I say debt is bad and you go off on a side tangent about how some efforts to reign in debt have had bad consequences. Your "argument" failed to address my point completely. Eventually, you admit that I was correct, but only after tedious argument about side tangents.
You objected to everything I said about our national debt despite the fact that everything I said was accurate. 17 trillion IS "unprecedented". 17 trillion IS massive. The national debt IS growing. The national debt is NOT being addressed. Given these FACTS, our future generations WILL be saddled with this debt. I'll admit that "doomed" was a bit rhetorical, but "massively screwed by us" wasn't so punchy. I understand you cannot confront this and must argue every single sentence, but the fact that you can't confront it does not change reality.
I hope your wishful "Oh, this debt will be paid off soon and not bother our future generations!" comes to pass, but that old pesky reality does not bode well for your head-in-the-sand viewpoint.
In the future, try to remain calm and rational, it makes for a better debate. Avoid creating strawmen, it isn't effective and makes you look stupid.
As for this conversation, I'm done. I will not converse with someone who "debates" as you do. I don't need that kind of crap.
You do not seem interested in technical or historical arguments.
I should just let this go but
It appears our actual disagreement is that you seem to think that saddling our children, and their children, with this massive debt is "Ho hum, no big deal". I think it is really unconscionable and you just don't care. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Nope. The SSID database is not all that they did. They sniffed the data packets as well. As in: they got the MACs of the machines of the network, even hardwired machines, they also logged the contents of all the IP traffic, mDNS names, NMB names, etc.
Really? [Citation needed]
What is publicly broadcast is the SSID and MAC address of the AP only. (No "SSID database", no other MAC addresses.) Most wireless APs are set up to broadcast that information because that's how they operate. There is nothing illegal or even the slightest bit wrong with seeing what APs are near you -- and that means seeing their SSIDs and MAC addresses. That. Isn't. Illegal. Or. Even. Wrong.
The rest of your comment is pure speculation and highly unlikely. You make it sound like the Google car was parked outside these places, sucking down tons of data. I don't say what they did was a good idea, but it wasn't as you pretend. They changed channels five times a second. One fifth of a second is extremely unlikely to contain even a small snippet of the information you claim they obtained. Seriously, if you want to claim that Google did what you say they did, you are going to have to provide proof because what you are accusing them of is pretty much impossible.
How can password cracking be an accident?
Yeah, no. Google only sniffed unsecured access points. What part of "unsecured" (meaning no passwords) did you not understand? Also, according to the technical description: "we will typically have collected only fragments of payload data because: our cars are on the move; someone would need to be using the network as a car passed by; and our in-car WiFi equipment automatically changes channels roughly five times a second. In addition, we did not collect information traveling over secure, password-protected WiFi networks."
With changing channels roughly five times a second while moving, the actual amount of data captured from any one wireless AP would have been very tiny. That's not "password cracking" and the chance of capturing anything understandable would be almost nil.
While it was poorly thought out on Google's part, it wasn't, in most venues, illegal. This is not a good example for your "We no longer have the rule of law in the US" hyperbole.
Are you saying that the debt we are passing onto our children is of absolutely no concern?
It doesn't have to be, if we actually pay it off.
"Pay it off"? Pay it off?! How does that happen when every year we add more and more to the debt? No one is "paying it off". Taking a look at reality instead of your fantasy world, is this massive debt we are saddling our children with still of absolutely no concern to you? You won't have to pay it off. No, people who had nothing to do with accumulating this massive debt will be the victims of it. Don't you have the slightest idea of how very, very wrong that is?
You brought up a whole lot of extraneous and immaterial "facts" to argue with me. Nothing you said contradicted what I said. The government is out of control and all that's going to happen is more and more and more taxes.
The point of my response was that this is not, in fact, what is happening. It would take quite a lot of tax increases to get back to what has been normal for the last 60 years, and such tax increases would eliminate the deficit outright.
