|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 11 2013 09:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Internal Revenue Service doesn't believe it needs a search warrant to read your e-mail.
Newly disclosed documents prepared by IRS lawyers says that Americans enjoy "generally no privacy" in their e-mail, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and similar online communications -- meaning that they can be perused without obtaining a search warrant signed by a judge.
That places the IRS at odds with a growing sentiment among many judges and legislators who believe that Americans' e-mail messages should be protected from warrantless search and seizure. They say e-mail should be protected by the same Fourth Amendment privacy standards that require search warrants for hard drives in someone's home, or a physical letter in a filing cabinet.
An IRS 2009 Search Warrant Handbook obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union argues that "emails and other transmissions generally lose their reasonable expectation of privacy and thus their Fourth Amendment protection once they have been sent from an individual's computer." The handbook was prepared by the Office of Chief Counsel for the Criminal Tax Division and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Source
Wait, doesn't that open a gigantic can of worms relating to corporate espionage?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
irs is a government law enforcement agency though.
|
On April 11 2013 14:16 oneofthem wrote:
irs is a government law enforcement agency though.
Indeed, but the justification of spying on people in a park or outside the home in general is that it's public space. As in, you're not doing anything anybody else isn't privy to see or know about.
|
Well, that didn't take long: Republicans are now attacking Obama for hurting seniors because he has included their Chained CPI proposal in his budget.
Of course this isn't unexpected, it was predicted by many people, including Krugman.
|
A short note on chained CPI since it's all over the news.
The argument goes that chained CPI is a better measure of price change, so it should be used to index Social Security (and everything). Chained CPI is a better measure of the average cost-of-living, because it partly accounts for substitution effects (e.g. if price of brand A butter goes up, you'll buy brand B butter instead). So it's a better approximation to a true cost of living index.
Because chained CPI takes into accounts substitution, it shows price increases that are less than the usual CPI, i.e. CPI overestimates cost of living. Thus, chained CPI is a benefit cut to Social Security.
While chained CPI is a better measure of cost of living for the general population, it is NOT a better measure of cost of living for old people. Old people consume more healthcare services, and the cost of healthcare rises much faster than the usual CPI. So if anything, old people would tend to face even higher prices than is suggested by the usual CPI. Therefore, indexation should ideally be more generous than the usual CPI, as opposed to less generous via chained CPI.
|
On April 11 2013 14:16 oneofthem wrote:
irs is a government law enforcement agency though.
Not sure it matters that much. Any kind of overview can lead to abuse. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchman?).
The classics are:
Employée needing some cash and sells a few secrets to keep his gambling debt down or his drug addiction running.
People intercepting the transmission or hacking IRS as opposed to only having the company to target.
IRS making a faux pas and sharing the data with someone they shouldn't have.
All of those have been seen before in some shape or form. It might be very rare occurances, but the money on the line for a trade secret can be enormous, so that it is a government agency is not enough to make it ok for that particular company!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
point is standard discussed there was for a warrant, which private corporations do not have.
|
Missouri state police also shared their entire list of CCW (concealed-carry license) holders with the feds, even though it's against Missouri law.
It's the age of datametrics or infonalysis or whatever you want to call it. Every nugget of information about you that can be scooped up, the government and the corporations that have the money to pay for the information are going to grab it. And use it.
|
On April 11 2013 09:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Internal Revenue Service doesn't believe it needs a search warrant to read your e-mail.
Newly disclosed documents prepared by IRS lawyers says that Americans enjoy "generally no privacy" in their e-mail, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and similar online communications -- meaning that they can be perused without obtaining a search warrant signed by a judge.
That places the IRS at odds with a growing sentiment among many judges and legislators who believe that Americans' e-mail messages should be protected from warrantless search and seizure. They say e-mail should be protected by the same Fourth Amendment privacy standards that require search warrants for hard drives in someone's home, or a physical letter in a filing cabinet.
An IRS 2009 Search Warrant Handbook obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union argues that "emails and other transmissions generally lose their reasonable expectation of privacy and thus their Fourth Amendment protection once they have been sent from an individual's computer." The handbook was prepared by the Office of Chief Counsel for the Criminal Tax Division and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Source
Ugh. I've got more than one bone to pick with the IRS and our tax system, but private communications should remain private. I hope the ACLU fights this one; would be one of the rare times I back them up, lol.
