So a small business could be doing its best to comply with the tax laws, but if they failed to collect $5000 because company making the databae screwed up and entered an incorrect tax rate, they are on the hook for the $5k,...
It's worse than that, they are also on the hook for a significant penalty. Additionally, if they collect $5000 that they weren't supposed to (and remit it to the government) they are still on the hook for a significant penalty. Some years back Pennsylvania changed its rules of what was tax exempt and what was subject to sales tax. Before the new law the rule was, if you wore it or you ate/drank it, there was no sales tax on it. After the new rule was passed it became much more complicated. Carbonated beverages were taxed, fruit drinks with more than 20% fruit juice in them weren't. Water wasn't, but flavored water was. Tea wasn't. There is more and the clothing exemption was made more complicated as well. A guy who ran a small convenience store could not figure out what was taxable and what wasn't under the new law so he charged sales tax on everything and paid the amount he collected to the state. They fined him a large amount for doing so putting him out of business.
That's great, where do I get your full zip code. If an online retailer were to require my full zip code wih the +4 digits, I would have to shop elsewhere, as I do not know it (and have no interest in learning it).
So, you are saying that an online business that has a profit of less than $1000 a year should just go away? That a small mom & pop retailer with a unique stock shouldn't bother to try and expand their business by selling it online because you are going to increase their cost of doing so by $200? I guess you like the fact that big corporations dominate our economy.
That would be great, except for the fact that zip codes do not break down according to what taxing jurisdiction you live in. There are places in New York with the same zip code but different sales tax rates. The Post Office does not assign zip codes according to municipal and/or township lines.
What about campaigning before you become eligible to be on the ballot? How do you gain enough support to be eligible for the ballot if you aren't allowed to raise money to campaign?
No, what they discovered is actually a flaw in existing research into insulin resistance. To summarize the linked article: There is a strain of mice that did not develop insulin resistance from any of the usual procedures used to induce insulin resistance in mice. This particular group of researchers noticed that these diabetes resistant mice were typically housed in isolation from normal mouse micro-organisms. These researchers housed a group of these mice in "conventional facilities" (as opposed to "germ-free" facilities, which was normal) where they were exposed to various bacteria. These mice then developed insulin resistance. When the gut bacteria from these mice were transplanted into other mice, those mice, also, developed the symptoms of insulin resistance. Finally, if these mice were given broad spectrum antibiotics (presumably killing off the microbiota that had developed in their guts) they lost their insulin resistance.
In summation, what they discovered is that the micro-organisms that live in your intestines play a role in whether or not you develop Type 2 diabetes.
Look at all of the former Goldman Sachs executives in this Administration (and at Goldman Sachs campaign contributions in the last Presidential elections). Or for that matter, look at Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs executive, former rising star in the Democratic Party (until he got caught stealing from his customers in order to cover the losses he took betting on European government bonds).
You know it is amazing, but if you buy your food from a small local supplier (the type that was put out of business by the food safety laws), it really isn't that hard to know if they sell food that is safe to eat. Those that don't are out of business. The reason you don't have time to know if the food you eat is safe is because almost all of it is produced by some big company that considers an food born illness outbreak to be a PR problem rather than from a small locally owned business that considers a food born illness outbreak to be a tragedy that struck their friends and family. Of course the reason you don't buy from a small locally owned business is because they can't afford to compete with the big guys because of the cost of meeting those regulations you find oh so necessary.
So, who qualifies for public funding for their campaigns? Anybody who says they are running? Does this mean that you want to outlaw me taking out ads on my own to oppose (or support) a particular candidate? How do you square that with the first amendment?
You don't apparently realize that, so far, every law that has been passed to "get money out of politics" has resulted in increasing the influence of corporations.
Well, I guess if you think that government worker unions help people be less poor than I can see how you come to that conclusion. Personally, I don't see that as being the case, I see it as being the opposite, since government worker unions cause me (and any potential private sector employer) to have to pay more taxes in order to support the government union bosses in the lifestyle they would like. And I suppose if you think that any law which claims to improve the environment or workplace safety is a good law, than, again I can see why you take that position. However, I see many laws that claim to be for a particular purpose are extermely ineffective at actually doing so (or are actually counterproductive) and/or cost more than the value of the improvement they are designed to create.
