You didn't make a single substantiated statement in that entire diatribe.
A) Removing the federal government from touching those funds doesn't eliminate the funds, it puts them in the states hands.
B) There is no duplication if the federal departments are removed, which is, you know, the POINT.
C) Even if they are used tightly, the simple fact of duplication of efforts means they are not used EFFICIENTLY, which is the important part.
As far as just moving to a different state, it's far simpler than attempting to force the ideology of those around you to match your own.
So, keep raising taxes and doing as we have been (which means, raising spending). We would need to increase our tax intake nearly 75% just to cover our current shortfall, and more like 150% to make a reasonable plan to pay off our current debts. I would prefer not to live in a cardboard box, but if 50-80% of my salary suddenly becomes due in taxes, just to continue the current level of government support, that's where I'd be.
I'm so tired of people who clearly can't do basic mathematics lecturing me about my lack of awareness. Bust out a damned abacus man.
I find it pretty hilarious that people are either to dense or misguided to realize that Paul doesn't want these things destroyed, he wants control of them taken away from the FEDERAL government. State and local governments can do a much better job of controlling the usage of these funds vs. the federal government, and, as a bonus, if you don't like what your state is doing, move to another state that you do agree with. Novel concept.
This is really mental masturbation anyway, we aren't changing our path in the US at this point, until we hit rock bottom, and we've still a long way to go on that front.
I have quite a few friends that are cops, and I agree with your statement.
That said, even the good cops I know get let off of speeding tickets and other such preferential treatment by their fellow officers. That behavior is still unacceptable.
I have the same issue with the behavior of police when another officer is killed. Why exactly do they treat the solving and, especially, prosecution, of that crime any differently than if a member of my family is killed? The same laws are broken, and legality trumps emotion.
I'm slow to believe that alone is responsible for California's woes, however I definitely do not favor any policy that shifts money around in such a manner.
Actually, I drive on rural highways pretty regularly. City highways (in the smallish, 300k resident city in which I reside) are actually easier to deal with as they have more lanes. Rural, 2 lane highways seem to be continuously full of people driving 5 under, next to each other.
Yes, that because EV research and development stagnated for literally decades between then and now.
Perhaps development of all the relevant systems combined into an electric replacement for a petrol powered car stagnated, but advancements in the individual systems (batteries, microprocessor controllers, power switching, electric motors) has carried on at a pretty good pace for a large portion of that timeline.
Batteries are the issue and we're still some major technological breakthroughs away from batteries being a viable replacement for fuels (be they gasoline, alcohol, hydrogen, etc.). Battery development has come a long way without transit's involvement (cell phones and portable devices mostly), but we still have a LONG way to go on that front.
The sheer act of seeing things like that running around on the battlefield is likely to be pretty unsettling for enemy combatants. One step closer to mechwarrior.
That would require actual innovation and effort in engineering.
Lawsuits require much less effort. If nothing else they slow the release of the products and give themselves a head start. It's a "can't lose" situation.
So the crew was replacedhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/16/1558202/Soyuz-Capsule-Return-Marred-By-Mystery-Communications-Blackout# with alien drones, big deal.
There is a bit more to it than that, considering something like 90% of the country is too sprawled for this to function well. I live in a rural area and commute around 30 miles each way to the office. Due to the rural location, implementing public transport would add 2-3 hours to my daily commute. Not exactly efficient.
The entire infrastructure of the country would have to be completely rethought and a pretty massive amount of the population relocated.
I have this exact issue, and it's rather maddening. Now I try to follow just close enough that no one will try to squeeze in. It's far closer than I would like to be, but it appears to be the lesser of two evils.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't make a single substantiated statement in that entire diatribe.
A) Removing the federal government from touching those funds doesn't eliminate the funds, it puts them in the states hands.
B) There is no duplication if the federal departments are removed, which is, you know, the POINT.
C) Even if they are used tightly, the simple fact of duplication of efforts means they are not used EFFICIENTLY, which is the important part.
As far as just moving to a different state, it's far simpler than attempting to force the ideology of those around you to match your own.