On April 11 2013 22:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Missouri state police also shared their entire list of CCW (concealed-carry license) holders with the feds, even though it's against Missouri law.
It's the age of datametrics or infonalysis or whatever you want to call it. Every nugget of information about you that can be scooped up, the government and the corporations that have the money to pay for the information are going to grab it. And use it.
Turns out you're right. O.O
|
On April 11 2013 18:56 paralleluniverse wrote:A short note on chained CPI since it's all over the news. The argument goes that chained CPI is a better measure of price change, so it should be used to index Social Security (and everything). Chained CPI is a better measure of the average cost-of-living, because it partly accounts for substitution effects (e.g. if price of brand A butter goes up, you'll buy brand B butter instead). So it's a better approximation to a true cost of living index. Because chained CPI takes into accounts substitution, it shows price increases that are less than the usual CPI, i.e. CPI overestimates cost of living. Thus, chained CPI is a benefit cut to Social Security. While chained CPI is a better measure of cost of living for the general population, it is NOT a better measure of cost of living for old people. Old people consume more healthcare services, and the cost of healthcare rises much faster than the usual CPI. So if anything, old people would tend to face even higher prices than is suggested by the usual CPI. Therefore, indexation should ideally be more generous than the usual CPI, as opposed to less generous via chained CPI.
Until the BLS can get its old people index up and running chained CPI would still be the better choice. Otherwise you are clumsily compensating the elderly for past trends that may or may not continue into the future.
|
On April 12 2013 01:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 18:56 paralleluniverse wrote:A short note on chained CPI since it's all over the news. The argument goes that chained CPI is a better measure of price change, so it should be used to index Social Security (and everything). Chained CPI is a better measure of the average cost-of-living, because it partly accounts for substitution effects (e.g. if price of brand A butter goes up, you'll buy brand B butter instead). So it's a better approximation to a true cost of living index. Because chained CPI takes into accounts substitution, it shows price increases that are less than the usual CPI, i.e. CPI overestimates cost of living. Thus, chained CPI is a benefit cut to Social Security. While chained CPI is a better measure of cost of living for the general population, it is NOT a better measure of cost of living for old people. Old people consume more healthcare services, and the cost of healthcare rises much faster than the usual CPI. So if anything, old people would tend to face even higher prices than is suggested by the usual CPI. Therefore, indexation should ideally be more generous than the usual CPI, as opposed to less generous via chained CPI. Until the BLS can get its old people index up and running chained CPI would still be the better choice. Otherwise you are clumsily compensating the elderly for past trends that may or may not continue into the future.
This isn't about some wonkish debate over which indicator is more objective accurate. It's just an easier way to sell cutting SS benefits than cutting them more directly. It's also bad politics for Obama to be the one proposing cutting SS without forcing the Republicans to ask for it, since the GOP is once again advertising to its constituents, that hey, Obama wants cut your SS!
|
On April 12 2013 05:44 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 11 2013 18:56 paralleluniverse wrote:A short note on chained CPI since it's all over the news. The argument goes that chained CPI is a better measure of price change, so it should be used to index Social Security (and everything). Chained CPI is a better measure of the average cost-of-living, because it partly accounts for substitution effects (e.g. if price of brand A butter goes up, you'll buy brand B butter instead). So it's a better approximation to a true cost of living index. Because chained CPI takes into accounts substitution, it shows price increases that are less than the usual CPI, i.e. CPI overestimates cost of living. Thus, chained CPI is a benefit cut to Social Security. While chained CPI is a better measure of cost of living for the general population, it is NOT a better measure of cost of living for old people. Old people consume more healthcare services, and the cost of healthcare rises much faster than the usual CPI. So if anything, old people would tend to face even higher prices than is suggested by the usual CPI. Therefore, indexation should ideally be more generous than the usual CPI, as opposed to less generous via chained CPI. Until the BLS can get its old people index up and running chained CPI would still be the better choice. Otherwise you are clumsily compensating the elderly for past trends that may or may not continue into the future. This isn't about some wonkish debate over which indicator is more objective accurate. It's just an easier way to sell cutting SS benefits than cutting them more directly. It's also bad politics for Obama to be the one proposing cutting SS without forcing the Republicans to ask for it, since the GOP is once again advertising to its constituents, that hey, Obama wants cut your SS!