God help me. "Tax increases" do not "eliminate the deficit outright". More fantasyland thinking. While tax increases probably do need be a part of a comprehensive plan, without a lot of fiscal responsibility to go along with that, the "extra" monies could just be eaten up by increased spending. In the area of government finances, fiscal responsibility must come first.
Your statements about the government being "out of control" are vague by necessity, because you don't have trillions of dollars of actual "waste, pork, duplication, mismanagement, corruption, and stupidity" to point to. The spending that gets attention (like the stimulus and healthcare reform) are deficit-*reducing* measures.
Ah, well sure! The U.S. government is a paragon of efficiency, fiscal responsibility and frugal spending. Years and years of news stories have been totally wrong. How could I have missed that? As for various programs that "are deficit-reducing measures", that was all "projected" reductions. Hasn't happened yet. Taking bets?
Our children are doomed -- but that's perfectly OK with you, just look at 1953 and ignore what's going on right now.
The only thing currently dooming "our children" is global warming. The debt probably isn't even in the top 10. This is good news. You should be happy about it.
I "should be happy"? "Happy"? The debt we're passing on to our children IS factually 17 trillion and climbing. That's supposed to make me "happy"? I'm not going into a global warming debate, I have no dog in that fight, but those problems are still, for the most part, estimated and the severity is still unknown -- while the national debt is here and factual. But I should ignore what is here and real and only worry about what might happen?
Our children aren't responsible for this massive debt, but they are totally on the hook for it. But I "should be happy".
To make my point perfectly clear: The problem isn't "taxes", the problem is DEBT. It's currently $53,112.68 for every man woman and child in the U.S. and it's going to get a lot worse.
If you want to see a spending cut-based approach to deficit reduction in a recession, look at Europe. Maybe start with the UK, which is heading into a triple-dip recession and still can't run a surplus.
Um... So that negates my point? Your point is the problem isn't the debt because the UK is "heading into a triple-dip recession"? Huh? My point still is that the problem isn't taxes, it's DEBT. Care to try arguing against that again?
I know a lot of this stuff is counter-intuitive, that's just how life is sometimes.
Gee, you sure are patronizing.
Best: No debt plus ample reserves in case of emergencies. Like Apple. That's healthy. Following so far?
Not so good: No debt but also no reserves. One disaster and you're in trouble.
Bad: Debt with no appreciable reserves or income to pay it off right away. That's bad. The bigger the debt, the worse it is. Whether it's "macroeconomics" or family economics, that's simply the way it is. You'd like to pretend that "macroeconomics" doesn't adhere to the same principles as company economics, like Apple or even family economics, but the principles are the same.
This whole "you don't understand macroeconomics" is a fraud to fool people who look at the insanity of government spending and see how insane it all is. "It isn't insane, it's 'macroeconomics'!" LOL! No, it obviously and clearly is insane.
Actually, our debt is long past the insane level. It is downright criminally insane. And we are committing this crime against our children. What floors me is that no one is even talking about reducing the debt. They blah, blah, blah about "reducing the deficit" but "deficit" means going more into debt.
You can claim it's all some mysterious "macroeconomics" that makes this "OK, don't worry about it" but you're either thoroughly deluded or you're one of those trying to delude others to ignore the elephant in the room.
Debt with no reserves and no way to pay it off in any reasonable time is bad. The unprecedented, massive, criminal national debt of the U.S. is really, really bad. Time to stop ignoring these basic facts.
As with any addict, the first step is to recognize that we have a serious problem. Congress, and people like you, need to take that step.
Why do you bring up what was happening in 1953 when the national debt was 275 billion dollars?
Do you truly think that government waste, pork, duplication, mismanagement, corruption and stupidity is OK?
You brought up a whole lot of extraneous and immaterial "facts" to argue with me. Nothing you said contradicted what I said. The government is out of control and all that's going to happen is more and more and more taxes. Our children are doomed -- but that's perfectly OK with you, just look at 1953 and ignore what's going on right now.