So, keep raising taxes and doing as we have been (which means, raising spending). We would need to increase our tax intake nearly 75% just to cover our current shortfall, and more like 150% to make a reasonable plan to pay off our current debts. I would prefer not to live in a cardboard box, but if 50-80% of my salary suddenly becomes due in taxes, just to continue the current level of government support, that's where I'd be.
I'm so tired of people who clearly can't do basic mathematics lecturing me about my lack of awareness. Bust out a damned abacus man.
I find it pretty hilarious that people are either to dense or misguided to realize that Paul doesn't want these things destroyed, he wants control of them taken away from the FEDERAL government. State and local governments can do a much better job of controlling the usage of these funds vs. the federal government, and, as a bonus, if you don't like what your state is doing, move to another state that you do agree with. Novel concept.
This is really mental masturbation anyway, we aren't changing our path in the US at this point, until we hit rock bottom, and we've still a long way to go on that front.
I have quite a few friends that are cops, and I agree with your statement.
That said, even the good cops I know get let off of speeding tickets and other such preferential treatment by their fellow officers. That behavior is still unacceptable.
I have the same issue with the behavior of police when another officer is killed. Why exactly do they treat the solving and, especially, prosecution, of that crime any differently than if a member of my family is killed? The same laws are broken, and legality trumps emotion.
We'll have none of this realistic view on climate change hooey here. Please revert to wild accusations and finger pointing, please.
That is, honestly, an interesting little factoid.
I'm slow to believe that alone is responsible for California's woes, however I definitely do not favor any policy that shifts money around in such a manner.
Can't speak for the rest of the Midwest, but my state (Indiana) has been in the black for at least 8-10 years, if not longer.
Can you cite some sources about the government taking California's money to pay for those mooching Midwestern states?
Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri.
Actually, I drive on rural highways pretty regularly. City highways (in the smallish, 300k resident city in which I reside) are actually easier to deal with as they have more lanes. Rural, 2 lane highways seem to be continuously full of people driving 5 under, next to each other.
On highways, you don't use your brakes (until you reach your exit).
I would like to drive on these highways. Fools on the roads on every highway I've been on preclude this being a possibility.
Yes, that because EV research and development stagnated for literally decades between then and now.
Perhaps development of all the relevant systems combined into an electric replacement for a petrol powered car stagnated, but advancements in the individual systems (batteries, microprocessor controllers, power switching, electric motors) has carried on at a pretty good pace for a large portion of that timeline.
Batteries are the issue and we're still some major technological breakthroughs away from batteries being a viable replacement for fuels (be they gasoline, alcohol, hydrogen, etc.). Battery development has come a long way without transit's involvement (cell phones and portable devices mostly), but we still have a LONG way to go on that front.
Or more likely, a "Threat Warning Assessment Team".
The sheer act of seeing things like that running around on the battlefield is likely to be pretty unsettling for enemy combatants. One step closer to mechwarrior.
I'll pass that information on to above referenced voices.
Stupid me + stupid phone based browser = formatting errors.
Bah, the voices in my head show me pictures all the time.
Your ideas sound great and incredibly useful.
We'll have none of that in modern corporate culture, please leave.
That would require actual innovation and effort in engineering.
Lawsuits require much less effort. If nothing else they slow the release of the products and give themselves a head start. It's a "can't lose" situation.
Odd, looks normal in preview, all jacked up after submittal. Ah well.
So the crew was replacedhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/16/1558202/Soyuz-Capsule-Return-Marred-By-Mystery-Communications-Blackout# with alien drones, big deal.
Do you really think that 3D printing is a better solution to that issue than, say, manual labor?
3D printing is intended for complex structures that are otherwise difficult/impossible . Not cinder brick shanties.
Let us know how the sales of the software you wrote today is doing in 50+ years, sans copyright troll behavior.
There is a bit more to it than that, considering something like 90% of the country is too sprawled for this to function well. I live in a rural area and commute around 30 miles each way to the office. Due to the rural location, implementing public transport would add 2-3 hours to my daily commute. Not exactly efficient.
The entire infrastructure of the country would have to be completely rethought and a pretty massive amount of the population relocated.
I have this exact issue, and it's rather maddening. Now I try to follow just close enough that no one will try to squeeze in. It's far closer than I would like to be, but it appears to be the lesser of two evils.
Doesn't the US Military handle most colonel development now?