The GOP has put the SS cut in their proposals for at least a couple of years now.
|
On April 11 2013 18:56 paralleluniverse wrote:A short note on chained CPI since it's all over the news. The argument goes that chained CPI is a better measure of price change, so it should be used to index Social Security (and everything). Chained CPI is a better measure of the average cost-of-living, because it partly accounts for substitution effects (e.g. if price of brand A butter goes up, you'll buy brand B butter instead). So it's a better approximation to a true cost of living index. Because chained CPI takes into accounts substitution, it shows price increases that are less than the usual CPI, i.e. CPI overestimates cost of living. Thus, chained CPI is a benefit cut to Social Security. While chained CPI is a better measure of cost of living for the general population, it is NOT a better measure of cost of living for old people. Old people consume more healthcare services, and the cost of healthcare rises much faster than the usual CPI. So if anything, old people would tend to face even higher prices than is suggested by the usual CPI. Therefore, indexation should ideally be more generous than the usual CPI, as opposed to less generous via chained CPI.
Lol i didnt knew about this new invention to cover up the crashing purchasing power of the USD.
First there was hedonic pricing and now there is this.
I dont agree that it is a better measure of cost of living as it substitutes items for items of a lower quality.You do get less for your monney and if you want to maintain the same livestyle you end up spending more.
Off course every product is cheaper if you import it from china but the quality is often less.
People dont want drive a chinese car they want drive a toyota. Cpi is completely useless to track purchasing power if you can just replace goods with cheaper goods whenever you want.Off course items wich went out of fashing should be replaced by similar items but this goes way further lol.
Printing 85 billion dollars a month may not lead to inflation off course so now we get this to hide inflation on top of all other things to hide inflation (like for example excluding housing prices while people spend up to 25% of all the monney they will make in their entire live on a house)
Annyway:sry for dropping in once here everyday to make some sarcastic remark, hope people dont take to much offense
|
On April 12 2013 06:50 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 18:56 paralleluniverse wrote:A short note on chained CPI since it's all over the news. The argument goes that chained CPI is a better measure of price change, so it should be used to index Social Security (and everything). Chained CPI is a better measure of the average cost-of-living, because it partly accounts for substitution effects (e.g. if price of brand A butter goes up, you'll buy brand B butter instead). So it's a better approximation to a true cost of living index. Because chained CPI takes into accounts substitution, it shows price increases that are less than the usual CPI, i.e. CPI overestimates cost of living. Thus, chained CPI is a benefit cut to Social Security. While chained CPI is a better measure of cost of living for the general population, it is NOT a better measure of cost of living for old people. Old people consume more healthcare services, and the cost of healthcare rises much faster than the usual CPI. So if anything, old people would tend to face even higher prices than is suggested by the usual CPI. Therefore, indexation should ideally be more generous than the usual CPI, as opposed to less generous via chained CPI. Lol i didnt knew about this new invention to cover up the crashing purchasing power of the USD. First there was hedonic pricing and now there is this. I dont agree that it is a better measure of cost of living as it substitutes items for items of a lower quality.You do get less for your monney and if you want to maintain the same livestyle you end up spending more. Off course every product is cheaper if you import it from china but the quality is often less. People dont want drive a chinese car they want drive a toyota. Cpi is completely useless to track purchasing power if you can just replace goods with cheaper goods whenever you want.Off course items wich went out of fashing should be replaced by similar items but this goes way further lol. Printing 85 billion dollars a month may not lead to inflation off course so now we get this to hide inflation on top of all other things to hide inflation (like for example excluding housing prices while people spend up to 25% of all the monney they will make in their entire live on a house) Annyway:sry for dropping in once here everyday to make some sarcastic remark, hope people dont take to much offense
That's not how chained CPI works. It doesn't substitute normal products for cheaper products of the same exact kind. Normal CPI accounts for that kind of substitution, but chained CPI works a little different. In C-CPI, people with substitute products with other, distantly similar products. Buy apples instead of oranges, or chicken instead of beef.
|
If you buy a house in 20 years you have a house. If you buy a car in 20 years you have a pile of scrap.
Houses hold their value (in the long run). Most things don't.
