No Child Left Behind was a far-right pendulum swingin the ongoing battle over whether the purpose of public education is to train people to function as workers or to lead better lives. As proven by the fact that the bill was largely written by that ultra right neo-con Ted Kennedy. To quote him, "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not." In other words, he was happy with the policy but not the amount of funding.
Sure, it was part of GWB's 2000 election platform, but after taking office, he decided to extend an olive branch to the other party and let Kennedy focus on one of his pet issues in an attempt to ease the partisan fighting in DC. But we'll leave the Senior Senator from Massachussets out of it as we rewrite history to prove yet again that only Republicans are evil.
Vermont also has very high taxes but isn't seeing this same decline, New York is the same way. You do realize that there is an entire state outside of NYC, don't you? The rest of the state is having the same problem that Michigan, Ohio, et al have... businesses are fleeing the high taxes for better locales and the population is declining accordingly as people have to seek work elsewhere. The only job sectors seeing growth involve government work and medicine. The ratio of welfare recipients to workers is rising at a rather troubling rate and nearly 40% of the population claims to be disabled in some way.
As Kodak and Xerox have fallen over the last two decades under increased taxation, they've taken Rochester down with them. Kodak once employed something like 50,000 local workers and they've reduced that by something like 80%. Other manufacturers like AC Delco/Valeo have bailed as well. Buffalo suffers from the same problems.
The state is entirely controlled by people living in the Hudson River corridor. EVERY statewide office is occupied by someone from there and, so long as NYC dominates state politics via having half the state population, they don't have to care how those of us outside the big city have to languish. In fact, there is increasing support upstate to split the state in two, citing the irreconcilable differences between NYC, Albany and the rest of the state.
One of Governor Paterson's first moves was to eliminate the Upstate Economic Czar who was supposed to be working on reviving upstate. Alas, most people, especially those not from NY, don't realize that the vast majority of the state has more in common with an Indiana or Nebraska than it does with the Big Apple.
As for NYC, it's sort of a unique microcosm of its own. There is only one place like it in the US, so it's going to continue to function under the status quo unless a major catastrophe hits that basically wipes out the entire US economy with it. Even then, it'll be one of the first regions to rebound because that's where people go to get business done... just like Silicon Valley wasn't exactly hurting in the high tech arena like much of the rest of the country was when the bubble burst in 2000. To use NYC as the standard for the entire state is quite disingenuous.
As for you including California with the boom states, maybe you should check the recent spate of local governments filing for bankruptcy for overspending as well as the "economic emergency" being felt at the state level. The economic state of Europe also couldn't have anything to do with the strong Euro versus the weak dollar and the fact that European companies are coming to the US to buy land, utilities, etc, could it? (see Iberdola and Energy East for an example)
or some silly flat tax applies, eg the greater of $50/kg or $5/1000 cubic cm. Ha! Your non-American, tax loving, status has been exposed!
Still, $50/kg? The USPS will deliver a 2.2 pound package cross country for $8.95 ($2.81 if you use media rate) and you want to slap $50 on that? Man, the price of books definitely just grew out of reach for most people. Ditto for sending something like a hard drive out for warranty repair.
As I mentioned last time this tax came up, NY is already getting their use tax out of us via our state income taxes, so this is just another grab to tax the people who have been too stupid to flee (or with too many local ties to do so) already. As businesses and high wage earners continue to leave the state (with the exception of NYC) due to high taxes, the solution is to always raise taxes.
NY State, Income Tax form IT-201 (the main tax form, like a federal 1040):
Line 59: Sales or use tax Do not leave line 59 blank:
Now... you can either keep track of all of your out of state purchases and pay the exact amount or you can just go by the income range table:
up to $15,000: $5
$15,001-30k: $15
$30k-$50k: $21
$50k-$75k: $27
$75k-$100k: $40
$100k-$150k: $56
$150k-$200k: $72
$200k+:.0361% of income (.000361) or $200, whichever is smaller
If you don't fill in the line or enter a 0, you're basically begging for a state audit
NY has a bicameral legislature. The NY State Assembly is aportioned by population, much like the US House of Representatives is. The NY State Senate is seated by land area, much like the US Senate.
The NYS Assembly is very, very Democratic because half the state is from NYC (2.8 million Dems compared to 504k GOP). The Assembly is 104 Dems, 42 Reps, 2 third parties and 2 vacancies.
The NYS Senate is close to being split down the middle with 32 Reps and 30 Dems.
Further, most elected NY Republicans are actually fairly far to the left (for Reps) and would probably be considered Democrats in most states. Giuliani and Pataki aren't exactly what we think of when we think of traditional Republicans at the national level. In fact, other than the Majority Leader of the Senate from time to time, nearly every statewide elected official has been from the NYC-Hudson Valley-Albany area (again, due to the dominance of NYC in state politics). I'd argue that is a very large reason why Western NY has been economically obliterated while Albany sits on its thumbs, generally doing nothing but making things worse (Who cares about Buffalo, Rochester or Syracuse as long as NYC and Albany are booming?).
Finally, party registration as of Oct 2007
5,336,241 Democrats
2,997,508 Republicans
2,356,762 unaffiliated
343,824 Indepedence (a party created by Tom Galisano to run for governor)
148,589 Conservative
36,321 Working Families
25,037 Green
930 Libertarian
5 Socialist Workers Party
1 Rent is Too High
Oh yeah... that's what I call a highly Republican state government.
PS - don't forget State Comptroller Alan Hevesi (D-NYC) in the list of corrupt politicians who were elected but stepped down this term. Nothing like the state's top economic cop basically embezzling money to have his wife chauffeurred around like a queen.
the consumer has to declare it when filing for state taxes. I guess they have noticed that not many people declare their purchases to pay tax on them... NY State, Income Tax form IT-201 (the main tax form, like a federal 1040):
Line 59: Sales or use tax Do not leave line 59 blank:
Now... you can either keep track of all of your out of state purchases and pay the exact amount or you can just go by the income range table:
up to $15,000: $5
$15,001-30k: $15
$30k-$50k: $21
$50k-$75k: $27
$75k-$100k: $40
$100k-$150k: $56
$150k-$200k: $72
$200k+:.0361% of income (.000361) or $200, whichever is smaller
If you don't fill in the line or enter a 0, you're basically begging for a state audit
So, the state is effectively already charging for out of state purchases and has been for a couple years now... but that's never enough for NY, we need even more taxes. We're $90 billion in debt (if you count the NY State Authorities debt), and are still seeing double digit budget increases every year despite us running in the hole every year. Upstate has been destroyed economically with business fleeing left and right to other states and countries while the state just keeps squeezing more and more. But I guess that's a rant for another day.
