Please clarify what example you think would be suitable for other states to follow, and what good that would bring. I see little here that I would recommend to others.
Unless of course you were just being sarcastic and I was too dense to get it, in which case I'll just "whoooosh" myself for you.
The US *is* taxing Iraq for the cost of war! The oil money is being used to pay for work needed and that work given to US companies without tender.
I was thinking more in terms of an actual tax like "let's tax Iraqi incomes and send the money directly to the IRS" rather than other means of economic exploitation. Regardless, the point still stands. Do you think it is morally right to do that? Do you think the Iraqis are a little pissed off right now because of it?
It was also the fact that the big corporations (UK companies) were not paying taxes whilst colonial (smaller) companies had to pay. Rather like Microsoft can avoid paying taxes by accounting tricks but Bob's Software Shack cannot and therefore has to take the burden MS avoided.
My sister-in-law had a legal driver's license here long before she was a citizen, so yes, legal residents can get them. I don't know what information is collected at the DMV if the license applicant is foreign, and I don't know if some states expire the license on the exit date of someone's visa (seems like a bad idea; a visa extension would create a lot of extra work renewing the license, etc). Since laws vary from state to state, I suspect that presents a sizeable loophole for H1B holders, people here on student visas, and other similar "overstays".
In my opinion, that's probably not intentional. I don't think the AZ government is looking to give any illegal a free ride or loophole. It's more likely the result of compromises in crafting the ID portion of the legislation, as well as a fundamental difference between overstays and "wetbacks"; an overstay was at one time legally here. There is a documentation trail somewhere for that person. Someone who crossed illegally never had that paper trail to follow.
Pretty much what xero314 said. Driver's license isn't proof of citizenship per se, but it is valid government issued ID, which is what the AZ law requires. Legal residents can acquire them as well.
So what does a cop do if the person provides a driver's license but not a green card and the cop suspects the person is not a citizen?
My guess is that if the person in question has provided valid ID, they are cleared. If the ID comes back as stolen or counterfeit, that's probably one of the things LE looks out for when determining whether someone is legally here or not; they'll dig deeper.
What would be factors in determining if they think the person pulled over was not a citizen?
The law specifically rules out race as a factor LE can use in considering someone a possible illegal alien. I don't know exactly what other criteria remain after that, but I would hope that police would be looking for behavior patterns and other discrepancies, like the fake ID scenario above.
No. Wrong. The law states that an officer can only do so during the course of a "lawful encounter", and they amended it to clarify that it must be something like a traffic stop, police responding to a domestic disturbance call, etc; in other words, a situation in which you would need to show ID anyway. Second, a driver's license will suffice for ID. So, if you're driving, ipso facto, you ought to have your license with you. Third, AFAIK foreigners who are legal residents are supposed to carry their green card with them anyway.
The law is not that big a deal. It requires officers to enforce federal laws already on the books, and quite frankly, if they aren't already doing that, they probably ought to be fired.
First of all, if you consider the average income at the time, the additional taxes were difficult to bear. Secondly, what angered the colonists wasn't simply the taxes themselves, but their effective status as second-class citizens. The closest thing I can compare it to is if the US today taxed Iraq for the cost of the war over there.
Those are the facts, no matter how you slice them. They have drained our state's savings, continue to overspend, and continue to raise taxes. Mind you, this is the same guy who got into office and immediately started spending money on himself (office, car, etc) way beyond what was appropriate. He (and his liberal tax-and-spend buddies in the MA houses of congress) has spent us to ruin.
The sales tax hike from a year ago raised taxes on existing items, and started taxing items that had been exempt before. It has directly hurt MA businesses by sending sales across the border.
This is the same state politicians who have kept increasing tolls on the Mass Pike despite the fact that the road has been paid off for years, because our corrupt pols can't bring themselves to give up a cash cow.
The "temporary" income tax hike is still in place, years after we were promised it would be gone. They even refused to act on the referendum the voters passed to reduce it to where it by all rights ought to be.
Massachusetts has been abused by its corrupt politicians for decades. It is STILL Taxachusetts. Pick on Glenn Beck after you get your facts straight.
A fuel source in space is like oil on earth in like 300 years - very difficult to come by!
I'll grant your point that at present we don't have readily available fuel sources up there, except for solar for electric power. But just to play devil's advocate, I'd say that the overall picture is more like oil three hundred years ago. We don't have the necessary infrastructure to harvest and process the stuff available up there like HE3 on the moon, and our craft don't run on it anyway.
It was a bunch of file sharers that made iTunes possible in the first place.
