Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Thanks Prez! (Score 1) 430

They didn't have to vote on it (PPACA) a second time. They didn't have the votes to put it through the Senate again, so they had the House pass the exact Senate bill. Then they made a new bill in the House amending what had already been passed, which was a number of tax increases to help offset the cost of the bill. Because this bill raised money, they could pass the amendments using reconciliation, requiring 51 votes.

2 separate bills, passed through the Senate via different means, but they end up with one law. This is not a correction so much as a clarification.

Comment Re:Thanks Prez! (Score 1) 430

And don't give me that shit about a Democrat majority, the GOP could have filibustered it into the dirt and they did not.

This is just factually inaccurate. The GOP attempted to filibuster the PPACA, but the Democrats passed it through anyway. Scott Brown explicitly ran on the promise of being the 41st vote that would enable the filibuster for Republicans. By the time he was elected and sworn in, the Senate bill (the one that passed) was already voted on. From about 8 seconds of google: "On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, all but one Republican voting against and one senator (Jim Bunning, R-Ky.) not voting." Also, there's no budget, just a bunch of spending and taxing bills. Taxing bills have to originate in the House, but the President and the Senate have the same veto power. When debating debatable points, at least PRETEND to be charitable to the other side. Historically, Presidents have huge influence on the budget, because they hold veto power and can use their influence to have members of Congress to put forth the President's position, even though they can't introduce legislation directly. Once the President signs a law (as opposed to having a veto over-ridden) it becomes his policy, too.

Comment Re:Makes Sense (Score 1) 352

You should really look into what happens when a solar panel farm gets flooded.

When it comes to solar vs. nuke, nuke generation (because it's an industry obsessed with safety) claims far fewer lives per Watt-hour than solar, coal, even wind. It's just that when failures do happen, everybody notices. This is even if you include the deaths from the atomic bombs and their development.

Car Analogy - Think of it as the same as traveling by car or airplane. We know driving a car is much more dangerous than flying. But when a passenger jet goes down, it's news for weeks. When a fatal car crash happens, no one hears about it. No one cares when Lenny falls off a roof installing a solar panel that won't even produce enough energy savings over its life to pay for itself. If that same Lenny dies from radiation exposures expect a few weeks of nuclear radiation news. The stats.

Comment Re:Keeping jobs in the US is easy... (Score 1) 362

$400 a month rent? Where have you been lately? In just about anything worth being called a city you are going to be spending more like $1000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. Utilities are going to add another couple hundred onto that.

Outside of a city, there isn't going to be a bus. So now you have to have a car unless the weather is perfect all the time - and it isn't and no job lets you skip work because of bad weather.

No, trying to live on $20,000 a year in a city is a real challange today.

I rented a house in a city of 300K with 2 bedroom, one bath, attached garage for $600 a month.I then purchased a comparable house (3BR, 2BA) for what ends up after taxes to be a 1068 mortgage a month. Affordable housing does in fact exist. It's the urban centers with restrictive growth policies (to prevent sprawl) that keep housing prices up. It's a city, and I was on a bus line, but we allowed new construction.

Comment Re:God forbid our tax dollars be used to build (Score 1) 505

I think he was commenting on "Bay Area" more than "CA." And if they mean anywhere near the actual bay, that a VERY expensive place to put factories. Especially compared to random undeveloped area that only needs 2 miles of utilities put in. But if by Bay Area, they mean a short 20 minute drive from the nearest city limits, then it could well be more practical. I think the disagreement here in entirely over terms.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.