I see that often, but out here (in CA) I've been told it is illegal (though I've never confirmed it so that may be BS)
I've heard the same rumor, but I don't know if it's valid (I'm in NY). I do know that it is legal to refuse tender if it given in a way which creates an excessive burden for the merchant (such as paying for a tv with pennies).
Most people are content to either pay for small purchases with cash (everyone should carry a little cash on them just in case of an emergency, but you'd be surprised how few people do these days). If they're close to the minimum or a regular customer, we would just do it anyway out of courtesy to keep their business. If they insisted upon paying with a credit card, we would usually do so after explaining why we have a minimum purchase requirement (many of them understood why we did it and would up their purchase or at least apologize for not having any cash on them).
There was only ever one time I refused to run a credit card through and that was after this guy went apeshit on my employee for 5 minutes, berating her for being an idiot because we didn't take his particular favorite card (AmEx) despite him having a wallet full of other credit cards and probably $1000-1500 in cash. In fact, I told him to leave my establishment and not come back. Not every customer is right, especially not one that is such an ass that he'll go to the extent of making someone with a teaching degree (she was working part time while substituting and looking for a full time/permanent teaching job) cry in front of a couple dozen customers and 8 or so of her fellow employees.
Exactly, but the places I might like to use my debit card (which can also be used as a Visa) and have seen these signs they have no pin pad anyway, so it has to be processed as a CC. Perhaps the equipment for debit card processing is more expensive, or is just too much of a hassle for them?
The unit we bought had an add-on keypad to verify the pin (the pin could not be input on the card unit keypad, it had to go through the peripheral pad, most likely for security reasons). I'd assume some places are just too cheap to buy the peripheral and train cashiers how to use it, favoring just swiping the card as a credit card (since all debit cards I've ever seen will work as one). In fact, despite us having the debit keypad, a lot of people at the register would just swipe it as a card to save themselves the hassle of passing the keypad over the counter.
50 cents for a successful transaction + 2-5% of the money going through depending on the type of credit card (MC/Visa being 2%, American Express being 5%). If you swipe an invalid card or a card from a network you don't have enabled, they'll charge you 25 cents. That's just to process a transaction... you want to balance your till against your account to make sure things are right? It'll cost you $1 to print out a slip with your take on it.
On your $5 transaction, it would cost between 60 cents and 75 cents to process your credit card order for a mom and pop type shop (Walmart and other giant stores that process a lot of card transactions much more favorable terms). If you think restaurants can afford to give up 12% or more of their transactions to someone else, you obviously have never tried to manage a food establishment. Someone buys a $1.25 bottle of pop with a credit card, the shop is losing money... which is why a lot of places advertise a minimum purchase to use a credit card (sometimes as low as $5, sometimes as high as $15).
Debit cards are a little more favorable to the merchant, the fees aren't quite so high... but just as many people, if not more, swipe a credit card (look ma, cash back, frequent flier miles, etc) than a debit card.
Also, take Texas, she wins the state in private primaries, but in the caucuses she loses considerably, even though they are made up of the same segments of society, near each other. For this large of a discrepancy it would have to be a massive statistical anomaly at best.
When put in a room where you have to pick your candidate in front of your spouse and neighbors, societal pressures and accepted stereotypical attachments come into play. I strongly think caucuses are antiquated and anti-American in their inception, as they force public proof of support, which is strictly forbidden, to the point we can't even film or have witness to our votes in main elections so we can't 'prove' who we voted for to showboat or 'pay back' interests outside of our own.
The reason is far simpler than that... It takes a few minutes to go vote in a primary. Walk in, tell them who you are, mark a ballot and leave. The caucuses were held after the primary and can take up to a couple hours. Obama has the support of college kids (who have nothing better to do) while a lot of Hillary's supporters are moms (be it single, soccer or otherwise) that have to get home to tend to their families. Ergo, the population that makes up the caucus is significantly different than the population that makes up the primary. You'll see the same trend in pretty much every caucus - they all (or almost all, I can't remember for sure) go to Obama. Where you see public voting as the "problem", I see different demographics who can afford to stand around for a few hours without tending to other things as the "problem."
It's also arguable whether or not Hillary won the Texas primaries... Obama got more delegates from them because of the way the delegates were apportioned prior to the event. It wasn't a matter of tallying up the overall state numbers and splitting the delegates accordingly, it was a matter of each district having a set number of delegates that it would split itself. Virtually all of the coverage I've seen regarding how delegates are handed out has been neutered for the simplicity of looking at overall vote totals as deciding the winner.
We owe $9.1 trillion in on book debt. Recent GAO numbers show roughly $70 trillion in existing liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc that haven't come due yet but must be counted as debt (unless you want to cancel the programs, stranding tens of millions of people and/or cancel the people so their benefits don't come due).
Have you actually looked at federal budget outlays?
2007 actual numbers (in billions of dollars):
Military: 553
Veterans Benefits: 72
Education, training, employment and social services: 92
Health: 266
Medicare: 375
Income Security: 366
Social Security: 567
1970 was the last time we spent more on the military than we do on social programs. As of 2007, military expenditures accounted for 22.9% ($625 billion) of the federal budget while social programs made up 61.0% ($1666 billion) of the budget. Iraq and the war on drugs are a drop in the bucket in what we've spent on that other impossible to end war, the one of the left, the war on poverty.
Congress passed a law in 1965 stating that the government could borrow money the excess money that would otherwise go into the Social Security Trust Fund and use it in the general budget, promising to pay back the debt in the future. They had to do that because a mere 2 years of LBJ's Great Society was already pushing the federal government into deficit spending and they knew that the deficit was going to get a whole lot worse and show the programs for the untenable situation they are if they didn't try to paper over the problem.