Without Napster, et al to force the industry to accept the reality of downloadable music, we'd all still be buying an $18 cd at Strawberries so our kids could listen to the 1 popular song on the mostly useless regurgitated pop CD. Just like we were doing 15 years ago.
I think a legit and reasonably-priced online music distribution scheme would have worked with or without the lawsuits. It just took a kid like Fanning to turn the industry on its head, because the industry wouldn't change from within.
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.
From what I can tell, some of the biggest wastes of our money are farm subsidies (grow so much corn that HFCS is cheaper than sugar!) and the military. I'm all for smaller government regarding those two.
Agreed.
Much of the rest of government spending is welfare state stuff that I not only support, I want it expanded.
I guess I can amicably disagree with you there. the government fills some admirable and necessary roles in supporting those who need it, but in general, it is rife with fraud, and it is mismanaged and wasteful. So at the very least, it needs to be run more competently. We could to far more good with the dollars we already spend if we spent them more wisely. I also feel that welfare-style spending is dangerous. It tends to create an entitlement mentality, and a cycle of dependency, rather than assist people to move up and off their benefits. No, I'm not just talking out of my ass. I see it every day. Of course, the usual caveats apply, every person's circumstances are different, etc.
Free university education for all, longer unemployment benefits, socialized health care, pensions, etc.
State universities used to be places a student could get a good, affordable education. Now government bureaucracy has generally mismanaged them to the point where even a state university education where I am has become quite expensive. Giving them more taxpayer money doesn't look like a solution to me. And believe me, I'd love to not have to pay for college for my 3 kids. I just don't think the government (at least the state & federal govt we have today) should be given any more tax money for education. They've proven they can't effectively use what they have.
Extended unemployment benefits - especially during a downturn like this - is a good thing. It helps prevent a cascade of other bad things like home foreclosure and personal bankruptcy. By preventing the rug being pulled out from underneath the unemployed, we preserve a key asset to our economic recovery - our workforce.
Socialized healthcare? Sorry, I've got to say no on that one, for the same reason as education. The government mismanages healthcare in an abominable fashion. Something needs to be done to help the least fortunate, but not at the price of greater government control over healthcare.
Given your liberal leanings, I realize it might be a stretch to ask you to visit a Cato Institute website, but it can't do any harm to simply read this. If you read this with an open mind, your opinions on pensions might be different. It is a presentation on the Chilean retirement system, the problems they faced, and how they solved them.
European leaders are trying to rein in their spending because they see the economic writing on the wall. Obama and his Democrats insist on charging straight ahead and spending more, even if it means rolling back their worthless campaign promises not to raise taxes on earners under $250k. Make no mistake, they are targeting you and I to pick up the tab for their heavy-spending ways.
I realize liberals might not like the WSJ as a source, but the article is well-written and informative. They have a graph which shows the actual impact the tax hikes would have. It's not op-ed, it's straight-up reporting of what is already out on the news wires. See the Associated Press report as well.
"Raising revenue is part of the deficit solution, too," Hoyer said.
No, it's not. Throwing more money at a problem that is rooted in waste has never solved the problem, it has only extended it. We are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, yet instead of
The capacitors failed over a few years. Do you really think it possible that any investor or investigator could predict that?
The Earth is flat and limited liability creates an incredible moral hazard
I'm sure you meant the flat Earth part differently.
Are you saying that limited liability corporations and partnerships should be banned? Or so heavily regulated that they are effectively banned? Just a reminder, the poor s.o.b. whose 401(k) you want to save would have almost nothing to invest his 401(k) in without the stock offerings of limited liability companies.
I was making a dark reference to the abortion/death penalty line. Had nothing to do with the Saudi line, which I neglected to respond to before hitting the "Submit" button.
My apologies in advance for taking these out of order.
I don't see the common thread of a consistent ideology in these stances. It really seems to me that nowadays "conservatism" is less of a worldview and more like a bunch of stuff in a bucket.
To a certain extent you're right. Conservatives now aren't what they used to be. They're a bunch of fat cats. Also, you're right, many of them betray their ideals for power and comfort. What I like to think of true conservatism is mostly gone these days. Then again, "liberal" used to mean something different too; namely the advancement and empowerment of individuals and their liberties. Now, it stands for big government and entitlements.
Particularly troubling is that the ID demand is not limited to a police stop that occurs for other reasons. It's suggested, but the only restriction I know of is "lawful contact", which is not defined in this law or anywhere else I can find. That vagueness potentially means that a policeman could be standing next to someone on the street getting an ice cream, and say "Show me your papers."
