"and the Wall Street banks and hedge funds that speculate and make markets in the oil trading game." == "cheap credit from the Federal Reserve"
They should also mention one other cause: demand.
Re:Why tax cuts work, I know it sounds wrong
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
I know that's how Hauser's Law is used, but I interpret it as all taxes produce about the same amount of revenue relative to GDP.
Re:Why tax cuts work, I know it sounds wrong
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
I assume you may be familiar with Hauser's Law. No matter what tax rates have done since WWII tax collection has hovered around 19% of GDP. That would lead me to believe that we aren't on the left side of the Laffer Curve.
Clinton in 1995 presented a budget that never attempted to balance the budget. I know because I was actually paying attention in 1995. I'm not even relying on something I read. I'm relying on memory.
What happened is that the Republican Congress reduced the rate of increases in spending and Clinton, to his credit, went along for the ride.
Let me repeat: reduced the rate of increases. That's all it took.
People should look into Hauser's Law. The amount of tax revenue to the federal government as a percentage of GDP is pretty stable no matter what the tax rates are doing. So spending above that norm isn't going to balance the budget and taxing your way into a balanced budget isn't going to work. At least not at these spending levels.
Is there some law that allows the President to do this?
If not, what gives the President the authority to do this unilaterally? We don't live in a dictatorship and I find the ability of the President to issue fiat orders more troubling than gas guzzlers.
The ends don't justify the means. Sadly, for most people, the ends do justify the means.
The global warming movement has been based on models making predictions far into the future. It is about time some people look at the assumptions and try to falsify them.
If Sony doesn't make another Spider-Man picture within a given time frame, the rights will revert to Marvel/Disney.
If Warner Brothers doesn't make another Superman film soon, they have to ask for permission from the heirs of one of the co-creators.
I assume this is the reason Fox rebooted the X-Men series so soon. They didn't want rights to go back to Marvel/Disney. In a few years, they'll probably be making weird impressionistic art films involving the X-Men that is shown on 1 screen in L.A. to maintain rights to the movies.
I usually don't support subsidies, but I tend to agree with you. I would rather they support raw research. Natural gas might be the best alternative though in terms of economics and supply.
I just don't want solar to become the next ethanol 15 years from now.
Besides the normal tax breaks all manufacturing industries get, they seem to be just fine. And they would do just fine on their own. Solar power is utterly dependent on subsidies.
Do you really think that neo-Darwinian thought not being taught will have any impact on hard sciences and manufacturing?
And are you aware that manufacturing is going fine in America? Manufacturing jobs... not so much. Lots of automation. But not the same as "we've lost our leadership in manufacuring."
No, I meant inconsistent. If somebody wants to have a standard that says "... except for Pluto" I'm OK with that. And if you want to leave Pluto out, that's fine too. It doesn't change a darn thing except a label.
And we know about false-flag operations because governments (at least the USA) is really bad at keeping secrets. Another major point against grand conspiracy theorists.
Leave the LEO stuff to private enterprise, lending a helping hand when you can. And NASA should do all the other stuff you mention. I think that's the right approach and it seems to be Obama's thinking as well.
We have a mechanism for holding them to account. It's called Congress. That's there job. If you don't feel they are doing their job correctly, which would be hard to ascertain unless you had clearances and/or a member of the appropriate Congressional committee, vote other people in. That's the mechanism for holding Congress to account.
Hopefully he's one of the first adopters that gets turned into relatively cheap medical innovations later. The government is going to have to clamp down on spending and they won't be paying for anything experimental. Those innovations, if they are going to come, are going to come from rich people.
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case people don't get the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
I think you just have a lack of imagination.
"and the Wall Street banks and hedge funds that speculate and make markets in the oil trading game." == "cheap credit from the Federal Reserve"
They should also mention one other cause: demand.
I know that's how Hauser's Law is used, but I interpret it as all taxes produce about the same amount of revenue relative to GDP.