We've long hollowed out the Social Security Trust Fund and in a couple years (2017 IIRC), Social Security will start paying out more than it takes in every year. Just wait until the taxes or deficits come due to cover that situation. The Ponzi Scheme will finally be shown for what it is. Now, you can sit there and blame military spending, a function absolutely crucial to any national level government and one that is built into the Constitution, like the 1965 Democrats would hope you would, or you can see the real root of the problem, and that is an entitlement system that has been making promises it couldn't keep since the day it was enacted and is ever-consuming a larger amount of our budget and GDP with absolutely no projection to slow down in sight.
BTW, those are just the federal numbers and not what the states spend on social programs in their budgets. The state's have very, very miniscule military related budgets and spend virtually all of their money on entitlements. Here in NY, entitlements are roughly 80% of the state budget of $120ish billion.
But just keep right on blaming the stuff you don't like versus the real problem... history has shown that if you say it often enough, people might just believe you.
So, looking at the resident memory, is it acceptable that firefox needs ~555 megs of memory not counting caching after running for 3 days (compared to the 100 or so megs when I first load it)?
Whether a faulty cache implementation or poor memory allocation, firefox is a pig. It's obviously still my browser of choice, but it could use a diet.
Which is pretty much happened with Stevens (Ford), Kennedy (Reagan/but only to a lesser extent, more of a swing vote than a pure liberal vote) and Souter (Bush 41). Of the nine justices, 4 are considered conservative(Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito), 4 are considered liberal(Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) and 1 (Kennedy) is the tossup. Seven of them were appointed by Republicans (Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) and only two by Democrats (Ginsburg and Breyer).
I'd like to suggest that this type of thinking is something that it's very easy for all sides to fall into, and that it's a dangerous trap. Dehumanizing your opponents, and believing that the only way they could disagree with you is by being categorically too stupid to understand the situation, is a guaranteed route to endless polarization and no resolution. Usually when a statement like this could be (and is) used equally meaningfully by both sides, it's a sign that it's not especially true.
I wasn't saying Democrats are stupid, I'm saying that they didn't understand what happened on the right. How many times have you sat there wondering "now why would my significant other have done X?" It can be hard to understand the mindset of another person or group while being outside of it.
It's easy for an outside group to say "we won because of Y" and that becomes the mindset because they all convince each other of Y while never considering that X may have happened (too). That's where the echo chamber comes in.
Did some Dems understand it? Almost definitely. I can pretty much guarantee the Congressional leadership did and that's why they have no resolve to do the things that they ran on or they'll alienate the people that voted Dem to oust the GOP. Do you think that they're going to openly admit it and expose the weakness to the rank and file? Politically, it's not wise to let your supporters know that their current status as the majority party is somewhat precarious. You always want to project popularity and power, not a lack of confidence and weakness, or you're guaranteed to lose support.
One of the things that brought the GOP down in 2006 was their spineless leaders in Congress. They were always looking to back down, whether it was Bush or the opposition party. That's what got the base to turn on them. The Dems, as the majority party, now face the same problem. They've compromised their beliefs to pander to the middle and they risk losing support of their base. Such is the temptation of power, once you have it, you tend to forget about why you got it and simply work to keep the power. That's precisely why we've been seeing the creation of the Democan/Republicrat party despite the desire of the far left (I'm assuming you) and the far right (me) wanting something far different than what we're getting. Meanwhile, the middle is so wishy-washy, they don't know what they actually want and will simply act as lemmings, going where they're told (and that's where the projection of confidence by politicians matters).
My read of things is that the sweeping overturn of Congress in 2006 was about the clearest possible mandate that our deeply flawed electoral system can transmit. Its message was complete disapproval of the Bush administration's policies (most especially its military adventurism), and a demand that they be curtailed.
On the left side of things, the base was about disapproving of Bush. However, on the right, it was because a lot of people abandoned their beliefs and turned into mini-Democrats, especially when it came to spending. Factor in all the corruption ranging from Mark Foley to Jack Abramoff and we don't want those types of people representing us.
Many conservatives chose not to vote or vote third party. Many independents said "ok, we don't like theses Republicans anymore, who is the most viable candidate other than them" and voted for the Dems. They didn't do it to support the left's platform, they did it because they weren't Republicans.
I'm not sure the Democrats ever really understood the Republican side of that equation and read too much into their own echo chambers about the result.
Unfortunately, the newly elected Democrat Congress proceeded to dither for months on end about whether or not to hold discussions on whether or not to hold a vote on the idea of passing a non-binding resolution suggesting that perhaps staying in Iraq forever might not be the most stellar plan--and then failed to do even that.
This seems clearly to be the source of Congress's low approval ratings: their complete ineffectuality at reigning in the white house. I think that if they had de-funded the war immediately their approval rating would be twice what it is now, and if they had followed it up with impeachment hearings it would be fourfold.
The Democrats tried to have it both ways... they wanted to get the vote of the antiwar/antiBush people in their base, so they had to promise that they would end the war, even though they knew that it would be politically impossible (because if they did and things go bad, they'll take the blame and that will outweigh the positive reaction they got from the base to do it). At the same time, they still tried pushing the agenda of the left, knowing full well that it wouldn't succeed, and that upset the conservatives and right leaning independents (since they didn't vote for Democrat policies, they voted against the Republicans). Combine them both together and nobody is happy with the current state of things.
In fact, it is precisely that outcome that had me cheering on pretty much the exact results of the 2006 election (again, as a conservative Republican). The Democrats now get to take the blame for the ineptitude of Congress (which the Republicans absolutely will hammer home this summer/fall) and have ensured that nobody is happy with them. Such is the downside of being the majority party, you actually have to do something and can't just sit back, taking pot shots when things go wrong, saying "we're not them."
Meanwhile, the Republicans get to replace all the old corrupt officials and RINOs that we managed to get rid of in 2006 with candidates who will remember that they are there to represent us, rather than their personal agendas. We'll again be the party of ideas and the party that can get things done rather than "the current Democratic do-nothing Congress that can't even get their bills to conference."