I'm not a legal scholar either, but it seems that they have since amended the law to clarify it. They replaced “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest,”. In other words, you have to be in a position where they would ask for your ID anyway.
The revised law also removes the word “solely” from the phrase “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.” to remove fears about racial profiling. (http://www.common-sense-politics.org/2010/05/01/what-is-the-legal-definition-of-lawful-contact/)
Essentially the law holds the government's feet to the fire by forcing it to obey federal law - which it should already be doing anyway.
What bothers conservatives about taxpayer-funded healthcare for all isn't so much the ID cards, it's more about creating another government-run entitlement program, and the inevitable hike in taxes to pay for it.
A conservative stance... is decisions should be left to states and not the Federal government whenever possible.
That's not just a conservative position. That's how the Constitution is written. However, that doesn't mean that it is within states' rights to abrogate my personal rights.
The Patriot act was supported by both major parties.
- against a Health Care ID card, because that's big brother - but the Arizona "Show us your papers" law? No problem
Have you read the law in question? It's actually pretty reasonable. The only circumstances they can request to see ID are situations where they are already asking everyone for ID... traffic stops, etc. It's not like liberals are making it out to be.
- for State's rights, unless it's Bush v. Gore, Bush v. California EPA laws, or SCOTUS vs. state gun laws
Frankly, our Bill of Rights doesn't mean much if our states and towns can write laws that abrogate it on a whim.
- against deficits, unless a Republican's in the White House
Real conservatives are as horrified of that as you are. Trust me.
- against "Islamofascists", unless their Saudis, in which case nothing to see here
- against abortion, but for the death penalty
Pretty much. They'd prefer to give someone a chance to prove whether or not the deserve to die.
I think we're seeing a coalescing of various conservatives and libertarians under the Tea Party like we saw with the Dems and other varieties of liberals under Howard Dean a decade or so ago. There's a lot of conflicting ideas and demands, lots of unfocused anger being referred to as "energy". The most strident, often unreasonable voices are the ones being heard. There are people who should shut their mouths before they hurt themselves and the cause the represent any further.
Slashdot Mirror
Please clarify what example you think would be suitable for other states to follow, and what good that would bring. I see little here that I would recommend to others.
Unless of course you were just being sarcastic and I was too dense to get it, in which case I'll just "whoooosh" myself for you.
The US *is* taxing Iraq for the cost of war! The oil money is being used to pay for work needed and that work given to US companies without tender.
I was thinking more in terms of an actual tax like "let's tax Iraqi incomes and send the money directly to the IRS" rather than other means of economic exploitation. Regardless, the point still stands. Do you think it is morally right to do that? Do you think the Iraqis are a little pissed off right now because of it?
It was also the fact that the big corporations (UK companies) were not paying taxes whilst colonial (smaller) companies had to pay. Rather like Microsoft can avoid paying taxes by accounting tricks but Bob's Software Shack cannot and therefore has to take the burden MS avoided.
Excellent point. Thank you.
My sister-in-law had a legal driver's license here long before she was a citizen, so yes, legal residents can get them. I don't know what information is collected at the DMV if the license applicant is foreign, and I don't know if some states expire the license on the exit date of someone's visa (seems like a bad idea; a visa extension would create a lot of extra work renewing the license, etc). Since laws vary from state to state, I suspect that presents a sizeable loophole for H1B holders, people here on student visas, and other similar "overstays".
In my opinion, that's probably not intentional. I don't think the AZ government is looking to give any illegal a free ride or loophole. It's more likely the result of compromises in crafting the ID portion of the legislation, as well as a fundamental difference between overstays and "wetbacks"; an overstay was at one time legally here. There is a documentation trail somewhere for that person. Someone who crossed illegally never had that paper trail to follow.
So what does a cop do if the person provides a driver's license but not a green card and the cop suspects the person is not a citizen?
My guess is that if the person in question has provided valid ID, they are cleared. If the ID comes back as stolen or counterfeit, that's probably one of the things LE looks out for when determining whether someone is legally here or not; they'll dig deeper.
What would be factors in determining if they think the person pulled over was not a citizen?
The law specifically rules out race as a factor LE can use in considering someone a possible illegal alien. I don't know exactly what other criteria remain after that, but I would hope that police would be looking for behavior patterns and other discrepancies, like the fake ID scenario above.
