Contributions are voluntary, taxes are compulsory.
Depending on the complexity of the the applicable tax law, the difference between a "tax cheat" and someone just trying to abide by the law becomes more and more a matter of opinion.
The reason for the increased polarization is obvious: there much more at stake now that it has become OK to create laws and set social policies from the bench. At the same time, it is harder and harder to do this sort of thing in Congress.
So, it is natural for the selection process to not worry about things such as scholarship or judicial experience - the position no longer requires that. A SCOTUS position is now a policy making position from which to enact broad legal and social changes.
These days, when senators are voting for a new supreme, they are essentially voting for a bundle of laws that they could probably not ever get passed in congress.
The oil companies such as Exxon get the huge tax break as a way to subsidize the Saudis. In order to get the oil, the Saudis wanted a larger percentage than the American oil companies could provide, so the US Government engineered a tax break on "foreign taxes" for them. This allows the Saudis to make up the difference through taxes, which the oil companies write off on US taxes.
Like many things run by the government, there's probably more incentive to do the job poorly than well. Giving a company or a product a pass probably requires less justification and hassle than turning one down.
Context is determinative in interpreting any text. The US Constitution starts: "We the People". Which people? Everyone in the world? No. Only the ones who are forming "a more perfect union" - ie: those citizens of the United States.
If you read the 5th amendment, you'll see that people in the armed forces do not have due process rights during times of war.
Since when do illegal enemy combatants get more rights under our constitution than our own soldiers?
The constitution further states that only congress has the authority to create courts and decide what their jurisdiction is. Congress passed laws establishing the military tribunals to try these terrorists. Under what authority does the president expand the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try these terrorists?
Logic based on a faulty premise still gets you to the wrong conclusion. At the risk of confusing you with the facts, here's the start of the executive summary of the research paper I linked to. Nothing about pulling things out of asses here. Just hard research based on facts. Worth a read if you care to educate yourself instead of pontificating.
While considerable research has been conducted over the past 50 years quantifying the significant roles motor
vehicle design, drunk and drugged driving, speeding and non-use of seatbelts play as factors in the number, severity
and economic costs of motor vehicle crashes in the United States, this is the first national study in many years to
examine the role and consequences of another major factor in these tragic incidences--the physical condition
of U.S. roadways.
The study finds that the cost and severity of crashes where roadway conditions are a factor "greatly exceeds the
cost and severity of crashes where alcohol or speeding was involved, or the cost of non-use of seatbelts."
Among the study's key findings:
Roadway condition is a contributing factor in more than half--52.7 percent--of the nearly 42,000 American
deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes each year and 38 percent of the non-fatal injuries. In terms of crash
outcome severity, it is the single most lethal contributing factor--greater than speeding, alcohol or non-use of
seat belts.
Motor vehicle crashes in which roadway condition is a contributing factor cost the U.S. economy more than
$217 billion each year. That is more than three-and-one-half times the amount of money government at all
levels is investing annually in roadway capital improvements--$59 billion, according to the Federal Highway Ad-
ministration. This societal cost includes $20 billion in medical costs; $46 billion in productivity costs; $52 billion in property damage and other resource costs; and $99 billion in monetized quality of life costs.
American businesses are paying an estimated $22 billion of the annual economic cost of motor vehicle crash-
es involving their employees in which roadway condition is a contributing factor. This includes almost $10
billion a year in health-related fringe beneft expenses for insurance ($6.0 billion) workers' compensation claims
($1.2 billion), sick leave ($1.7 billion) and Social Security ($920 million). These crashes cost government (taxpay-
ers) at all levels $12.3 billion
An estimated 20% of traffic fatalities in the US are currently correlated with inadequate road surface friction. This is usually the asphalt roads, which can become very slick when wet, when hot, or when exposed to heavy traffic. Killing 10,000 people a year because the gov't doesn't want to fix the roads is pretty serious. If the gov't isn't doing what they can about the current roads, what are the odds that they will have their eye on the ball with this new 'green' tech?
A couple of years ago, a large fuel tanker crashed on I95 between Baltimore and Washington. It caught fire and caused all kinds of mayhem. If I95 was also a power generator and a transmission line and a communication trunk, that mayhem would have been greatly multiplied.
Currently, road repairs can be accomplished quickly with low tech to get traffic moving, then a more permanent repair can be done when traffic is lighter. This seems much more finicky.