And please, please, I beg you, defund the war, and watch Iraq go to hell. You'll remind the country that Democrats are invested in our defeat and the Republicans are the national security party. Impeach Bush too... so that we can point out that the Dems were so focused on getting rid of a President in his final year that tehy didn't focus on the issues important to the voter. The GOP will campaign on how petty the Democrat party is and how they care more about revenge for Bill Clinton than their own goals for America. Impeachment actually saved Bill Clinton's Presiden
is it acceptable to allow the federal government to move even farther to the left?
You're forgetting that the government consists of more than just the Presidency... Congress' approval numbers are dismal, they're even worse than GWB's. In 2006, conservatives sent a message and said "we're not going to put up with your irresponsibility" to their congresscritters, letting conservative democrats win a number of right wing strongholds. In 2008, we'll be looking to take back our districts now that the message has been sent and a bunch of the bums were kicked out. The Senate could be rocky, with more Republicans exposed this year, but I definitely have hope that the House will return to the right.
The only issue that really concerns me is the Supreme Court... but, then again, the members to the right are pretty young (Roberts: 53, Alito: 57, Thomas: 59, Scalia: 71) and the members to the left are pretty old (Stevens: 87, Ginsburg: 74, Breyer: 69, Souter: 68). Kennedy, the tossup vote, is 71 and I think he'll probably serve until he dies rather than retire, so who knows when he'll be replaced. Stevens is the only person statistically likely (by natural death) to be replaced by the next President, regardless of party. The other liberals will only retire if there is a liberal President. In the end, it leaves the court pretty stable.
Huckabee would be a good running mate for McCain to solidify his base, especially after the Hillary comments made by Coulter/Limbaugh/etc
Huckabee won't solidify the fiscal conservatives behind McCain... he has a long reputation as a tax and spender and McCain has a lot of fiscal problems himself (opposing tax cuts, offering illegal aliens the opportunity to collect Social Security, etc).
Don't expect the conservative pundits (or base) to jump onboard a McCain/Huckabee ticket
Conservative Republicans have a dilemma. The candidates most aligned with the conservative base are unlikely to win a national election against either of the Democratic contenders. Would they prefer McCain to beat Clinton/Obama in a national election, or Romney to lose to the Democrats? So do conservatives want to make a point on principle and vote for someone who has no shot at winning? Or do they want to choose what would be the lesser of two evils in the long run? Despite McCain's highly questionable conservative credentials, he is a far better option for conservatives than either of the Democrats.
As a conservative Republican, I will not vote for McCain since he is anything but (including on national security). I would rather lose the general election and let the other side take the blame for wrong policies than win the election and let my side get blamed for a President's wrong policies that we don't actually support.
Now, I'm a national security conservative, a social conservative (though I'm an atheist, it's got nothing to do with religion, but rather society), and a fiscal conservative. Of our field this time around, I would have preferred Fred Thompson, but Romney will be getting my vote tomorrow since he is the closest to my own ideology of our three remaining candidates.
My ideological beliefs trump the party and that often holds true for Republicans. That's why Republicans were backing the potential impeachment of Nixon 35ish years ago and that is why the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 (because we weren't going to vote back in people who violated the principles of the voters).
The establishment backing McCain this year is going to produce the same results of the establishment backing Bob Dole or Gerald Ford. Good luck when the base refuses to show up.
Hillary is a complete non-starter for Republicans, we hate her with a passion. She's probably the most hated person in politics today from the perspective of the right (yeah, she's even more hated than Bill if you want to count him as a current politician). Imagine the left being asked to support GWB in 2008; That sort of hatred. Edward's platform of class warfare doesn't sell to the right. People who dig beyond Obama's platitudes and personality will find he has some pretty socialist (and I'm not saying that in a judgmental way, it's just what they are) ideas.
Though none of the current crop of Democrats really support the ideals of the right, Bill Richardson is probably the least offensive.
There is nothing hypocritical in it. Buffet believes (as our government apparently believes) that it is more effective to give to charity than to government. That's why charitable givings are tax deductible. If Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith or Larry Birkhead wants (wanted) to avoid taxes they could also give money to charities. There is no double standard at all. Then he should push for more charitable donations rather than higher taxation. Instead, he advocates the latter.
Also note that, while there are many good charities out there, many charities exist solely for the purpose of paying staff a check. Some have as much as a 90% operating cost, giving mere pennies on the dollar donated to the cause they advocate. Others run by prominent individuals seem to exist only for promoting a positive image of the individual too. Rich guy who does dubious things to earn money starts charity to give it away. Gets large tax deductions, continues to control where all of his money goes and boosts his public image while he continues to rape society on the side.
We (the continental US, but this applies to most places on Earth) receive 5.5 useful sunlight hours per day, on average. On average, maybe, but it doesn't make NY or Washington get as much sun as Texas. You'll get a better ROI the farther south you live and the less cloudy the atmosphere is.
Modern solar panels have an effective lifespan of at least 20 years. Is that taking into account hail storms and other forms of damage that happen in non-ideal conditions? I've seen hail leave dents in cars, I'd imagine that would be pretty devastating to a solar panel array. I'd imagine they'd also be pretty useless when they're covered with snow during the winter.
The cheapest commercially-manufactured home solar panels currently cost $3 per Watt. Is that just the panel cost? If so, that doesn't include power inverters, batteries to store the power (I use most of my power at night when I'm home, not during the day when the panels are producing energy), replacement and disposal of the batteries, maintenance of the system, replacement of damaged panels, etc. All of that will need to be factored into the cost per watt too.
This topic has been debated quite a bit recently in my region... and in my belief, it isn't the skin color that matters. Young white urban males suffer the same problems as the young black urban males. You just hear more about the blacks and hispanics because they tend to outnumber the whites in the ghetto.
It is about slavery. Modern slavery. The Great Society and its welfare programs eliminated the need for fathers to take care of their family and, thus, they abdicated that responsibility. Why stick around to raise your kids when they're being taken care of by the state and you can move on to the next piece of meat to make more babies there? Mothers often have children by different fathers and they tend to have a lot of kids (I have two aunts who live in the ghetto and have produced 7 and 6 kids each, with 5 different fathers between them).