No. Wrong. The law states that an officer can only do so during the course of a "lawful encounter", and they amended it to clarify that it must be something like a traffic stop, police responding to a domestic disturbance call, etc; in other words, a situation in which you would need to show ID anyway. Second, a driver's license will suffice for ID. So, if you're driving, ipso facto, you ought to have your license with you. Third, AFAIK foreigners who are legal residents are supposed to carry their green card with them anyway.
The law is not that big a deal. It requires officers to enforce federal laws already on the books, and quite frankly, if they aren't already doing that, they probably ought to be fired.
First of all, if you consider the average income at the time, the additional taxes were difficult to bear. Secondly, what angered the colonists wasn't simply the taxes themselves, but their effective status as second-class citizens. The closest thing I can compare it to is if the US today taxed Iraq for the cost of the war over there.
Good point. I'll go down to the Kwik-e-mart and practice.
No wonder my wife hates me.
Could be. Heavy drinking would explain how the engineers screwed up the signal -> bars algorithm.
Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday refused to rule out a tax hike [emphasis mine] next year - handing his opposition a hot campaign issue - as he signed a pared-back $27.6 billion budget and looked ahead to an estimated $2 billion deficit [emphasis mine] with a nearly dry rainy day fund.
Those are the facts, no matter how you slice them. They have drained our state's savings, continue to overspend, and continue to raise taxes. Mind you, this is the same guy who got into office and immediately started spending money on himself (office, car, etc) way beyond what was appropriate. He (and his liberal tax-and-spend buddies in the MA houses of congress) has spent us to ruin.
Massachusetts has been abused by its corrupt politicians for decades. It is STILL Taxachusetts. Pick on Glenn Beck after you get your facts straight.
Well, compared to 1k - 2k years in the future, probably. You're just alive at the wrong time.
Vote them all out. It's the only way to be sure.
No, I'm not joking.
A fuel source in space is like oil on earth in like 300 years - very difficult to come by!
I'll grant your point that at present we don't have readily available fuel sources up there, except for solar for electric power. But just to play devil's advocate, I'd say that the overall picture is more like oil three hundred years ago. We don't have the necessary infrastructure to harvest and process the stuff available up there like HE3 on the moon, and our craft don't run on it anyway.
Well, I guess we now know how AT&T got the idea that they have "more bars in more places" ...
Posting to undo unintended mod.
It was a bunch of file sharers that made iTunes possible in the first place.
Without Napster, et al to force the industry to accept the reality of downloadable music, we'd all still be buying an $18 cd at Strawberries so our kids could listen to the 1 popular song on the mostly useless regurgitated pop CD. Just like we were doing 15 years ago.
I think a legit and reasonably-priced online music distribution scheme would have worked with or without the lawsuits. It just took a kid like Fanning to turn the industry on its head, because the industry wouldn't change from within.
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.
- T. Roosevelt
From what I can tell, some of the biggest wastes of our money are farm subsidies (grow so much corn that HFCS is cheaper than sugar!) and the military. I'm all for smaller government regarding those two.
Agreed.
Much of the rest of government spending is welfare state stuff that I not only support, I want it expanded.
I guess I can amicably disagree with you there. the government fills some admirable and necessary roles in supporting those who need it, but in general, it is rife with fraud, and it is mismanaged and wasteful. So at the very least, it needs to be run more competently. We could to far more good with the dollars we already spend if we spent them more wisely. I also feel that welfare-style spending is dangerous. It tends to create an entitlement mentality, and a cycle of dependency, rather than assist people to move up and off their benefits. No, I'm not just talking out of my ass. I see it every day. Of course, the usual caveats apply, every person's circumstances are different, etc.
Free university education for all, longer unemployment benefits, socialized health care, pensions, etc.
State universities used to be places a student could get a good, affordable education. Now government bureaucracy has generally mismanaged them to the point where even a state university education where I am has become quite expensive. Giving them more taxpayer money doesn't look like a solution to me. And believe me, I'd love to not have to pay for college for my 3 kids. I just don't think the government (at least the state & federal govt we have today) should be given any more tax money for education. They've proven they can't effectively use what they have.
Extended unemployment benefits - especially during a downturn like this - is a good thing. It helps prevent a cascade of other bad things like home foreclosure and personal bankruptcy. By preventing the rug being pulled out from underneath the unemployed, we preserve a key asset to our economic recovery - our workforce.
Socialized healthcare? Sorry, I've got to say no on that one, for the same reason as education. The government mismanages healthcare in an abominable fashion. Something needs to be done to help the least fortunate, but not at the price of greater government control over healthcare.