So, we have one party that says, "Give us control of your life and we will take care of you and protect you from big, bad business", yet when one looks closely, one discovers that big business likes the policies that that party enacts and the poor do not appear to actually benefit. Then you have another party that says, "Vote for us and we will work to make the government as unobtrusive in your life as possible", yet gets blasted as being uncaring and mean.
Under a totally free market, I could declare myself a pediatrician.
Except that under a totally free market, some organization (actually probably several) would arise that would give out certifications as to who was a competent pediatrician. It would be fraud (which is a crime in a free market) to claim to have certification from an organization that has not given it to you.
I have two points about your post. The first is that Ron Paul got 21.4% in the Iowa Caucus. The Iowa Caucus is not a straight up vote, it is necessary to spend several hours at the meeting. The candidates who do well at the Iowa Caucus are the ones whos supporters are willing to wait out everyone else. It will be interesting to see how he does in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a true vote AND it is a state that tends to support candidates like Ron Paul. If he does not get similar numbers in New Hampshire, Ron Paul has no shot (I already don't think Ron Paul has a shot, but if he has a similar showing in New Hampshire that would indicate that his support is becoming significant).
Actually, if you want to break the two party system, eliminate government funding for the party primaries. There is no good reason why the taxpayer should be paying for the parties to select what candidates will run in the general election.
That would require a Constitutional Amendment. First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You do not appear to understand that not all lobbying is bad, sometimes people lobby for good things. Yes, corporations lobby, but so does EFF and other organizations that work for goals that you approve of.
And most of the folks coming out for net neutrality don't understand how government works. You may think that net neutrality means a particular thing, but that doesn't mean that that is what a law or regulation that enforces "net neutrality" will actually do that. I understand that if the government has the power to enforce net neutrality, it has the power to censor the net.
Considering that Obama explicitly campaigned on shutting down the coal business, how could anyone else not be more in a coal miner's interest?
Additionally, the unions which the Republicans have attempted to reduce the power of are public employee unions.
Finally, please explain to me how the Party of Goldman Sachs can in any way be perceived as having the interest of the working class in mind?
You should pay attention if you do not realize that Obama as President is against the self-interest of anyone who makes their living from coal. Obama said during the campaign that he was going to work to shut down coal fired power plants and that he would make it prohibitively expensive to open a new one.
Which of course explains why Wall Street gives the majority of its donations to Republicans and the majority of the wealthiest counties in the US elect Republicans to officials...wait, its the other way around. Wall Street gives the majority of its political donations to Democrats and the wealthiest counties consistently elect Democrats.
As to Democrats believing in building consensus before acting, that would explain why they passed Obamacare despite it being consistently opposed by the majority of Americans and why Obama "recess" appointed several people while Congress was in session (as two examples of Democrat consensus building).
I could go on, but your summation of thw two parties is so counterfactual that I gave up trying to counter all of the points you got wrong.
Yet, he would be treated in any case, or wouldn't he be?
Yes, however, the care delivered under the Liverpool Care Pathway is pain medication while withholding food and fluids until the patient dies. Under a law passed sometime in the last ten years, this decision is entirely up to the doctors with any patient deemed "mentally deficient" (a determination usually made after they begin administering morphine) with family being subject to arrest if they provide fluids and/or food to the patient after the doctors have made such a determination (without need to consult with either the patient or the family).
I believe that you are partially correct. However, I believe that you can track the fall of newspapers to the rise of journalism schools. Like most other schools, the purpose of journalism schools is to make sure that people hold the correct beliefs.
Sure, if you are Stephen Hawking, but if he was just an ordinary bloke they would have put him on the Liverpool Care Pathway some time back (oh, and no need to mention this fact to the patient or his family).
So, you are saying that Harvard or Yale would be a bad choice? If your university isn't marketing itself, you are probably wasting your money going there. The value of a university degree is, to a significant degree, the tendency of hiring managers to say, "Oh, you went to Whatsa U, that's a good school."
Slashdot Mirror
So a small business could be doing its best to comply with the tax laws, but if they failed to collect $5000 because company making the databae screwed up and entered an incorrect tax rate, they are on the hook for the $5k,...