It's overwhelming to care for one or two kids by yourself, much less a half dozen. Each kid gets less attention than even your typical suburban kid who has two parents working 60 hours a week. Without help, discipline suffers in the family and without discipline, there isn't an emphasis on education. Further reinforcing the anti-education element is the fact that they know, and are probably resigned to, the fact that they will follow the same road that their parents did. The girls will end up as welfare moms and the boys will be off doing what they want to who they want. Because everything has been provided to them during their formative years, they learn that money is supposed to come easy and there's no reason to work hard. Why put in 40 hours a week working for the man for $30k a year when you can make that in a month selling drugs down on the corner?
Now, that's not to say that all urban families suffer the same plight. There are good families and good parents who are left in the unfortunate circumstance of being surrounded by negative influences. A smart kid from a good family gets bullied for being a sellout and wanting an education... Some persevere and manage to succeed while others end up a victim of their peers' influence. Eventually, their family becomes corrupted and they become part of the decay. Many good families (my parents included after I was born) fled the ghettos for a better life. Good for those who left, but it further swamped those good families who stayed.
In the end, it has nothing to do with skin color, but rather the systematic destruction of the family and enslavement to the government handout. The noble intentions meant to help them destroyed them, but nobody wants to talk about that. The answer is always more spending, more government and likely more racism (such as recent essays in the local paper stating that only black teachers can empathize with city youths). Bill Cosby has the answer but has become a pariah to the black community. The answer is actually pretty simple. Restore the family. Teach your kid discipline and responsiblity. Instill the value of education and hard work. Pressure your neighbors to do the same instead of letting them pressure your kids to fail too. Have a little pride in yourself and for what you've worked to achieve.
Alas, it's easier to blame whitey, slavery (which ended 140+ years ago), cops, etc. Anyone but themselves. Fact is, just about everyone in the US is descended from someone who faced racism and bigots by society (asians, italians, irish, etc). It's intellectually lazy to continue to blame traditional slavery when their white neighbors suffer from the same fate and while all of those other groups that have been targetted in the past have gone on to either excel or meet average.
You do realize that Buffet can directly pay the IRS all the money he wants, right? You also realize that it isn't mandatory for him to itemize and/or take any deductions at all. That would be putting his money where his mouth is instead of keeping it with the good ol' boys club with his buddy Bill.
If he wants higher taxation, he can start by coughing up money himself instead of advocating that the rest of his tax bracket do it to paper over his own self-guilt. I'll never reach his tax bracket, so it's not like I have anything to lose personally if he wants a 90% income tax on all income over $1 million/year and/or an annual asset tax of 50% on assets totalling more than $1 billion to make sure the rich aren't stockpiling money.
Now, if he wanted to advocate rich people giving large chunks of their fortunes to private charities instead of the government, that would be in line with his own actions. He obviously doesn't trust the government to manage his money, why should anyone else?
The thing about guys like Buffet is... while they support higher taxation, they, themselves, donate their monies to charities to manage. They obviously don't trust the government to properly manage their own money but think that everyone else (be it in just the ultra-rich or a wider range of the population) should give their money to the government to manage for them.
When Buffet takes his pledge to the Gates Foundation away and cuts a check to Uncle Sam instead, I'll listen to him. Until then, he's sheltering his money with another guy from the ultra-rich boys club while advocating a different policy for the serfs.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it was part of GWB's 2000 election platform, but after taking office, he decided to extend an olive branch to the other party and let Kennedy focus on one of his pet issues in an attempt to ease the partisan fighting in DC. But we'll leave the Senior Senator from Massachussets out of it as we rewrite history to prove yet again that only Republicans are evil.
As Kodak and Xerox have fallen over the last two decades under increased taxation, they've taken Rochester down with them. Kodak once employed something like 50,000 local workers and they've reduced that by something like 80%. Other manufacturers like AC Delco/Valeo have bailed as well. Buffalo suffers from the same problems.
The state is entirely controlled by people living in the Hudson River corridor. EVERY statewide office is occupied by someone from there and, so long as NYC dominates state politics via having half the state population, they don't have to care how those of us outside the big city have to languish. In fact, there is increasing support upstate to split the state in two, citing the irreconcilable differences between NYC, Albany and the rest of the state.
One of Governor Paterson's first moves was to eliminate the Upstate Economic Czar who was supposed to be working on reviving upstate. Alas, most people, especially those not from NY, don't realize that the vast majority of the state has more in common with an Indiana or Nebraska than it does with the Big Apple.
As for NYC, it's sort of a unique microcosm of its own. There is only one place like it in the US, so it's going to continue to function under the status quo unless a major catastrophe hits that basically wipes out the entire US economy with it. Even then, it'll be one of the first regions to rebound because that's where people go to get business done... just like Silicon Valley wasn't exactly hurting in the high tech arena like much of the rest of the country was when the bubble burst in 2000. To use NYC as the standard for the entire state is quite disingenuous.
As for you including California with the boom states, maybe you should check the recent spate of local governments filing for bankruptcy for overspending as well as the "economic emergency" being felt at the state level. The economic state of Europe also couldn't have anything to do with the strong Euro versus the weak dollar and the fact that European companies are coming to the US to buy land, utilities, etc, could it? (see Iberdola and Energy East for an example)
Still, $50/kg? The USPS will deliver a 2.2 pound package cross country for $8.95 ($2.81 if you use media rate) and you want to slap $50 on that? Man, the price of books definitely just grew out of reach for most people. Ditto for sending something like a hard drive out for warranty repair.
As I mentioned last time this tax came up, NY is already getting their use tax out of us via our state income taxes, so this is just another grab to tax the people who have been too stupid to flee (or with too many local ties to do so) already. As businesses and high wage earners continue to leave the state (with the exception of NYC) due to high taxes, the solution is to always raise taxes.