Given your liberal leanings, I realize it might be a stretch to ask you to visit a Cato Institute website, but it can't do any harm to simply read this. If you read this with an open mind, your opinions on pensions might be different. It is a presentation on the Chilean retirement system, the problems they faced, and how they solved them.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.html
To be fair, it's not a perfect system, and there have been justifiable criticisms of it, but it's better than what they had before.
Ah, dammit. Fumblefingers.
... instead of cutting waste, we're creating more. We're fucked if things keep going like this.
European leaders are trying to rein in their spending because they see the economic writing on the wall. Obama and his Democrats insist on charging straight ahead and spending more, even if it means rolling back their worthless campaign promises not to raise taxes on earners under $250k. Make no mistake, they are targeting you and I to pick up the tab for their heavy-spending ways.
Taxation citation.
I realize liberals might not like the WSJ as a source, but the article is well-written and informative. They have a graph which shows the actual impact the tax hikes would have. It's not op-ed, it's straight-up reporting of what is already out on the news wires. See the Associated Press report as well.
"Raising revenue is part of the deficit solution, too," Hoyer said.
No, it's not. Throwing more money at a problem that is rooted in waste has never solved the problem, it has only extended it. We are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, yet instead of
The Earth is flat and limited liability creates an incredible moral hazard
I'm sure you meant the flat Earth part differently.
Are you saying that limited liability corporations and partnerships should be banned? Or so heavily regulated that they are effectively banned? Just a reminder, the poor s.o.b. whose 401(k) you want to save would have almost nothing to invest his 401(k) in without the stock offerings of limited liability companies.
I was making a dark reference to the abortion/death penalty line. Had nothing to do with the Saudi line, which I neglected to respond to before hitting the "Submit" button.
I don't see the common thread of a consistent ideology in these stances. It really seems to me that nowadays "conservatism" is less of a worldview and more like a bunch of stuff in a bucket.
To a certain extent you're right. Conservatives now aren't what they used to be. They're a bunch of fat cats. Also, you're right, many of them betray their ideals for power and comfort. What I like to think of true conservatism is mostly gone these days. Then again, "liberal" used to mean something different too; namely the advancement and empowerment of individuals and their liberties. Now, it stands for big government and entitlements.
Particularly troubling is that the ID demand is not limited to a police stop that occurs for other reasons. It's suggested, but the only restriction I know of is "lawful contact", which is not defined in this law or anywhere else I can find. That vagueness potentially means that a policeman could be standing next to someone on the street getting an ice cream, and say "Show me your papers."
I'm not a legal scholar either, but it seems that they have since amended the law to clarify it. They replaced “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest,”. In other words, you have to be in a position where they would ask for your ID anyway.
The revised law also removes the word “solely” from the phrase “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.” to remove fears about racial profiling. (http://www.common-sense-politics.org/2010/05/01/what-is-the-legal-definition-of-lawful-contact/)
Essentially the law holds the government's feet to the fire by forcing it to obey federal law - which it should already be doing anyway.
What bothers conservatives about taxpayer-funded healthcare for all isn't so much the ID cards, it's more about creating another government-run entitlement program, and the inevitable hike in taxes to pay for it.
A conservative stance ... is decisions should be left to states and not the Federal government whenever possible.
That's not just a conservative position. That's how the Constitution is written. However, that doesn't mean that it is within states' rights to abrogate my personal rights.
- against big government, but for the Patriot Act
The Patriot act was supported by both major parties.
- against a Health Care ID card, because that's big brother - but the Arizona "Show us your papers" law? No problem
Have you read the law in question? It's actually pretty reasonable. The only circumstances they can request to see ID are situations where they are already asking everyone for ID ... traffic stops, etc. It's not like liberals are making it out to be.
- for State's rights, unless it's Bush v. Gore, Bush v. California EPA laws, or SCOTUS vs. state gun laws
Frankly, our Bill of Rights doesn't mean much if our states and towns can write laws that abrogate it on a whim.
- against deficits, unless a Republican's in the White House
Real conservatives are as horrified of that as you are. Trust me.
- against "Islamofascists", unless their Saudis, in which case nothing to see here
- against abortion, but for the death penalty
Pretty much. They'd prefer to give someone a chance to prove whether or not the deserve to die.
I think we're seeing a coalescing of various conservatives and libertarians under the Tea Party like we saw with the Dems and other varieties of liberals under Howard Dean a decade or so ago. There's a lot of conflicting ideas and demands, lots of unfocused anger being referred to as "energy". The most strident, often unreasonable voices are the ones being heard. There are people who should shut their mouths before they hurt themselves and the cause the represent any further.