You mean as opposed to the fact that the DC public schools are just a smoke screen to funnel tax payer dollars into the Democratic Party campaign coffers (and the pockets of well connected school administrators)?
I don't care where the money is going, as long as money being spent to educate students results in students getting educated. Which the DC voucher program does, while the money going to the DC public schools does not.
er, I think you allowed successive elected representatives to gradually erode any form of constitutionality in the name of capitalism,...
Actually, if you study the history of jurisprudence in the U.S., you will discover that any form of constitutionality was eroded in the name of progressivism. Early progressives were upset that Constitutional limitations prevented them from implementing the modernizing "reforms" they wanted, so they took actions to gradually nueter those limitations (FDR's attempts to pack the Supreme Court being but one example).
Large corporations were only too happy to help the government implement these changes which allowed them to use the power of government to supress competition. Please be aware that large corporations do not favor capitalism. They much prefer more government centric economic systems which allow them to supress competition.
You do realize that your post does not in any way contradict the point made in the post you replied to, don't you? It actually gives a specific example of how the central government was given more power than the Framers of the Constitution intended, thus resulting in increased corruption (in the most generic sense of the term).
I believe that the person you replied to hit the nail on the head as to both the root of current problems and the solution to many of them.
Internet purchases are not exempt. What is exempt is that a business that does not operate within a particular state cannot be required to collect the sales tax for that state. The buyer is still required to pay the sales tax (usually called a "use tax") on items purchased from vendors who do not have a physical presence in the state. The problem is that most people do not do so and the states have no way to know who they are and how much they spent.
Our country is broken. For most of its history, the majority of people willingly paid the taxes that they were required to pay with only nominal enforcement necessary from the government to ensure compliance. Today, it appears that the majority of Americans would pay no taxes if they were confident that they could get away with it.
Actually, there were some people who thought that the new country would not have taxes (although they knew the individual states would), but they were a minority. The real fuss was not over paying taxes, it was over what was taxed and how it was taxed. I think in many ways the final straw that led to the revolution was the way that Parliament treated Benjamin Franklin when he went there to represent the colonists and how they thought the tax should be collected. They treated him as a country bumpkin who did not understand matters of "high finance" and should just do as his "betters" told him. This did not go over well with Franklin, who had a fairly high opinion of himself (arguably an accurate one).
You do realize that while the Feds have sued Arizona over its immigration law (which is basically just a state level enforcement of the federal immigration law), they have consistently ignored "sanctuary" cities (which are in explicit violation of federal immigration law). So, I do not think that the current Administration has any problem with applying double standards (this is not to say that previous Administrations were any better, just that my specific example only applies to this Administration).
You, apparently, are unaware that businesses are already moving out of California at a fairly steady clip. And since this new interpretation of existing tax laws will apply to companies that are already primarily based elsewhere, it will only encourage them to wind down any activity they have in California.
This change will have no effect on companies that are based in California, as they are already required to collect the state sales tax on orders placed for delivery in California. What will change is the behavior of companies that broker sales for companies in California or in other ways have aspects of their sales process go through companies with a physical presence in California.
Because it was decided a long time ago (I think back in the days of Sears being *one* giant building and a mail-order catalogue) that mail-order purchases were only taxable if the catalogue had a facility operating within the state of purchase. What is Amazon, other than a *really* fast mail-order catalogue, essentially?
No, what was decided was that a state cannot impose its laws on a company that does not have a physical presence in that state. The sales tax is still due. It is just that the state cannot require a merchant that is not present in that state to collect it. When purchasing from a merchant that does not have a physical presence in your state, most, if not all states, that have a sales tax require the buyer to report the purchase and pay the sales tax. Of course, very few people actualy do so and states have limited means to enforce compliance (and limited ability to even determine who owes).
This is the thing about these attempts to collect sales tax from Amazon. If Amazon does not have a physical presence in the state, the state has no legal right to force them to collect sales tax. This is how it should be. However, Amazon is playing games in some states by setting up companies that own distribution facilities that only do distribution for Amazon. I believe that states have a legitimate claim that such arrangements represent a physical presence in the state. On the other hand, states, also, want to claim that the presence of affiliates in the state who list their merchandise on Amazon represents having a phyiscal presence in the state. This latter claim, while possibly having some legal merit, is short sighted. The state gains more from those businesses being able to list on Amazon then Amazon gains from those businesses.
You make a very good point. One thing most people do not look at when looking at skyrocketing medical costs is the effect that government intervention in the healthcare market has already had. Before Medicare and Medicaid were introduced medical costs rose at approximately the same rate as general inflation. With the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid, health care costs immediately started to rise much faster than inflation. Every time the government has taken further action to "address skyrocketing medical costs", the rate of increase has gone up.
and small furry creatures from alpha centauri make great soup if you put them in the blender for long enough./quote.
Written by someone who doesn't know how to make a good soup. The correct way to make soup out of small furry creatures from alpha centauri (the blue ones taste best), is to skin them and gut them and put them in a crock pot for 8 hours. The hard part is getting the alpha centauran vegetables, my local produce shop doesn't carry any.