NY State, Income Tax form IT-201 (the main tax form, like a federal 1040):
Line 59: Sales or use tax Do not leave line 59 blank:
Now... you can either keep track of all of your out of state purchases and pay the exact amount or you can just go by the income range table:
up to $15,000: $5
$15,001-30k: $15
$30k-$50k: $21
$50k-$75k: $27
$75k-$100k: $40
$100k-$150k: $56
$150k-$200k: $72
$200k+:
If you don't fill in the line or enter a 0, you're basically begging for a state audit
Close, but not quite...
NY has a bicameral legislature. The NY State Assembly is aportioned by population, much like the US House of Representatives is. The NY State Senate is seated by land area, much like the US Senate.
The NYS Assembly is very, very Democratic because half the state is from NYC (2.8 million Dems compared to 504k GOP). The Assembly is 104 Dems, 42 Reps, 2 third parties and 2 vacancies.
The NYS Senate is close to being split down the middle with 32 Reps and 30 Dems.
Further, most elected NY Republicans are actually fairly far to the left (for Reps) and would probably be considered Democrats in most states. Giuliani and Pataki aren't exactly what we think of when we think of traditional Republicans at the national level. In fact, other than the Majority Leader of the Senate from time to time, nearly every statewide elected official has been from the NYC-Hudson Valley-Albany area (again, due to the dominance of NYC in state politics). I'd argue that is a very large reason why Western NY has been economically obliterated while Albany sits on its thumbs, generally doing nothing but making things worse (Who cares about Buffalo, Rochester or Syracuse as long as NYC and Albany are booming?).
Finally, party registration as of Oct 2007
5,336,241 Democrats
2,997,508 Republicans
2,356,762 unaffiliated
343,824 Indepedence (a party created by Tom Galisano to run for governor)
148,589 Conservative
36,321 Working Families
25,037 Green
930 Libertarian
5 Socialist Workers Party
1 Rent is Too High
Oh yeah... that's what I call a highly Republican state government.
PS - don't forget State Comptroller Alan Hevesi (D-NYC) in the list of corrupt politicians who were elected but stepped down this term. Nothing like the state's top economic cop basically embezzling money to have his wife chauffeurred around like a queen.
Line 59: Sales or use tax Do not leave line 59 blank:
Now... you can either keep track of all of your out of state purchases and pay the exact amount or you can just go by the income range table:
up to $15,000: $5
$15,001-30k: $15
$30k-$50k: $21
$50k-$75k: $27
$75k-$100k: $40
$100k-$150k: $56
$150k-$200k: $72
$200k+:
If you don't fill in the line or enter a 0, you're basically begging for a state audit
So, the state is effectively already charging for out of state purchases and has been for a couple years now... but that's never enough for NY, we need even more taxes. We're $90 billion in debt (if you count the NY State Authorities debt), and are still seeing double digit budget increases every year despite us running in the hole every year. Upstate has been destroyed economically with business fleeing left and right to other states and countries while the state just keeps squeezing more and more. But I guess that's a rant for another day.
Most people are content to either pay for small purchases with cash (everyone should carry a little cash on them just in case of an emergency, but you'd be surprised how few people do these days). If they're close to the minimum or a regular customer, we would just do it anyway out of courtesy to keep their business. If they insisted upon paying with a credit card, we would usually do so after explaining why we have a minimum purchase requirement (many of them understood why we did it and would up their purchase or at least apologize for not having any cash on them).
There was only ever one time I refused to run a credit card through and that was after this guy went apeshit on my employee for 5 minutes, berating her for being an idiot because we didn't take his particular favorite card (AmEx) despite him having a wallet full of other credit cards and probably $1000-1500 in cash. In fact, I told him to leave my establishment and not come back. Not every customer is right, especially not one that is such an ass that he'll go to the extent of making someone with a teaching degree (she was working part time while substituting and looking for a full time/permanent teaching job) cry in front of a couple dozen customers and 8 or so of her fellow employees. The unit we bought had an add-on keypad to verify the pin (the pin could not be input on the card unit keypad, it had to go through the peripheral pad, most likely for security reasons). I'd assume some places are just too cheap to buy the peripheral and train cashiers how to use it, favoring just swiping the card as a credit card (since all debit cards I've ever seen will work as one). In fact, despite us having the debit keypad, a lot of people at the register would just swipe it as a card to save themselves the hassle of passing the keypad over the counter.
50 cents for a successful transaction + 2-5% of the money going through depending on the type of credit card (MC/Visa being 2%, American Express being 5%). If you swipe an invalid card or a card from a network you don't have enabled, they'll charge you 25 cents. That's just to process a transaction... you want to balance your till against your account to make sure things are right? It'll cost you $1 to print out a slip with your take on it.
On your $5 transaction, it would cost between 60 cents and 75 cents to process your credit card order for a mom and pop type shop (Walmart and other giant stores that process a lot of card transactions much more favorable terms). If you think restaurants can afford to give up 12% or more of their transactions to someone else, you obviously have never tried to manage a food establishment. Someone buys a $1.25 bottle of pop with a credit card, the shop is losing money... which is why a lot of places advertise a minimum purchase to use a credit card (sometimes as low as $5, sometimes as high as $15).
Debit cards are a little more favorable to the merchant, the fees aren't quite so high... but just as many people, if not more, swipe a credit card (look ma, cash back, frequent flier miles, etc) than a debit card.
It's also arguable whether or not Hillary won the Texas primaries... Obama got more delegates from them because of the way the delegates were apportioned prior to the event. It wasn't a matter of tallying up the overall state numbers and splitting the delegates accordingly, it was a matter of each district having a set number of delegates that it would split itself. Virtually all of the coverage I've seen regarding how delegates are handed out has been neutered for the simplicity of looking at overall vote totals as deciding the winner.
We owe $9.1 trillion in on book debt. Recent GAO numbers show roughly $70 trillion in existing liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc that haven't come due yet but must be counted as debt (unless you want to cancel the programs, stranding tens of millions of people and/or cancel the people so their benefits don't come due).
Have you actually looked at federal budget outlays?
