Fascinating, the troll moderators are out in force. I am modded troll for pointing out that there are more rich donors to Democrats, while the person who complains that I only named the "three Fox-cited" rich donors (when in fact I cited four...the Sandlers are two people), can only cite two rich donors to Republicans...the two shibboleths of the Democratic Party, the Koch brothers. And he gets modded interesting.
The thing is that Enron is the perfect example of a scandal that did not need new regulations to fix. The only reason Enron happened, the only reason Enron COULD happen, was because the tax on dividends was higher than the capital gains tax. If things had been the other way around, the tax on dividend being lower than the tax on capital gains, no one would have invested in Enron. The accounting games which Enron played to commit their fraud will not work with a company that is paying dividends (a company needs to be actually making money in order to pay out dividends, not just be making money on paper). In a market where dividends are taxed less than capital gains, the only people who will invest in a company which is not paying dividends are people who thoroughly understand the business the company is in and understand the risk they are taking.
At the time the Enron scandal was going on, our government was manipulating the economy by setting the dividends tax rate as higher than the capital gains rate. When the government sets tax laws in order to manipulate the economy, as opposed to as a means of revenue generation, it always ends badly. Tax laws will always impact economic activity, and there is nothing wrong with taking that impact into account. But the tax should not be designed primarily to influence economic behavior. The entire discussion about tax laws being used to influence economic activity is too complicated to fully discuss in this sort of forum.
Except that the evidence suggests that more of the rich support Democrats than support Republicans. Just look at how the richest counties vote. The majority of the richest counties have voted Democrat for years. (BTW, I did not list three, I listed four: the Sandlers are two people...and you might want to look into how they made their fortunes. If anybody should go to jail for the financial mess in 2008, they head the list). You, also, might want to look into the complicated web of interlocking "charities" which George Soros funds.
Also, having never watched Fox News I could not tell you if they have cited these four people. What I find funny is that you complain about the four I cite, yet whenever this comes up Democrats like you cite just two, the Koch brothers. If you would like, I can list some more billionaires who spend their money buying Democrats: Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, etc.
There is some truth to that. However, in my experience, the poor who are working multiple jobs to support their families also cook to feed their families (because it is enough cheaper to be worth the extra time).
That being said, I am sure that a significant number of the poor who eat fast food (or other over processed food) rather than cooking do so because of time. However, there are also a significant number of the poor who eat fast food for the same reason they are poor, because they are lazy. It is really important to keep in mind that the poor in developed countries are divided into two groups: those who are working hard to get out of poverty (some of whom will succeed, some of whom will not) and those who will remain poor because they are too lazy to try (perhaps convinced that there is no point in working hard because even if they do they will not escape poverty). It is as much a mistake to assume that people are poor through no fault of their own as it is to assume that they are poor because they are lazy (or for some other failure on their part). One should judge people on an individual basis.
That is a good start, but I do not feel like reading the entire law. So, would you care where in the law you referenced it gave them this specific power?
The link you gave merely describes the creation and purpose of the FCC. It then states that the powers of the FCC are laid out elsewhere in the law. The fact that the FCC was created to regulate wire communication does not speak to what regulations it was empowered to create.
Please point out the specific law which grants the FCC the authority to do so. Just because it is named the Federal Communication Commission does not mean that it has authority to regulate all communication.
Personally, I think this problem was created when the government encouraged the creation of cable monopolies in the first place. The answer to the problem will take time, but it is to encourage competitors (and I do not mean Comcast, Time Warner, etc).
Because if they don't everyone says they are irrelevant and should just go away...even if they are profitable. I had been reading about how Yahoo was a "dead company walking" for years when I discovered that they were making a larger profit (and had been for some time) than their competitors who had supposedly made them irrelevant (and were valued higher on the stock market).
I would be fine with the federal government making budgets based on anything...as opposed to now, where the federal government just spends money without any thought to where that money is going to come from AND with the full knowledge that they are never going to collect that much in taxes (whether under the current tax laws and rates or under some fantasy tax law and rate)..
I'm sorry, but how does them voluntarily giving more money to the government out of their profit help their competitors?
Since this donation is voluntary, if their competitor drops his prices so that they have to drop theirs, they can stop making the donation (or reduce the amount of the donation) so as to allow them to reduce their prices.
Guantanamo Bay is primarily a U.S. Navy Base. It is only secondarily, if that, a prison camp for those who made war against the U.S. outside of the boundaries of the Geneva Convention (this may not be true of all of those imprisoned there, but that is the justification for the prison camp aspect).
