NO, according to the figures I have, the difference between revenue (primarily from gas taxes) and spending is the money that is spent on things OTHER than highways. Which supports "Snotnose"'s claim.
As someone else asked, what kind of input did Chuck Grassley have? Just because he was there during the discussion does not mean that any of his ideas were included.
I have no idea where you got your numbers from, but spending from the Highway Trust Fund was about $53 billion last year. Approximately a quarter of that (or over $14 billion) was spent on non-highway purposes (mass transit, bicycle lanes, etc). Over the same period, the HTF received $39 billion in revenue, most of that from gas taxes. which means that the person you responded to was basically correct.
Wow, talk about revisionist history. The Republicans had NO input in drafting PPACA. As to the reason they opposed it, it was not because they thought it would be popular, but because it was, and is, unpopular. Furthermore, the insurance companies were not, and are not, against this law. They actually supported its passage and still support the law because it forces everyone to buy health insurance and guarantees that the Federal government will bail them out if they lose money.
And it is not healthcare that millions of Americans have, it is health insurance. As to actual health care, as a result of this law, it is harder to get than it was before because it has led to many health care professionals leaving the business. Oh yeah, most of those millions with health insurance have it because Obama is illegally giving subsidies in states that did not set up their own exchanges.
I like the idea of Net Neutrality. However, I do not believe that the government regulation that will implement "Net Neutrality" will reflect that good idea. And of course that leaves out the question of which form of Net Neutrality? Is it:
A) All packets must be treated the same, no matter what protocol they are?
Or
B) All packets must be treated the same, no matter their source or destination (but different protocols can be treated differently)?
I am convinced that government regulators will find a third definition for Net Neutrality if they actually implement a regulation which will contain some provision which will encourage (and possibly require) ISPs to throttle data from those who represent those not politically favored.
Why? Perhaps some of the regulations were enacted exactly because there were problems? Perhaps some regulations have prevented problems?
Perhaps. However, would you care to list what those problems were and which regulations eliminated them. Your answer may be correct, but without knowing what the specific issues were we cannot determine if the regulations did what they were created to do, or if they are still necessary. In addition, some of the "problems" the regulations were created to fix, may no longer be things we would consider problems.
Re: $10M isn't even a good start anymore
on
Mayday PAC Goes 2 For 8
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You really should spend some time learning about that which you speak. Citizens United was a group formed to oppose Hillary Clinton's run for President. They made a documentary about her career that they intended to distribute leading up to the primaries (and then the general election) in 2008. When the FEC told them that they were not allowed to do so within a certain number of days of the election because it violated campaign finance laws, they sued.
I remember reading about them as they gathered support and money to make the movie. Several prominent members in Citizens United had been speaking out against a Hillary Clinton presidency for several years at that point. So, the idea that this group was formed solely to challenge election finance law is ludicrous.
The problem with your qualifier is that if they do not discover something that can be made to qualify as a serious threat, most of the time no one will ever know they were monitoring the communication. The "serious threat" they find may have no connection to what they were looking for, but if they will face significant punishment for failing to find one, they will find one.
What you fail to realize is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than the members of Congress or the men sitting in the office of President. That means that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not mean that it is any more than a President signing it into law guarantees that it is constitutional. Both are oath bound to reject unconstitutional laws, but that does not mean they always do so.
Furthermore, Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, NOT that it can declare a law constitutional. I know that many people have trouble understanding that this is an important distinction. The failure of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional does NOT mean that the law is constitutional. It merely means that those arguing the case before the Court failed to convince those on the Court that it was unconstitutional. There is something very scary about those who accept every ruling by the Supreme Court as infallible.
So, everybody's money is as good as everyone else's, unless that person is attempting to use that money to assist someone else to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In which case it is perfectly OK to discriminate against them?