2007 actual numbers (in billions of dollars):
Military: 553
Veterans Benefits: 72
Education, training, employment and social services: 92
Health: 266
Medicare: 375
Income Security: 366
Social Security: 567
1970 was the last time we spent more on the military than we do on social programs. As of 2007, military expenditures accounted for 22.9% ($625 billion) of the federal budget while social programs made up 61.0% ($1666 billion) of the budget. Iraq and the war on drugs are a drop in the bucket in what we've spent on that other impossible to end war, the one of the left, the war on poverty.
Congress passed a law in 1965 stating that the government could borrow money the excess money that would otherwise go into the Social Security Trust Fund and use it in the general budget, promising to pay back the debt in the future. They had to do that because a mere 2 years of LBJ's Great Society was already pushing the federal government into deficit spending and they knew that the deficit was going to get a whole lot worse and show the programs for the untenable situation they are if they didn't try to paper over the problem.
We've long hollowed out the Social Security Trust Fund and in a couple years (2017 IIRC), Social Security will start paying out more than it takes in every year. Just wait until the taxes or deficits come due to cover that situation. The Ponzi Scheme will finally be shown for what it is. Now, you can sit there and blame military spending, a function absolutely crucial to any national level government and one that is built into the Constitution, like the 1965 Democrats would hope you would, or you can see the real root of the problem, and that is an entitlement system that has been making promises it couldn't keep since the day it was enacted and is ever-consuming a larger amount of our budget and GDP with absolutely no projection to slow down in sight.
BTW, those are just the federal numbers and not what the states spend on social programs in their budgets. The state's have very, very miniscule military related budgets and spend virtually all of their money on entitlements. Here in NY, entitlements are roughly 80% of the state budget of $120ish billion.
But just keep right on blaming the stuff you don't like versus the real problem... history has shown that if you say it often enough, people might just believe you.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080212 Firefox/2.0.0.12
I'll try one of the FF3 betas a little later today when I have more time
So, looking at the resident memory, is it acceptable that firefox needs ~555 megs of memory not counting caching after running for 3 days (compared to the 100 or so megs when I first load it)?
Whether a faulty cache implementation or poor memory allocation, firefox is a pig. It's obviously still my browser of choice, but it could use a diet.
I happened to check ps awux at the same time I hit reply... so, it was rendering the page
Which is pretty much happened with Stevens (Ford), Kennedy (Reagan/but only to a lesser extent, more of a swing vote than a pure liberal vote) and Souter (Bush 41). Of the nine justices, 4 are considered conservative(Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito), 4 are considered liberal(Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) and 1 (Kennedy) is the tossup. Seven of them were appointed by Republicans (Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) and only two by Democrats (Ginsburg and Breyer).
It's easy for an outside group to say "we won because of Y" and that becomes the mindset because they all convince each other of Y while never considering that X may have happened (too). That's where the echo chamber comes in.
Did some Dems understand it? Almost definitely. I can pretty much guarantee the Congressional leadership did and that's why they have no resolve to do the things that they ran on or they'll alienate the people that voted Dem to oust the GOP. Do you think that they're going to openly admit it and expose the weakness to the rank and file? Politically, it's not wise to let your supporters know that their current status as the majority party is somewhat precarious. You always want to project popularity and power, not a lack of confidence and weakness, or you're guaranteed to lose support.
One of the things that brought the GOP down in 2006 was their spineless leaders in Congress. They were always looking to back down, whether it was Bush or the opposition party. That's what got the base to turn on them. The Dems, as the majority party, now face the same problem. They've compromised their beliefs to pander to the middle and they risk losing support of their base. Such is the temptation of power, once you have it, you tend to forget about why you got it and simply work to keep the power. That's precisely why we've been seeing the creation of the Democan/Republicrat party despite the desire of the far left (I'm assuming you) and the far right (me) wanting something far different than what we're getting. Meanwhile, the middle is so wishy-washy, they don't know what they actually want and will simply act as lemmings, going where they're told (and that's where the projection of confidence by politicians matters).
On the left side of things, the base was about disapproving of Bush. However, on the right, it was because a lot of people abandoned their beliefs and turned into mini-Democrats, especially when it came to spending. Factor in all the corruption ranging from Mark Foley to Jack Abramoff and we don't want those types of people representing us.
Many conservatives chose not to vote or vote third party. Many independents said "ok, we don't like theses Republicans anymore, who is the most viable candidate other than them" and voted for the Dems. They didn't do it to support the left's platform, they did it because they weren't Republicans.
I'm not sure the Democrats ever really understood the Republican side of that equation and read too much into their own echo chambers about the result.
The Democrats tried to have it both ways... they wanted to get the vote of the antiwar/antiBush people in their base, so they had to promise that they would end the war, even though they knew that it would be politically impossible (because if they did and things go bad, they'll take the blame and that will outweigh the positive reaction they got from the base to do it). At the same time, they still tried pushing the agenda of the left, knowing full well that it wouldn't succeed, and that upset the conservatives and right leaning independents (since they didn't vote for Democrat policies, they voted against the Republicans). Combine them both together and nobody is happy with the current state of things.
In fact, it is precisely that outcome that had me cheering on pretty much the exact results of the 2006 election (again, as a conservative Republican). The Democrats now get to take the blame for the ineptitude of Congress (which the Republicans absolutely will hammer home this summer/fall) and have ensured that nobody is happy with them. Such is the downside of being the majority party, you actually have to do something and can't just sit back, taking pot shots when things go wrong, saying "we're not them."
Meanwhile, the Republicans get to replace all the old corrupt officials and RINOs that we managed to get rid of in 2006 with candidates who will remember that they are there to represent us, rather than their personal agendas. We'll again be the party of ideas and the party that can get things done rather than "the current Democratic do-nothing Congress that can't even get their bills to conference."
And please, please, I beg you, defund the war, and watch Iraq go to hell. You'll remind the country that Democrats are invested in our defeat and the Republicans are the national security party. Impeach Bush too... so that we can point out that the Dems were so focused on getting rid of a President in his final year that tehy didn't focus on the issues important to the voter. The GOP will campaign on how petty the Democrat party is and how they care more about revenge for Bill Clinton than their own goals for America. Impeachment actually saved Bill Clinton's Presiden
The only issue that really concerns me is the Supreme Court... but, then again, the members to the right are pretty young (Roberts: 53, Alito: 57, Thomas: 59, Scalia: 71) and the members to the left are pretty old (Stevens: 87, Ginsburg: 74, Breyer: 69, Souter: 68). Kennedy, the tossup vote, is 71 and I think he'll probably serve until he dies rather than retire, so who knows when he'll be replaced. Stevens is the only person statistically likely (by natural death) to be replaced by the next President, regardless of party. The other liberals will only retire if there is a liberal President. In the end, it leaves the court pretty stable.