You are correct, they said it would be uninhabitable last year. I remember climate scientists saying in the late 80s that most coastal cities would be underwater by 2010.
However, I was actually just using a metaphor.
NO, it's called not believing the guy who tells me that my land will be uninhabitable next year while he buys up my neighbors' property to build mansions.
OK, and what sort of credentials do you have that I should believe that you know what you are talking about?
The thing is that it is not just the "celevrity advocates" for AGW that live as if they do not believe in AGW, it is also the scientists such as Philip Jones and Michael Mann.
No, it sounds like, "The people who are telling me that all this land is going to be unlivable a year from now are buying up my neighbors' property and building mansions. I like living here, so I'm staying."
I believe in personal responsibility. I exercise personal responsibility. The problem is, none of the people who are telling me that I should worry about CO2 act as if they believe that I should worry about CO2. Until Global Warming Alarmists start acting as if they believe that global warming is a serious problem that requires them to take whatever actions they can to reduce their own CO2 emissions, don't expect me to take it seriously.
Actually most of the people who question the need to do something about global warming have logic that works like this:
1.) Person A says that we must give the government greater powers in order to prevent disaster from global warming.
2.) Person A lives an extravagant lifestyle that results in more CO2 emissions in a week than the average person generates in a year.
3.) Conclusion, person A does not really believe in global warming, they just want to increase government power (and perhaps make some money off of it).
If the people who are preaching about the need to reduce CO2 emissions are not doing anything to reduce their carbon emissions, why should I?
Some time back, I worked as a retail store manager. One of the things that the company made a point of was that there were studies that indicated that on average people know 250 people well enough to impact their buying decisions. The point they made was that if somebody had a negative experience in your store, it was not just that one person whose sales you might lose as a result. Knowing how some of the other numbers they used got distorted to make whatever point they were pushing, I suspect that somewhere along the line this 150 people number got stretched to 250.
However, having looked at the group dynamics of many organizations over my life time that is the range that fits with my experience. Organizations that are designed to be social interactions for their members tend to divide between 200 and 500, either intentionally or because of internal disputes.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean as opposed to the fact that the DC public schools are just a smoke screen to funnel tax payer dollars into the Democratic Party campaign coffers (and the pockets of well connected school administrators)?
I don't care where the money is going, as long as money being spent to educate students results in students getting educated. Which the DC voucher program does, while the money going to the DC public schools does not.
er, I think you allowed successive elected representatives to gradually erode any form of constitutionality in the name of capitalism,...
Actually, if you study the history of jurisprudence in the U.S., you will discover that any form of constitutionality was eroded in the name of progressivism. Early progressives were upset that Constitutional limitations prevented them from implementing the modernizing "reforms" they wanted, so they took actions to gradually nueter those limitations (FDR's attempts to pack the Supreme Court being but one example).
Large corporations were only too happy to help the government implement these changes which allowed them to use the power of government to supress competition. Please be aware that large corporations do not favor capitalism. They much prefer more government centric economic systems which allow them to supress competition.
More importantly, all he really does is point out that Michigan spends way too much on its prison population.
So if you post one comment, a lawyer can scare you into destroying your twitter account by spamming it with 100 retractions?
And nothing of value would be lost.
You do realize that your post does not in any way contradict the point made in the post you replied to, don't you? It actually gives a specific example of how the central government was given more power than the Framers of the Constitution intended, thus resulting in increased corruption (in the most generic sense of the term).
I believe that the person you replied to hit the nail on the head as to both the root of current problems and the solution to many of them.
Internet purchases are not exempt. What is exempt is that a business that does not operate within a particular state cannot be required to collect the sales tax for that state. The buyer is still required to pay the sales tax (usually called a "use tax") on items purchased from vendors who do not have a physical presence in the state. The problem is that most people do not do so and the states have no way to know who they are and how much they spent.
Our country is broken. For most of its history, the majority of people willingly paid the taxes that they were required to pay with only nominal enforcement necessary from the government to ensure compliance. Today, it appears that the majority of Americans would pay no taxes if they were confident that they could get away with it.
Actually, there were some people who thought that the new country would not have taxes (although they knew the individual states would), but they were a minority. The real fuss was not over paying taxes, it was over what was taxed and how it was taxed. I think in many ways the final straw that led to the revolution was the way that Parliament treated Benjamin Franklin when he went there to represent the colonists and how they thought the tax should be collected. They treated him as a country bumpkin who did not understand matters of "high finance" and should just do as his "betters" told him. This did not go over well with Franklin, who had a fairly high opinion of himself (arguably an accurate one).
You make a good point. I recently saw an article about some life guards in California making $200,000 a year.
You do realize that while the Feds have sued Arizona over its immigration law (which is basically just a state level enforcement of the federal immigration law), they have consistently ignored "sanctuary" cities (which are in explicit violation of federal immigration law). So, I do not think that the current Administration has any problem with applying double standards (this is not to say that previous Administrations were any better, just that my specific example only applies to this Administration).