Also, if the prices of most things aren't going up that much, then no, massive quantitative easing is not inflationary. It may not be wise, but it obviously isn't causing significant inflation.
|
On April 12 2013 01:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 18:56 paralleluniverse wrote:A short note on chained CPI since it's all over the news. The argument goes that chained CPI is a better measure of price change, so it should be used to index Social Security (and everything). Chained CPI is a better measure of the average cost-of-living, because it partly accounts for substitution effects (e.g. if price of brand A butter goes up, you'll buy brand B butter instead). So it's a better approximation to a true cost of living index. Because chained CPI takes into accounts substitution, it shows price increases that are less than the usual CPI, i.e. CPI overestimates cost of living. Thus, chained CPI is a benefit cut to Social Security. While chained CPI is a better measure of cost of living for the general population, it is NOT a better measure of cost of living for old people. Old people consume more healthcare services, and the cost of healthcare rises much faster than the usual CPI. So if anything, old people would tend to face even higher prices than is suggested by the usual CPI. Therefore, indexation should ideally be more generous than the usual CPI, as opposed to less generous via chained CPI. Until the BLS can get its old people index up and running chained CPI would still be the better choice. Otherwise you are clumsily compensating the elderly for past trends that may or may not continue into the future.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2012/ted_20120302.htm
It says historically, CPI for the elderly has been above the usual CPI, but only recently has it dropped to being around the same as the usual CPI.
But chained CPI is must always be less than the usual CPI.
|
On April 12 2013 06:50 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 18:56 paralleluniverse wrote:A short note on chained CPI since it's all over the news. The argument goes that chained CPI is a better measure of price change, so it should be used to index Social Security (and everything). Chained CPI is a better measure of the average cost-of-living, because it partly accounts for substitution effects (e.g. if price of brand A butter goes up, you'll buy brand B butter instead). So it's a better approximation to a true cost of living index. Because chained CPI takes into accounts substitution, it shows price increases that are less than the usual CPI, i.e. CPI overestimates cost of living. Thus, chained CPI is a benefit cut to Social Security. While chained CPI is a better measure of cost of living for the general population, it is NOT a better measure of cost of living for old people. Old people consume more healthcare services, and the cost of healthcare rises much faster than the usual CPI. So if anything, old people would tend to face even higher prices than is suggested by the usual CPI. Therefore, indexation should ideally be more generous than the usual CPI, as opposed to less generous via chained CPI. Lol i didnt knew about this new invention to cover up the crashing purchasing power of the USD. First there was hedonic pricing and now there is this. I dont agree that it is a better measure of cost of living as it substitutes items for items of a lower quality.You do get less for your monney and if you want to maintain the same livestyle you end up spending more. Off course every product is cheaper if you import it from china but the quality is often less. People dont want drive a chinese car they want drive a toyota. Cpi is completely useless to track purchasing power if you can just replace goods with cheaper goods whenever you want.Off course items wich went out of fashing should be replaced by similar items but this goes way further lol. Printing 85 billion dollars a month may not lead to inflation off course so now we get this to hide inflation on top of all other things to hide inflation (like for example excluding housing prices while people spend up to 25% of all the monney they will make in their entire live on a house) Annyway:sry for dropping in once here everyday to make some sarcastic remark, hope people dont take to much offense
Items in the CPI are already adjusted for quality change. The hedonic methods you mention is quality change adjustment, usually used for tech items.
|
A gay man was arrested at a hospital in Missouri this week when he refused to leave the bedside of his partner, and now a restraining order is preventing him from any type of visitation.
Roger Gorley told WDAF that even though he has power of attorney to handle his partner’s affairs, a family member asked him to leave when he visited Research Medical Center in Kansas City on Tuesday.
Gorley said he refused to leave his partner Allen’s bedside, and that’s when security put him in handcuffs and escorted him from the building.
“I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn’t recognized as being the partner,” Gorley explained.
He said the nurse refused to confirm that the couple shared power of attorney and made medical decision for each other.
“She didn’t even bother to look it up, to check in to it,” the Lee’s Summit resident recalled.
In a 2010 memorandum, President Barack Obama ordered hospitals that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding to allow visitation rights for gay and lesbian partners.
For its part, Research Medical Center insisted that it does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Source
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Christ, I can't even imagine the feeling of not being allowed to be by my loved one's side when they're hospitalized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2013/04/pm-energy2/pm-gr-energypercapita-616.gif)