Don't expect the conservative pundits (or base) to jump onboard a McCain/Huckabee ticket
Now, I'm a national security conservative, a social conservative (though I'm an atheist, it's got nothing to do with religion, but rather society), and a fiscal conservative. Of our field this time around, I would have preferred Fred Thompson, but Romney will be getting my vote tomorrow since he is the closest to my own ideology of our three remaining candidates.
My ideological beliefs trump the party and that often holds true for Republicans. That's why Republicans were backing the potential impeachment of Nixon 35ish years ago and that is why the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 (because we weren't going to vote back in people who violated the principles of the voters).
The establishment backing McCain this year is going to produce the same results of the establishment backing Bob Dole or Gerald Ford. Good luck when the base refuses to show up.
Hillary is a complete non-starter for Republicans, we hate her with a passion. She's probably the most hated person in politics today from the perspective of the right (yeah, she's even more hated than Bill if you want to count him as a current politician). Imagine the left being asked to support GWB in 2008; That sort of hatred. Edward's platform of class warfare doesn't sell to the right. People who dig beyond Obama's platitudes and personality will find he has some pretty socialist (and I'm not saying that in a judgmental way, it's just what they are) ideas.
Though none of the current crop of Democrats really support the ideals of the right, Bill Richardson is probably the least offensive.
Also note that, while there are many good charities out there, many charities exist solely for the purpose of paying staff a check. Some have as much as a 90% operating cost, giving mere pennies on the dollar donated to the cause they advocate. Others run by prominent individuals seem to exist only for promoting a positive image of the individual too. Rich guy who does dubious things to earn money starts charity to give it away. Gets large tax deductions, continues to control where all of his money goes and boosts his public image while he continues to rape society on the side.
This topic has been debated quite a bit recently in my region... and in my belief, it isn't the skin color that matters. Young white urban males suffer the same problems as the young black urban males. You just hear more about the blacks and hispanics because they tend to outnumber the whites in the ghetto.
It is about slavery. Modern slavery. The Great Society and its welfare programs eliminated the need for fathers to take care of their family and, thus, they abdicated that responsibility. Why stick around to raise your kids when they're being taken care of by the state and you can move on to the next piece of meat to make more babies there? Mothers often have children by different fathers and they tend to have a lot of kids (I have two aunts who live in the ghetto and have produced 7 and 6 kids each, with 5 different fathers between them).
It's overwhelming to care for one or two kids by yourself, much less a half dozen. Each kid gets less attention than even your typical suburban kid who has two parents working 60 hours a week. Without help, discipline suffers in the family and without discipline, there isn't an emphasis on education. Further reinforcing the anti-education element is the fact that they know, and are probably resigned to, the fact that they will follow the same road that their parents did. The girls will end up as welfare moms and the boys will be off doing what they want to who they want. Because everything has been provided to them during their formative years, they learn that money is supposed to come easy and there's no reason to work hard. Why put in 40 hours a week working for the man for $30k a year when you can make that in a month selling drugs down on the corner?
Now, that's not to say that all urban families suffer the same plight. There are good families and good parents who are left in the unfortunate circumstance of being surrounded by negative influences. A smart kid from a good family gets bullied for being a sellout and wanting an education... Some persevere and manage to succeed while others end up a victim of their peers' influence. Eventually, their family becomes corrupted and they become part of the decay. Many good families (my parents included after I was born) fled the ghettos for a better life. Good for those who left, but it further swamped those good families who stayed.
In the end, it has nothing to do with skin color, but rather the systematic destruction of the family and enslavement to the government handout. The noble intentions meant to help them destroyed them, but nobody wants to talk about that. The answer is always more spending, more government and likely more racism (such as recent essays in the local paper stating that only black teachers can empathize with city youths). Bill Cosby has the answer but has become a pariah to the black community. The answer is actually pretty simple. Restore the family. Teach your kid discipline and responsiblity. Instill the value of education and hard work. Pressure your neighbors to do the same instead of letting them pressure your kids to fail too. Have a little pride in yourself and for what you've worked to achieve.
Alas, it's easier to blame whitey, slavery (which ended 140+ years ago), cops, etc. Anyone but themselves. Fact is, just about everyone in the US is descended from someone who faced racism and bigots by society (asians, italians, irish, etc). It's intellectually lazy to continue to blame traditional slavery when their white neighbors suffer from the same fate and while all of those other groups that have been targetted in the past have gone on to either excel or meet average.
You do realize that Buffet can directly pay the IRS all the money he wants, right? You also realize that it isn't mandatory for him to itemize and/or take any deductions at all. That would be putting his money where his mouth is instead of keeping it with the good ol' boys club with his buddy Bill.
If he wants higher taxation, he can start by coughing up money himself instead of advocating that the rest of his tax bracket do it to paper over his own self-guilt. I'll never reach his tax bracket, so it's not like I have anything to lose personally if he wants a 90% income tax on all income over $1 million/year and/or an annual asset tax of 50% on assets totalling more than $1 billion to make sure the rich aren't stockpiling money.
Now, if he wanted to advocate rich people giving large chunks of their fortunes to private charities instead of the government, that would be in line with his own actions. He obviously doesn't trust the government to manage his money, why should anyone else?
The thing about guys like Buffet is... while they support higher taxation, they, themselves, donate their monies to charities to manage. They obviously don't trust the government to properly manage their own money but think that everyone else (be it in just the ultra-rich or a wider range of the population) should give their money to the government to manage for them.
When Buffet takes his pledge to the Gates Foundation away and cuts a check to Uncle Sam instead, I'll listen to him. Until then, he's sheltering his money with another guy from the ultra-rich boys club while advocating a different policy for the serfs.