You, apparently, are unaware that businesses are already moving out of California at a fairly steady clip. And since this new interpretation of existing tax laws will apply to companies that are already primarily based elsewhere, it will only encourage them to wind down any activity they have in California.
This change will have no effect on companies that are based in California, as they are already required to collect the state sales tax on orders placed for delivery in California. What will change is the behavior of companies that broker sales for companies in California or in other ways have aspects of their sales process go through companies with a physical presence in California.
Because it was decided a long time ago (I think back in the days of Sears being *one* giant building and a mail-order catalogue) that mail-order purchases were only taxable if the catalogue had a facility operating within the state of purchase. What is Amazon, other than a *really* fast mail-order catalogue, essentially?
No, what was decided was that a state cannot impose its laws on a company that does not have a physical presence in that state. The sales tax is still due. It is just that the state cannot require a merchant that is not present in that state to collect it. When purchasing from a merchant that does not have a physical presence in your state, most, if not all states, that have a sales tax require the buyer to report the purchase and pay the sales tax. Of course, very few people actualy do so and states have limited means to enforce compliance (and limited ability to even determine who owes).
This is the thing about these attempts to collect sales tax from Amazon. If Amazon does not have a physical presence in the state, the state has no legal right to force them to collect sales tax. This is how it should be. However, Amazon is playing games in some states by setting up companies that own distribution facilities that only do distribution for Amazon. I believe that states have a legitimate claim that such arrangements represent a physical presence in the state. On the other hand, states, also, want to claim that the presence of affiliates in the state who list their merchandise on Amazon represents having a phyiscal presence in the state. This latter claim, while possibly having some legal merit, is short sighted. The state gains more from those businesses being able to list on Amazon then Amazon gains from those businesses.
You make a very good point. One thing most people do not look at when looking at skyrocketing medical costs is the effect that government intervention in the healthcare market has already had. Before Medicare and Medicaid were introduced medical costs rose at approximately the same rate as general inflation. With the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid, health care costs immediately started to rise much faster than inflation. Every time the government has taken further action to "address skyrocketing medical costs", the rate of increase has gone up.
and small furry creatures from alpha centauri make great soup if you put them in the blender for long enough./quote. Written by someone who doesn't know how to make a good soup. The correct way to make soup out of small furry creatures from alpha centauri (the blue ones taste best), is to skin them and gut them and put them in a crock pot for 8 hours. The hard part is getting the alpha centauran vegetables, my local produce shop doesn't carry any.
But they still fly all over the world to various conventions where they gather to tell us how much of a problem it is.
You are correct, they said it would be uninhabitable last year. I remember climate scientists saying in the late 80s that most coastal cities would be underwater by 2010.
However, I was actually just using a metaphor.
NO, it's called not believing the guy who tells me that my land will be uninhabitable next year while he buys up my neighbors' property to build mansions.
Yes, but Michale Mann is, and so is James Hansen.
OK, and what sort of credentials do you have that I should believe that you know what you are talking about?
The thing is that it is not just the "celevrity advocates" for AGW that live as if they do not believe in AGW, it is also the scientists such as Philip Jones and Michael Mann.
No, it sounds like, "The people who are telling me that all this land is going to be unlivable a year from now are buying up my neighbors' property and building mansions. I like living here, so I'm staying."
If the people who are saying this is a problem don't believe it is a problem, what makes you think it really is a problem?
Since the people telling us that this is going to happen are acting as if it isn't going to happen, why do you believe them?
I believe in personal responsibility. I exercise personal responsibility. The problem is, none of the people who are telling me that I should worry about CO2 act as if they believe that I should worry about CO2. Until Global Warming Alarmists start acting as if they believe that global warming is a serious problem that requires them to take whatever actions they can to reduce their own CO2 emissions, don't expect me to take it seriously.
Actually most of the people who question the need to do something about global warming have logic that works like this:
1.) Person A says that we must give the government greater powers in order to prevent disaster from global warming.
2.) Person A lives an extravagant lifestyle that results in more CO2 emissions in a week than the average person generates in a year.
3.) Conclusion, person A does not really believe in global warming, they just want to increase government power (and perhaps make some money off of it).
If the people who are preaching about the need to reduce CO2 emissions are not doing anything to reduce their carbon emissions, why should I?
Some time back, I worked as a retail store manager. One of the things that the company made a point of was that there were studies that indicated that on average people know 250 people well enough to impact their buying decisions. The point they made was that if somebody had a negative experience in your store, it was not just that one person whose sales you might lose as a result. Knowing how some of the other numbers they used got distorted to make whatever point they were pushing, I suspect that somewhere along the line this 150 people number got stretched to 250.
However, having looked at the group dynamics of many organizations over my life time that is the range that fits with my experience. Organizations that are designed to be social interactions for their members tend to divide between 200 and 500, either intentionally or because of internal disputes.
Sounds like all the Progressives I know (or at least what they are willing to tolerate as long as the people who do it favor the "correct" policies).