Guantanamo Bay is the best harbor in the Caribbean for Naval operations and the U.S. has retained control over it for that reason.
They wanted a government that functioned by achieving consensus. When consensus was not possible, they wanted gridlock. The primary issues which Congress has been asked to act upon over the last 30 years have increasing been issues on which no common ground is possible.
Let us take one issue, abortion. If you believe that killing an unborn child is murder, how do you find common ground with someone who believes people should have the right to do so for whatever reason they have.
I am pretty sure the men who framed the Constitution did not care how gridlock came about...but they did intend for Senators to be accountable to state legislatures, who are significantly more likely to be paying attention to those responsible for this sort of thing than the average voter.
Except that if he does that, his appointment will only hold the post until the end of the NEXT session of the Senate, not for life...AND good luck to getting that appointee confirmed to a lifetime appointment (unless the Democrats get more than 60 seats in the next Senate).
A situation which developed over two generations later. The people who used the tactics being used by these protesters saw the destruction of their country, not the rebuilding done by those who destroyed it.
I take it the science says that everyone can be taught using the exact same methods?
I really have to question that since the science says that people learn by positive and negative reinforcement. I know that different people regard different things as positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement.
Zuckerberg is right that personalized learning makes sense, he is also wrong. The problem is that when he uses "personalized learning", he means that WHAT is being taught is being personalized AND that is a mistake. The most effective way to teach each person is specific to that person (although many people are close enough that they can be taught using common methods). However, as a society, we need everyone (or the overwhelming majority at least) to know many of the same things. In particular, we need to share a common culture (which includes things like having read the same books and viewed the same artworks).
There was a case of an out of service (not carrying any passengers) Philly bus which was in an accident, by the time the police arrived every seat was occupied.
And this is why this was asked of slashdot. It may be possible to improve on the policy which the anonymous coward wrote here, but that is a very good start.
I;m sorry I need to point something out to you, the correct term for the posts people put on Twitter is "Tweet". It is the people who post who are Twits.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascinating, the troll moderators are out in force. I am modded troll for pointing out that there are more rich donors to Democrats, while the person who complains that I only named the "three Fox-cited" rich donors (when in fact I cited four...the Sandlers are two people), can only cite two rich donors to Republicans...the two shibboleths of the Democratic Party, the Koch brothers. And he gets modded interesting.
The thing is that Enron is the perfect example of a scandal that did not need new regulations to fix. The only reason Enron happened, the only reason Enron COULD happen, was because the tax on dividends was higher than the capital gains tax. If things had been the other way around, the tax on dividend being lower than the tax on capital gains, no one would have invested in Enron. The accounting games which Enron played to commit their fraud will not work with a company that is paying dividends (a company needs to be actually making money in order to pay out dividends, not just be making money on paper). In a market where dividends are taxed less than capital gains, the only people who will invest in a company which is not paying dividends are people who thoroughly understand the business the company is in and understand the risk they are taking.
At the time the Enron scandal was going on, our government was manipulating the economy by setting the dividends tax rate as higher than the capital gains rate. When the government sets tax laws in order to manipulate the economy, as opposed to as a means of revenue generation, it always ends badly. Tax laws will always impact economic activity, and there is nothing wrong with taking that impact into account. But the tax should not be designed primarily to influence economic behavior. The entire discussion about tax laws being used to influence economic activity is too complicated to fully discuss in this sort of forum.
Except that the evidence suggests that more of the rich support Democrats than support Republicans. Just look at how the richest counties vote. The majority of the richest counties have voted Democrat for years. (BTW, I did not list three, I listed four: the Sandlers are two people...and you might want to look into how they made their fortunes. If anybody should go to jail for the financial mess in 2008, they head the list). You, also, might want to look into the complicated web of interlocking "charities" which George Soros funds.
Also, having never watched Fox News I could not tell you if they have cited these four people. What I find funny is that you complain about the four I cite, yet whenever this comes up Democrats like you cite just two, the Koch brothers. If you would like, I can list some more billionaires who spend their money buying Democrats: Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, etc.
while the dem campaigns have relied on actual people
Who come out to events and protests because they are paid with money from George Soros, Tom Steyer, or the Sandlers.
There is some truth to that. However, in my experience, the poor who are working multiple jobs to support their families also cook to feed their families (because it is enough cheaper to be worth the extra time).