The more they legislate, the more (supposedly) unintended consequences we get. If only they'd agree to be limited by the Constitution's enumerated powers - we'd get far fewer unintended consequences.
How about if we 1) term limit lawmakers, and 2) put mandatory sunset provisions on each law so that it automatically expires after 25 years?
What good would that do? For #1, we'd at least get some new blood in there once in a while. For #2, remember the telephone tax that was imposed to pay for the Spanish - American War, and was still in place 100 years later? Do we really want this law on the books in 100 years?
This is so obviously true. It's too bad that Congress doesn't get it.
They're planning on passing a law to take away the right of secret balloting in union elections. I guess this will allow the labor goons to implement 'quality control'.
I find it interesting that Obama chose a Washington insider as his running mate - so much for 'change'.
McCain puts his money where his mouth (and record) is by choosing someone from way outside Washington and with a proven record of fighting the status quo.
Imagine if the government created a 'food administration' to ensure that the people in a city had adequate food to eat, and that this organization centrally controlled the distribution of food into the city. This would turn all supermarkets and restaurants into points of service for them. The result would be horrendous. Restaurants would start serving the same menus, and the quality would lower to the 'minimal acceptable standard'.
So, why do we try to do the same thing for schools and expect that it will work?
Why is it that parents have to move to a new house to send their kids to a good school? Why is it that parents have so little say about how the school operates? Perhaps this explains why so many parents aren't as involved - because their involvement doesn't matter? (From personal experience, my mother, who was a school teacher at a different school, was completely unable to change things at my brother's school, despite a very determined effort.)
If the government sent someone to your house M-F, and you were expected to hand over your TV for 7 hours so that they could mess around with it, would you be as accepting of the situation? Aren't our children more valuable than our TVs?
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the complexity of the the applicable tax law, the difference between a "tax cheat" and someone just trying to abide by the law becomes more and more a matter of opinion.
What a business is engaged in is a matter of public record. Do we really want gov't involved in hiding what various businesses are doing?
So, it is natural for the selection process to not worry about things such as scholarship or judicial experience - the position no longer requires that. A SCOTUS position is now a policy making position from which to enact broad legal and social changes.
These days, when senators are voting for a new supreme, they are essentially voting for a bundle of laws that they could probably not ever get passed in congress.
Huh. This is about 10 years after the federal Department of Education was established. Who would have predicted this?
The oil companies such as Exxon get the huge tax break as a way to subsidize the Saudis. In order to get the oil, the Saudis wanted a larger percentage than the American oil companies could provide, so the US Government engineered a tax break on "foreign taxes" for them. This allows the Saudis to make up the difference through taxes, which the oil companies write off on US taxes.
Too bad they threw the Eastern Europeans under the bus to get this far.
Like many things run by the government, there's probably more incentive to do the job poorly than well. Giving a company or a product a pass probably requires less justification and hassle than turning one down.
He didn't die, but he might be unable to reproduce.
Context is determinative in interpreting any text. The US Constitution starts: "We the People". Which people? Everyone in the world? No. Only the ones who are forming "a more perfect union" - ie: those citizens of the United States.
If you read the 5th amendment, you'll see that people in the armed forces do not have due process rights during times of war.
Since when do illegal enemy combatants get more rights under our constitution than our own soldiers?
The constitution further states that only congress has the authority to create courts and decide what their jurisdiction is. Congress passed laws establishing the military tribunals to try these terrorists. Under what authority does the president expand the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try these terrorists?
1) Create artificial scarcity of electric power
2) Use 'crisis' to grab more governmental control over people
3) ?????
4) State goes into bankruptcy!
When the state goes bankrupt.
Why does everything have to be noisy?
Logic based on a faulty premise still gets you to the wrong conclusion. At the risk of confusing you with the facts, here's the start of the executive summary of the research paper I linked to. Nothing about pulling things out of asses here. Just hard research based on facts. Worth a read if you care to educate yourself instead of pontificating.
While considerable research has been conducted over the past 50 years quantifying the significant roles motor vehicle design, drunk and drugged driving, speeding and non-use of seatbelts play as factors in the number, severity and economic costs of motor vehicle crashes in the United States, this is the first national study in many years to examine the role and consequences of another major factor in these tragic incidences--the physical condition of U.S. roadways.