I assume you may be familiar with Hauser's Law. No matter what tax rates have done since WWII tax collection has hovered around 19% of GDP. That would lead me to believe that we aren't on the left side of the Laffer Curve.
Clinton in 1995 presented a budget that never attempted to balance the budget. I know because I was actually paying attention in 1995. I'm not even relying on something I read. I'm relying on memory.
What happened is that the Republican Congress reduced the rate of increases in spending and Clinton, to his credit, went along for the ride.
Let me repeat: reduced the rate of increases. That's all it took.
People should look into Hauser's Law. The amount of tax revenue to the federal government as a percentage of GDP is pretty stable no matter what the tax rates are doing. So spending above that norm isn't going to balance the budget and taxing your way into a balanced budget isn't going to work. At least not at these spending levels.
Is there some law that allows the President to do this?
If not, what gives the President the authority to do this unilaterally? We don't live in a dictatorship and I find the ability of the President to issue fiat orders more troubling than gas guzzlers.
The ends don't justify the means. Sadly, for most people, the ends do justify the means.
The global warming movement has been based on models making predictions far into the future. It is about time some people look at the assumptions and try to falsify them.
I predict more whining than a stuck pig.
Genetic logical fallacy.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/
Could someone please confirm the following?
If Sony doesn't make another Spider-Man picture within a given time frame, the rights will revert to Marvel/Disney.
If Warner Brothers doesn't make another Superman film soon, they have to ask for permission from the heirs of one of the co-creators.
I assume this is the reason Fox rebooted the X-Men series so soon. They didn't want rights to go back to Marvel/Disney. In a few years, they'll probably be making weird impressionistic art films involving the X-Men that is shown on 1 screen in L.A. to maintain rights to the movies.
I usually don't support subsidies, but I tend to agree with you. I would rather they support raw research. Natural gas might be the best alternative though in terms of economics and supply.
I just don't want solar to become the next ethanol 15 years from now.
Besides the normal tax breaks all manufacturing industries get, they seem to be just fine. And they would do just fine on their own. Solar power is utterly dependent on subsidies.
I live near one of the worst urban areas in America: Camden, NJ. It gets plenty of money per pupil. You just can't link money to a good education.
What we have is a correlation. People who have money generally take a strong interest in their kids education. It really comes down to the parents.
But if you think you can fix a problem with money (or just money), you are in for a rude awakening.
like Vanilla Ice was able to kill our brain like a poisonous mushroom?
Can we get any other good examples?
Do you really think that neo-Darwinian thought not being taught will have any impact on hard sciences and manufacturing?
And are you aware that manufacturing is going fine in America? Manufacturing jobs... not so much. Lots of automation. But not the same as "we've lost our leadership in manufacuring."
No, I meant inconsistent. If somebody wants to have a standard that says "... except for Pluto" I'm OK with that. And if you want to leave Pluto out, that's fine too. It doesn't change a darn thing except a label.
Both sides need to calm down.
If I want Pluto to be a planet and I have inconsistent standards for my definition (which has to be somewhat arbitrary anyway), who cares?
I used to work in the defense industry. Trust me. It's really hard for a large organization to keep a secret.
And we know about false-flag operations because governments (at least the USA) is really bad at keeping secrets. Another major point against grand conspiracy theorists.
Try doing a little reading first: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216
"We created Consciousness"
How did unconscious people go about creating that?
Leave the LEO stuff to private enterprise, lending a helping hand when you can. And NASA should do all the other stuff you mention. I think that's the right approach and it seems to be Obama's thinking as well.
If I don't care and I buy it, who gives a rip? If I wanted complete control, I would have installed Linux.
We have a mechanism for holding them to account. It's called Congress. That's there job. If you don't feel they are doing their job correctly, which would be hard to ascertain unless you had clearances and/or a member of the appropriate Congressional committee, vote other people in. That's the mechanism for holding Congress to account.
Hopefully he's one of the first adopters that gets turned into relatively cheap medical innovations later. The government is going to have to clamp down on spending and they won't be paying for anything experimental. Those innovations, if they are going to come, are going to come from rich people.