English runologist will crack the code of pig latin.
Whoa - You read way too much into my post, turning a possible future scenario for the US's decline into a vigorous attempt to defend atheism.
I also only included the "under God" snippet because it was in the Pledge of Allegiance - which fit the zeitgeist of the mid-to-late 20th century after World War II, which future historians will eventually call the peak of the US's dominance in the world (culturally, socially, militarily, etc.)
Feel free to throw up your Festivus poles and do your thing... and thank (name of deity/idol/philosophy of choice) for the First Amendment!
You're ignoring too many social forces at play - especially religion. Despite the growth of atheism in the USA, a large majority of people in the US still turn to God as a last resort when really pressed by a life or death crisis. If the country actually fractured, it would likely be on those cultural/social lines. I can't say what would happen to every state, but you'd for sure have the Bible Belt holding together from Texas to Florida along the Mason/Dixon line and West Virginia (pretty much the old confederacy). You'd also have a landlocked "Mormon belt" of Utah, most of Arizona (possibly sans everything south of the Gila River - more liberal Tucson, etc), and parts of California, southern Idaho, and a lot of Nevada. It would be the recreation of their original, larger "state of Deseret" in the 1800's (before the feds carved that way down to what is modern-day Utah). (BTW - If you think the Mormons couldn't pull this off, they got Prop 8 passed in California by popular vote and a 4% margin of victory. If they can accomplish that, they can get a LOT done when they work together.) Throw in a couple of regional coalitions based on what would probably resemble old college football conferences (Pac 8, Big 8, etc), and that'd be pretty close to what you'd get - maybe with some kind of loose confederacy between some regions (like what was thrown out in the 1780s before the Constitution?) Maybe the West Coast would toil under official Asian rule (Chinese or Indian) as a natural resource for farming and cheap labor to support the elevated Asian lifestyle - simply to pay off the US's debts (and be "protected" from other countries and keep the money flowing from Asia)?
However, IMO, all of that kind of major political upheaval is pretty far-fetched. The more likely scenario is borders across North America fading out of practical enforcement. It wouldn't be by national decree or a redrawing of borders. It'll simply happen because people will stop enforcing laws to protect them. We're already seeing this administration struggle with enforcing existing federal laws or constitutional principles they a) don't agree with (immigration), b) can't enforce or effectively implement (Obamacare), or defend (Constitutional protections against unwarranted surveillance). This empire will fall a lot like the Roman Empire fall quietly came and went - slowly from the inside over generations. Just like back then in Britannia, Germania, Gaul, etc. the indigenous people will stop kowtowing to their corrupt and comfortable masters and realize the federal government really is only as strong as the people make it. Also like the Roman Empire, it will probably take future historians decades to realize that the real USA (as it was - "one nation, under God, indivisible", with guaranteed rights and liberties actually protected by a government that was accountable to a people who cared) had quietly disappeared right under their noses - even if some of the borders remained on paper.
They may wonder (as an academic exercise) how we let such a great empire fall apart, but nobody will really mourn its loss - as long as they have a reasonably comfortable life and some other stuff to care about. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
If the network hardware was compromised, what would've stopped the hackers from collecting the PINs as well?
With this increase in security encourage hackers to go after debit cards more - which would be worse for consumers (fewer fraud protections there)?
Will there even really be a difference between credit and debit cards anymore?
How will this affect online transactions (especially for web developers)?
This sounds like a bigger change than some people realize.
There's at least some accidental truth to this, even if Madison Avenue didn't directly plan it this way.
However, the real problem is that the government's programs increasingly keep people from suffering from their bad life choices and allowing the market to correct itself naturally. Eat like a pig? Here's some free healthcare to take care of you. Can't keep a job? Here's SNAP, a perpetual unemployment check, and if you're lucky, here's a "permanent disability" check from Social Security for some "disability". Don't make enough money to keep consuming? Don't worry - the rich will pay your taxes while we give you thousands a year in federal income tax "returns" on taxes you never paid in the first place.
It could be argued that this is all subsidized consumption based on debt spending to keep Madison Avenue's clients going, but that's another argument.
One other thing: Theaters being bedbug hangouts sounds crazy, but per the companies it is far more common than you'd think - and they are a real problem. A common transport vector is when a woman puts their purse on their floor of the theater, next to or under their seat. The bedbugs drop right into the open purse, she takes the purse home, they crawl out in your bedroom, and you suddenly have a real problem.
Per companies a friend of mine contacted when they had a sudden infestation in a single bedroom, the only way to kill bedbugs (as of 2013, when it happened) was to seal up the room and literally bake the space at a really high temperature, for a day or two (I don't recall the exact timeframe, but it was substantial and sounded expensive, energy-wise.)
That process kills the bugs, larvae, and eggs - everything. Nothing else is guaranteed to work - especially because of the really long gestation time of the eggs (you may think they're gone but then they pop up again months later.) The process worked for the friend, and they haven't had a problem since.
It's too bad we don't have something as effective as DDT was that also won't do as much collateral damage.
GM = OnStar = off my shopping list.
Why? Because I can (for now) at least make one choice in my life where I can protect my privacy just a little.
These companies collecting data are like the scorpion riding on the back of the animal crossing the river and can't help but sting their purveyor and drown as a result. These companies just can't help themselves but spy on you if it will make a buck - especially if the government will pay them for it.