Phi for All

Which is why federally regulated programs are particularly effective for the nation as a whole. The wealthy are still wealthy and the poor aren't devastatingly poor. The wealthy get the benefits of a happier, smarter, healthier work force for the businesses they own while still enjoying the advantages of privilege, and life is more bearable for those who have no such advantages. The best solutions are those that take everything into consideration, and don't just focus on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

This is a great example of where Ron Paul goes too far. Road costs can be drastically reduced by other means, whereas privatization could do nothing but raise them. Boo, Ron Paul! I agree with his stance on fiscal responsibility (I used to call myself fiscally conservative, but now I truly dislike what that has come to mean). I agree with him about not policing the world with aggressive military actions against sovereign nations. But like most extremist positions, his "purist" ideology fails to take reality into consideration and he dives right into the fringe. While I can certainly understand removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, I'm not as sure about legalizing all drugs. While I'd welcome a reform of the Social Security Act, abolishing it would only increase costs through privatization. And he's obviously enjoying some kind of controlled substance if he thinks monopolies should be allowed with only the concept of a voluntary contract to keep them honest.

Why is it people who whine about paying taxes for shared services suddenly grasp the concept when it's insurance? They don't mind the masses joining the risk pool to drive down their costs of owning a bunch of toys then. But when it comes to things like social programs, or public libraries, or public schools, or swimming pools, or a family protection fund like Social Security, things they likely won't get much direct use from, they scream about the burden. Yet these things improve the quality of life for the majority of citizens, and make those citizens more capable and productive, something you'd think the Libertarians and the wealthy would appreciate. I know why the wealthy don't want to pay for these things the lower classes enjoy more. But I would ask even the Libertarians who want to privatize everything, what will happen when education is privatized? Are you going to be OK with it when the corporations still want K-12 education to be mandatory until age 18? How does that fit in with your idea of free market capitalism with no government intervention? Because you know there will be many lower income families who won't be able to afford the much higher cost of privatized education for their children, and that's a market that the education corporations won't want to miss out on.

Because that's worked out so well where? Adjust for inflation and rising costs and I'm still paying 25% more for my utilities since they went private. Here's a study that might help your perspective. Privatize Social Security? Do you have any concept of the disaster we'd be in right now if Bush's plan to privatize SS during his second term had been successful? You'd have a bunch of even richer bankers and a nation full of retired homeless people. And how could any private library be operated at the level I enjoy right now without charging me at least 25% more in order to satisfy their stockholders? As for roads, there are better ways to save taxes than privatization. In Germany, home of the Autobahn (which is no different in concept than the Interstate Highway system in the US), they use asphalt just like most countries, yet they spend a fraction of what we pay per mile on road maintenance. They also have glass-smooth roads that last for many years without needing costly repairs. What’s their secret? They let the asphalt cure for 3 months before they let anyone drive on it. They divert traffic and drivers are made aware of alternate routes. After the asphalt cures it wears like iron and is pure heaven to drive on. On one hand, road maintenance employs a ton of people, from the workers to the asphalt manufacturers. Letting us drive on fresh asphalt means less time waiting for our favorite roads to become available again. But we pay a lot in taxes and get terrible roads in return. On the other hand, letting them cure would mean a huge savings in taxes. We’d also spend less on vehicle maintenance due to fewer potholes. And we’d have better roads to drive on. But we’d have to detour longer. Sorry to go all off-topic, but privatization is just bad, imo. Some folks just don't want to have to pay taxes so the lesser folks can enjoy a swimming pool. Unless they own the pool....

How do you argue even a slightly higher tax rate for people who are convinced they don't need the programs it gets spent on? I swear there are some disconnected brains out there that can't figure out who builds the roads and the libraries. I read something recently in that regard. I'll try to find it. They were trying to equate Blackwater Security to Hitler's brownshirts.

I always knock with my hand. You're thinking of what I use for the doorbell. And you're thinking really hard, I can tell. I hope this doesn't cause Mystery111 to change his plans to come back.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations due the speculatory nature of the thread. Science News is for reported stories about science. Upon review, if the hypothesis can pass the tests of scientific methodology, it will be moved to the appropriate section in the accepted sciences.

OWS is calling for the repeal of legislation that has given corporations and banks an unfair advantage, such as the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which creates some very dangerous conflicts of interest in banking. I think they realize that the banks and corporations have unfairly manipulated the government, and are interested in using the government system to level the playing field, in addition to changing some key policies regarding profiteering in general. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the Tea Party and the OWS movements uniting their efforts. If they would each give up their most radical and conflicting ideals and focus on curbing the political influence of big business, I think they could gain even more widespread endorsements. There are lots of businesses in the US that aren't interested in sacrificing their integrity and personnel for growth by any means possible.

Don't need to. As soon as Mystery111 leaves, we teach him the secret knock and then lock all the doors.