The study finds that the cost and severity of crashes where roadway conditions are a factor "greatly exceeds the cost and severity of crashes where alcohol or speeding was involved, or the cost of non-use of seatbelts." Among the study's key findings:
Roadway condition is a contributing factor in more than half--52.7 percent--of the nearly 42,000 American deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes each year and 38 percent of the non-fatal injuries. In terms of crash outcome severity, it is the single most lethal contributing factor--greater than speeding, alcohol or non-use of seat belts.
Motor vehicle crashes in which roadway condition is a contributing factor cost the U.S. economy more than $217 billion each year. That is more than three-and-one-half times the amount of money government at all levels is investing annually in roadway capital improvements--$59 billion, according to the Federal Highway Ad- ministration. This societal cost includes $20 billion in medical costs; $46 billion in productivity costs; $52 billion in property damage and other resource costs; and $99 billion in monetized quality of life costs.
American businesses are paying an estimated $22 billion of the annual economic cost of motor vehicle crash- es involving their employees in which roadway condition is a contributing factor. This includes almost $10 billion a year in health-related fringe beneft expenses for insurance ($6.0 billion) workers' compensation claims ($1.2 billion), sick leave ($1.7 billion) and Social Security ($920 million). These crashes cost government (taxpay- ers) at all levels $12.3 billion
And I suppose your comments are from the "I like to use rhetoric instead of facts" department. Seriously, here's a recent report on the topic:
http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/On_a_Crash_Course_the_Dangers_and_Health_Costs_of_161951.aspx
An estimated 20% of traffic fatalities in the US are currently correlated with inadequate road surface friction. This is usually the asphalt roads, which can become very slick when wet, when hot, or when exposed to heavy traffic. Killing 10,000 people a year because the gov't doesn't want to fix the roads is pretty serious. If the gov't isn't doing what they can about the current roads, what are the odds that they will have their eye on the ball with this new 'green' tech?
A couple of years ago, a large fuel tanker crashed on I95 between Baltimore and Washington. It caught fire and caused all kinds of mayhem. If I95 was also a power generator and a transmission line and a communication trunk, that mayhem would have been greatly multiplied.
Currently, road repairs can be accomplished quickly with low tech to get traffic moving, then a more permanent repair can be done when traffic is lighter. This seems much more finicky.
And here I thought I was blocking Politics.
What rate of return would this investment receive?
Don't get me wrong - there's huge historical significance here - but only politicians use weasel words like 'investment' to describe state grants.
The more they legislate, the more (supposedly) unintended consequences we get. If only they'd agree to be limited by the Constitution's enumerated powers - we'd get far fewer unintended consequences.
How about if we 1) term limit lawmakers, and 2) put mandatory sunset provisions on each law so that it automatically expires after 25 years?
What good would that do? For #1, we'd at least get some new blood in there once in a while. For #2, remember the telephone tax that was imposed to pay for the Spanish - American War, and was still in place 100 years later? Do we really want this law on the books in 100 years?
It's just about as likely to happen...
This is so obviously true. It's too bad that Congress doesn't get it. They're planning on passing a law to take away the right of secret balloting in union elections. I guess this will allow the labor goons to implement 'quality control'.
Another way to look at it: Palin has experience doing what Obama has only talked about - accomplishing real change that matters.
McCain puts his money where his mouth (and record) is by choosing someone from way outside Washington and with a proven record of fighting the status quo.
Imagine if the government created a 'food administration' to ensure that the people in a city had adequate food to eat, and that this organization centrally controlled the distribution of food into the city. This would turn all supermarkets and restaurants into points of service for them. The result would be horrendous. Restaurants would start serving the same menus, and the quality would lower to the 'minimal acceptable standard'. So, why do we try to do the same thing for schools and expect that it will work? Why is it that parents have to move to a new house to send their kids to a good school? Why is it that parents have so little say about how the school operates? Perhaps this explains why so many parents aren't as involved - because their involvement doesn't matter? (From personal experience, my mother, who was a school teacher at a different school, was completely unable to change things at my brother's school, despite a very determined effort.) If the government sent someone to your house M-F, and you were expected to hand over your TV for 7 hours so that they could mess around with it, would you be as accepting of the situation? Aren't our children more valuable than our TVs?
But, the upside is that the senate won't get much done while they're busy pointing fingers.