That being said, I am sure that a significant number of the poor who eat fast food (or other over processed food) rather than cooking do so because of time. However, there are also a significant number of the poor who eat fast food for the same reason they are poor, because they are lazy. It is really important to keep in mind that the poor in developed countries are divided into two groups: those who are working hard to get out of poverty (some of whom will succeed, some of whom will not) and those who will remain poor because they are too lazy to try (perhaps convinced that there is no point in working hard because even if they do they will not escape poverty). It is as much a mistake to assume that people are poor through no fault of their own as it is to assume that they are poor because they are lazy (or for some other failure on their part). One should judge people on an individual basis.
That is a good start, but I do not feel like reading the entire law. So, would you care where in the law you referenced it gave them this specific power?
The link you gave merely describes the creation and purpose of the FCC. It then states that the powers of the FCC are laid out elsewhere in the law. The fact that the FCC was created to regulate wire communication does not speak to what regulations it was empowered to create.
Please point out the specific law which grants the FCC the authority to do so. Just because it is named the Federal Communication Commission does not mean that it has authority to regulate all communication.
Personally, I think this problem was created when the government encouraged the creation of cable monopolies in the first place. The answer to the problem will take time, but it is to encourage competitors (and I do not mean Comcast, Time Warner, etc).
Because if they don't everyone says they are irrelevant and should just go away...even if they are profitable. I had been reading about how Yahoo was a "dead company walking" for years when I discovered that they were making a larger profit (and had been for some time) than their competitors who had supposedly made them irrelevant (and were valued higher on the stock market).
Why should I care what the "worldwide reputation" of Guantanamo Bay is?
I would be fine with the federal government making budgets based on anything...as opposed to now, where the federal government just spends money without any thought to where that money is going to come from AND with the full knowledge that they are never going to collect that much in taxes (whether under the current tax laws and rates or under some fantasy tax law and rate)..
I'm sorry, but how does them voluntarily giving more money to the government out of their profit help their competitors?
Since this donation is voluntary, if their competitor drops his prices so that they have to drop theirs, they can stop making the donation (or reduce the amount of the donation) so as to allow them to reduce their prices.
Tell that to Churches and many other non-profits.
Guantanamo Bay is primarily a U.S. Navy Base. It is only secondarily, if that, a prison camp for those who made war against the U.S. outside of the boundaries of the Geneva Convention (this may not be true of all of those imprisoned there, but that is the justification for the prison camp aspect).
Guantanamo Bay is the best harbor in the Caribbean for Naval operations and the U.S. has retained control over it for that reason.
They wanted a government that functioned by achieving consensus. When consensus was not possible, they wanted gridlock. The primary issues which Congress has been asked to act upon over the last 30 years have increasing been issues on which no common ground is possible.
Let us take one issue, abortion. If you believe that killing an unborn child is murder, how do you find common ground with someone who believes people should have the right to do so for whatever reason they have.
I am pretty sure the men who framed the Constitution did not care how gridlock came about...but they did intend for Senators to be accountable to state legislatures, who are significantly more likely to be paying attention to those responsible for this sort of thing than the average voter.
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. Gridlock was indeed the intention.
Except that if he does that, his appointment will only hold the post until the end of the NEXT session of the Senate, not for life...AND good luck to getting that appointee confirmed to a lifetime appointment (unless the Democrats get more than 60 seats in the next Senate).
No, he says this as someone who has read the writings of the men who framed the Constitution. Those men were in favor of gridlock.
Riiight, but organizations like George Soros has are purer than the driven snow.
A situation which developed over two generations later. The people who used the tactics being used by these protesters saw the destruction of their country, not the rebuilding done by those who destroyed it.
I take it the science says that everyone can be taught using the exact same methods? I really have to question that since the science says that people learn by positive and negative reinforcement. I know that different people regard different things as positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement.
Zuckerberg is right that personalized learning makes sense, he is also wrong. The problem is that when he uses "personalized learning", he means that WHAT is being taught is being personalized AND that is a mistake. The most effective way to teach each person is specific to that person (although many people are close enough that they can be taught using common methods). However, as a society, we need everyone (or the overwhelming majority at least) to know many of the same things. In particular, we need to share a common culture (which includes things like having read the same books and viewed the same artworks).
There was a case of an out of service (not carrying any passengers) Philly bus which was in an accident, by the time the police arrived every seat was occupied.
And this is why this was asked of slashdot. It may be possible to improve on the policy which the anonymous coward wrote here, but that is a very good start.
I;m sorry I need to point something out to you, the correct term for the posts people put on Twitter is "Tweet". It is the people who post who are Twits.