It's worse than that, they are also on the hook for a significant penalty. Additionally, if they collect $5000 that they weren't supposed to (and remit it to the government) they are still on the hook for a significant penalty. Some years back Pennsylvania changed its rules of what was tax exempt and what was subject to sales tax. Before the new law the rule was, if you wore it or you ate/drank it, there was no sales tax on it. After the new rule was passed it became much more complicated. Carbonated beverages were taxed, fruit drinks with more than 20% fruit juice in them weren't. Water wasn't, but flavored water was. Tea wasn't. There is more and the clothing exemption was made more complicated as well. A guy who ran a small convenience store could not figure out what was taxable and what wasn't under the new law so he charged sales tax on everything and paid the amount he collected to the state. They fined him a large amount for doing so putting him out of business.
That's great, where do I get your full zip code. If an online retailer were to require my full zip code wih the +4 digits, I would have to shop elsewhere, as I do not know it (and have no interest in learning it).
So, you are saying that an online business that has a profit of less than $1000 a year should just go away? That a small mom & pop retailer with a unique stock shouldn't bother to try and expand their business by selling it online because you are going to increase their cost of doing so by $200? I guess you like the fact that big corporations dominate our economy.
That would be great, except for the fact that zip codes do not break down according to what taxing jurisdiction you live in. There are places in New York with the same zip code but different sales tax rates. The Post Office does not assign zip codes according to municipal and/or township lines.
What about campaigning before you become eligible to be on the ballot? How do you gain enough support to be eligible for the ballot if you aren't allowed to raise money to campaign?
Well considering that Goldman Sachs executives are almost exclusively Democrats, I do not see how the Republicans are relevant to my comment.
No, what they discovered is actually a flaw in existing research into insulin resistance. To summarize the linked article: There is a strain of mice that did not develop insulin resistance from any of the usual procedures used to induce insulin resistance in mice. This particular group of researchers noticed that these diabetes resistant mice were typically housed in isolation from normal mouse micro-organisms. These researchers housed a group of these mice in "conventional facilities" (as opposed to "germ-free" facilities, which was normal) where they were exposed to various bacteria. These mice then developed insulin resistance. When the gut bacteria from these mice were transplanted into other mice, those mice, also, developed the symptoms of insulin resistance. Finally, if these mice were given broad spectrum antibiotics (presumably killing off the microbiota that had developed in their guts) they lost their insulin resistance.
In summation, what they discovered is that the micro-organisms that live in your intestines play a role in whether or not you develop Type 2 diabetes.
Look at all of the former Goldman Sachs executives in this Administration (and at Goldman Sachs campaign contributions in the last Presidential elections). Or for that matter, look at Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs executive, former rising star in the Democratic Party (until he got caught stealing from his customers in order to cover the losses he took betting on European government bonds).
You know it is amazing, but if you buy your food from a small local supplier (the type that was put out of business by the food safety laws), it really isn't that hard to know if they sell food that is safe to eat. Those that don't are out of business. The reason you don't have time to know if the food you eat is safe is because almost all of it is produced by some big company that considers an food born illness outbreak to be a PR problem rather than from a small locally owned business that considers a food born illness outbreak to be a tragedy that struck their friends and family. Of course the reason you don't buy from a small locally owned business is because they can't afford to compete with the big guys because of the cost of meeting those regulations you find oh so necessary.
So, who qualifies for public funding for their campaigns? Anybody who says they are running? Does this mean that you want to outlaw me taking out ads on my own to oppose (or support) a particular candidate? How do you square that with the first amendment?
You don't apparently realize that, so far, every law that has been passed to "get money out of politics" has resulted in increasing the influence of corporations.
Always good to see that liberals can remain polite while discussing with people who disagree with them.
Good point.
Well, I guess if you think that government worker unions help people be less poor than I can see how you come to that conclusion. Personally, I don't see that as being the case, I see it as being the opposite, since government worker unions cause me (and any potential private sector employer) to have to pay more taxes in order to support the government union bosses in the lifestyle they would like. And I suppose if you think that any law which claims to improve the environment or workplace safety is a good law, than, again I can see why you take that position. However, I see many laws that claim to be for a particular purpose are extermely ineffective at actually doing so (or are actually counterproductive) and/or cost more than the value of the improvement they are designed to create.