I am sorry, but I do not see anything in Article III which says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. And for that matter, if you look at the Supreme Court decision that is the basis for considering the Supreme Court as arbiter of constitutionality what it says is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are obligated to overturn unconstitutional laws by their oaths of office. A direct corollary of that would be that would be that Presidents are obligated to not sign unconstitutional laws and members of Congress (either House) are obligated to vote against unconstitutional laws. Yet, we frequently have laws come before the Supreme Court which are ruled unconstitutional.
Ah, so because the Supreme Court said that African Americans could not be citizens of the U.S., that should have settled the issue of slavery? No one should have further considered whether slavery was indeed protected by the Constitution? The Supreme Court had ruled, so, for you, the issue was settled.
As I said, you cannot point to a place that the Constitution says that such is the way things should be, but because the Supreme Court says it does, you are willing to accept that it does.
Can you point to the wording of that amendment which applies to private citizens?
Here is the full text of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I am sorry, I do not see anything about where people have to sell you things.However, I do see it as making the argument the person you responded to was making.
Well, I doubt that happened, since he did not live to see DST implemented. Indeed by the time it was implemented, most people no longer used candles as their light source, since by that time electric lighting was widely available.
Rather than institute year round DST (which makes no sense if you think it through), why not just do everything earlier year round? It is the same thing except you do not pretend that you do it at the same time as we currently do (actually, currently we pretend that we do certain things at the same time all year, and then adjust the clocks so that we actually do things earlier for part of the year).
I'm not a fan of the Daylight/Standard switch-overs, but if the alternative is to go all Standard Time, all the time, I'll put up with the twice-yearly switchovers.
I do not understand why. If we went to Standard Time all the time, it is likely that there would be a change in our schedules. That is, everything would happen earlier.
Yes, but the article is NOT about health care. It is about health insurance. They are not the same thing. Having health insurance is not a benefit if there is no one to provide you with health care, which is what is happening with this law. Most of those who now have health insurance that did not have it before are those who have been added to the Medicaid rolls. Yet the number of health care providers who accept Medicaid patients has fallen.
Slashdot Mirror
NO, according to the figures I have, the difference between revenue (primarily from gas taxes) and spending is the money that is spent on things OTHER than highways. Which supports "Snotnose"'s claim.
As someone else asked, what kind of input did Chuck Grassley have? Just because he was there during the discussion does not mean that any of his ideas were included.
I have no idea where you got your numbers from, but spending from the Highway Trust Fund was about $53 billion last year. Approximately a quarter of that (or over $14 billion) was spent on non-highway purposes (mass transit, bicycle lanes, etc). Over the same period, the HTF received $39 billion in revenue, most of that from gas taxes. which means that the person you responded to was basically correct.
Wow, talk about revisionist history. The Republicans had NO input in drafting PPACA. As to the reason they opposed it, it was not because they thought it would be popular, but because it was, and is, unpopular. Furthermore, the insurance companies were not, and are not, against this law. They actually supported its passage and still support the law because it forces everyone to buy health insurance and guarantees that the Federal government will bail them out if they lose money.
And it is not healthcare that millions of Americans have, it is health insurance. As to actual health care, as a result of this law, it is harder to get than it was before because it has led to many health care professionals leaving the business. Oh yeah, most of those millions with health insurance have it because Obama is illegally giving subsidies in states that did not set up their own exchanges.
Or
I am convinced that government regulators will find a third definition for Net Neutrality if they actually implement a regulation which will contain some provision which will encourage (and possibly require) ISPs to throttle data from those who represent those not politically favored.
Why? Perhaps some of the regulations were enacted exactly because there were problems? Perhaps some regulations have prevented problems?
Perhaps. However, would you care to list what those problems were and which regulations eliminated them. Your answer may be correct, but without knowing what the specific issues were we cannot determine if the regulations did what they were created to do, or if they are still necessary. In addition, some of the "problems" the regulations were created to fix, may no longer be things we would consider problems.
You really should spend some time learning about that which you speak. Citizens United was a group formed to oppose Hillary Clinton's run for President. They made a documentary about her career that they intended to distribute leading up to the primaries (and then the general election) in 2008. When the FEC told them that they were not allowed to do so within a certain number of days of the election because it violated campaign finance laws, they sued.