I set the detonator on your tracking device for 5 months, just to give you some wiggle room. Good luck and make sure you come back.

You're... looking up... the answers?! Oh, no, that's just... wrong.

I've done this one with four lines before, but never three. I'll be interested to see the answer.

Being wrong about a false conspiracy has little consequence, especially when one can brandish the shield of skepticism. Being right about a true conspiracy holds great value, especially when one can wield the sword of "I told you so!".

! Moderator Note You were warned not to hijack threads by diverting links to other threads. Similarly, responding to other threads within this one is also distracting. PLEASE STOP NOW. Further, your combative attitude is completely uncalled for. No one has done anything to deserve this kind of treatment. If it continues, you will be suspended immediately. Contradicting your ideas is in no way a personal attack. No one is being rude by pointing out your errors. Please follow the rules you agreed to when you joined this forum! If you further derail this or any other threads by responding to this modnote, you will be suspended immediately.

You mean like when FOX News covers a Tea Party rally but uses footage from a much bigger rally? I can see why FOX would need the deception, but why would NASA need to do that if they actually went to the moon? And which photos did you think were "fishy"? It's clear and observable that we built the rockets that went up. If the "primitive" technology could overcome the largest of the hurdles, what parts are left that were beyond our abilities? The cost of the trips exceeded their value, which, after you count the advancements in technology, was mostly informational and inspirational. As for marketable goods, even if the moon was made of gold, it wouldn't be worth the cost of extraction and transportation back to Earth.

It's very real. And relativity gives us the GPS system. Using that and adjusting between the WGS84 and NAD27 map data, you could plot the border's coordinates to within about 100 meters. That's quite a bit more accurate than "It is where we say it is". No need to go beyond a shadow of a doubt when you can get that close.

As the other candidates continue to show their flaws, Huntsman can't help but look better and better. Maybe he's just laying low until he figures out how to spin his spending record.

I think it's obvious that a decade of No Child Left Behind has had disastrous results on the nation's publicly schooled students. IMO, there has been a concerted effort to make public education look bad in order to encourage privatization. Stop those efforts by any means possible first; this will clear the way for a proper foundation any future changes can rest upon.

Both major US political parties seem unwilling to stop bowing to pressure from big business lobbyists. Both are having to contort their own platforms to cater to major protest groups like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. It seems like a prime time for an Independent candidate, one who specifically addresses some of the key issues relevant to our current woes, to step up and pledge to stop the nonsense that American politics has become. What would you look for in such a candidate? What platform points would attract you that aren't seriously offered by either the Democrats or the Republicans? What would be a good strategy for overcoming the curse of the Spoiler Effect? To help steer this discussion, if you're a staunch platform Rep/Dem, refrain from posting unless you'd seriously consider voting for an Indy who better represented you. I don't mean to exclude you, but I'd like to hear from those who feel underrepresented by the majors. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As a means to increase the likelihood of future successful Independent candidacies, I think a change from the winner-takes-all voting system would be a key platform point. iNow summed up my feelings on it very nicely in this post in a different thread, and I doubt I could say it any better.

Great observations. An eternal dilemma, that. We went artificial several years back so I can appreciate the magnitude of your electrical endeavor. Brav-ho(ho-ho)! The perfect place to invite fathers from around the neighborhood to share a cup of Christmas spirits, past, present and future. [insert bearded, red-capped smiley here]

I've never seen this expressed as eloquently and meaningfully before. It strikes me that such scholarly appraisal is only available at a site like this where politics is viewed from a more erudite perspective than your average sound-byte filled political forum. Well done, iNow. Btw, I pictured you saying this standing in front of a rapt crowd of supporters. There were balloons. Will you be 35 by 2016? Off-topic, I was going to start a thread about what platform would be most beneficial for an independent candidate to work from, and I think this is one of the top three issues. I think it would resonate with the people and it's an issue that doesn't already carry a lot of pre-judged baggage with it. And you're never going to see it discussed with any kind of intelligence from either major party.

Avoid the immorality and leak the story directly to the local news. Tell them you suspect this particular dish is being dosed with something to make it addictive, and encourage them to investigate. If it's true, you've done your city a great service, and furthered the career of a reporter. If it's false, the news station is out the money for the lab test, which is a write-off on their taxes. If it's false but they run the story anyway, you've given the restaurant a huge dose of publicity, which will allow them to continue to produce this ambrosia you're drawn to.

&Now you should understand how difficult it is to enforce the forum's rules when one of its most prolific members ignores them repeatedly.

It might not take as much time as you think. A brief link to support of the Bush administration should do it.

From the thread Did Apollo really travel to the Moon?, Schrödinger's hat referenced a great piece of ridicule that perfectly exemplifies why ridicule can be an effective tool in pointing out inconsistencies in a firmly held idea (scroll to post #8). And note that absolutely no people were personally attacked in the filming of this skit.