So, we have one party that says, "Give us control of your life and we will take care of you and protect you from big, bad business", yet when one looks closely, one discovers that big business likes the policies that that party enacts and the poor do not appear to actually benefit. Then you have another party that says, "Vote for us and we will work to make the government as unobtrusive in your life as possible", yet gets blasted as being uncaring and mean.
Under a totally free market, I could declare myself a pediatrician.
Except that under a totally free market, some organization (actually probably several) would arise that would give out certifications as to who was a competent pediatrician. It would be fraud (which is a crime in a free market) to claim to have certification from an organization that has not given it to you.
I have two points about your post. The first is that Ron Paul got 21.4% in the Iowa Caucus. The Iowa Caucus is not a straight up vote, it is necessary to spend several hours at the meeting. The candidates who do well at the Iowa Caucus are the ones whos supporters are willing to wait out everyone else. It will be interesting to see how he does in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a true vote AND it is a state that tends to support candidates like Ron Paul. If he does not get similar numbers in New Hampshire, Ron Paul has no shot (I already don't think Ron Paul has a shot, but if he has a similar showing in New Hampshire that would indicate that his support is becoming significant).
Actually, if you want to break the two party system, eliminate government funding for the party primaries. There is no good reason why the taxpayer should be paying for the parties to select what candidates will run in the general election.
...make lobbying illegal...
That would require a Constitutional Amendment. First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You do not appear to understand that not all lobbying is bad, sometimes people lobby for good things. Yes, corporations lobby, but so does EFF and other organizations that work for goals that you approve of.
And most of the folks coming out for net neutrality don't understand how government works. You may think that net neutrality means a particular thing, but that doesn't mean that that is what a law or regulation that enforces "net neutrality" will actually do that. I understand that if the government has the power to enforce net neutrality, it has the power to censor the net.
Considering that Obama explicitly campaigned on shutting down the coal business, how could anyone else not be more in a coal miner's interest?
Additionally, the unions which the Republicans have attempted to reduce the power of are public employee unions.
Finally, please explain to me how the Party of Goldman Sachs can in any way be perceived as having the interest of the working class in mind?
You should pay attention if you do not realize that Obama as President is against the self-interest of anyone who makes their living from coal. Obama said during the campaign that he was going to work to shut down coal fired power plants and that he would make it prohibitively expensive to open a new one.
Which of course explains why Wall Street gives the majority of its donations to Republicans and the majority of the wealthiest counties in the US elect Republicans to officials...wait, its the other way around. Wall Street gives the majority of its political donations to Democrats and the wealthiest counties consistently elect Democrats.
As to Democrats believing in building consensus before acting, that would explain why they passed Obamacare despite it being consistently opposed by the majority of Americans and why Obama "recess" appointed several people while Congress was in session (as two examples of Democrat consensus building).
I could go on, but your summation of thw two parties is so counterfactual that I gave up trying to counter all of the points you got wrong.
Yet, he would be treated in any case, or wouldn't he be?
Yes, however, the care delivered under the Liverpool Care Pathway is pain medication while withholding food and fluids until the patient dies. Under a law passed sometime in the last ten years, this decision is entirely up to the doctors with any patient deemed "mentally deficient" (a determination usually made after they begin administering morphine) with family being subject to arrest if they provide fluids and/or food to the patient after the doctors have made such a determination (without need to consult with either the patient or the family).
I believe that you are partially correct. However, I believe that you can track the fall of newspapers to the rise of journalism schools. Like most other schools, the purpose of journalism schools is to make sure that people hold the correct beliefs.
Sure, if you are Stephen Hawking, but if he was just an ordinary bloke they would have put him on the Liverpool Care Pathway some time back (oh, and no need to mention this fact to the patient or his family).
So, you are saying that Harvard or Yale would be a bad choice? If your university isn't marketing itself, you are probably wasting your money going there. The value of a university degree is, to a significant degree, the tendency of hiring managers to say, "Oh, you went to Whatsa U, that's a good school."