I remember reading about them as they gathered support and money to make the movie. Several prominent members in Citizens United had been speaking out against a Hillary Clinton presidency for several years at that point. So, the idea that this group was formed solely to challenge election finance law is ludicrous.
Actually, there was no time in history that people who studied how the physical world worked believed that the earth is flat.
The problem with your qualifier is that if they do not discover something that can be made to qualify as a serious threat, most of the time no one will ever know they were monitoring the communication. The "serious threat" they find may have no connection to what they were looking for, but if they will face significant punishment for failing to find one, they will find one.
That is actually how the DMCA is written to work.
Ah yes, because only what our high priests have said is true is true. I love your faith in the infallibility of the Supreme Court.
What you fail to realize is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than the members of Congress or the men sitting in the office of President. That means that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not mean that it is any more than a President signing it into law guarantees that it is constitutional. Both are oath bound to reject unconstitutional laws, but that does not mean they always do so.
Furthermore, Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, NOT that it can declare a law constitutional. I know that many people have trouble understanding that this is an important distinction. The failure of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional does NOT mean that the law is constitutional. It merely means that those arguing the case before the Court failed to convince those on the Court that it was unconstitutional. There is something very scary about those who accept every ruling by the Supreme Court as infallible.
Yet the Dredd Scott decision is generally considered to be an incorrect reading of the Constitution.
So, everybody's money is as good as everyone else's, unless that person is attempting to use that money to assist someone else to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In which case it is perfectly OK to discriminate against them?
I am sorry, but I do not see anything in Article III which says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. And for that matter, if you look at the Supreme Court decision that is the basis for considering the Supreme Court as arbiter of constitutionality what it says is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are obligated to overturn unconstitutional laws by their oaths of office. A direct corollary of that would be that would be that Presidents are obligated to not sign unconstitutional laws and members of Congress (either House) are obligated to vote against unconstitutional laws. Yet, we frequently have laws come before the Supreme Court which are ruled unconstitutional.
Ah, so because the Supreme Court said that African Americans could not be citizens of the U.S., that should have settled the issue of slavery? No one should have further considered whether slavery was indeed protected by the Constitution? The Supreme Court had ruled, so, for you, the issue was settled.
As I said, you cannot point to a place that the Constitution says that such is the way things should be, but because the Supreme Court says it does, you are willing to accept that it does.
So, the answer is that you cannot, but you are willing to take the Supreme Court's word for it that it is there?
Can you point to any place in the Constitution where people have to sell you things because of a right you have?
Yes. It is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Can you point to the wording of that amendment which applies to private citizens? Here is the full text of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I am sorry, I do not see anything about where people have to sell you things.However, I do see it as making the argument the person you responded to was making.
Well, I doubt that happened, since he did not live to see DST implemented. Indeed by the time it was implemented, most people no longer used candles as their light source, since by that time electric lighting was widely available.
Rather than institute year round DST (which makes no sense if you think it through), why not just do everything earlier year round? It is the same thing except you do not pretend that you do it at the same time as we currently do (actually, currently we pretend that we do certain things at the same time all year, and then adjust the clocks so that we actually do things earlier for part of the year).
I'm not a fan of the Daylight/Standard switch-overs, but if the alternative is to go all Standard Time, all the time, I'll put up with the twice-yearly switchovers.
I do not understand why. If we went to Standard Time all the time, it is likely that there would be a change in our schedules. That is, everything would happen earlier.
Pay for those costs with insurance subsidized by the government, and the cost of insurance to those not subsidized will drop accordingly.
Except that that does not appear to be happening.
There are doctors who will see you without health insurance. Doctors who will arrange a payment plan.
Yes, but the article is NOT about health care. It is about health insurance. They are not the same thing. Having health insurance is not a benefit if there is no one to provide you with health care, which is what is happening with this law. Most of those who now have health insurance that did not have it before are those who have been added to the Medicaid rolls. Yet the number of health care providers who accept Medicaid patients has fallen.