We have a funding crisis every 3 to 6 months now like clockwork. If the the federal government had a budget this wouldn't happen. The blame lies with the senate.
Seeing as the study was produced by NOAA, we do. With sequestration in the news, I wonder how many autistic children with hearing aids could have been vaccinated with the money that was spent on this study.
I think maybe what you mean to say is that if you are a classical liberal you are labeled a right wing conservative. But by definition, you are a liberal, which is distinctly different, if not the opposite of, a Liberal or Progressive.
My point is that in modern day American politics, belief in the free-market and individualism gets you labeled a right-winger. Hitler and Mussolini were fervent opponents of the free market and individualism. But when you start comparing the economic components and to a lesser extent the social components of Fascism to the American Progressive movement, parallels emerge.
Mussolini emerged from the left to found the Fascist movement. He was originally a member of the Italian PSI, and once was the editor of Avanti!. Mussolini's Fascist movement emerged from Socialism, just like the German Workers's Party, and later Hitler's National Socialist German Worker's Party.
I suppose you could make the argument that these meet the classical definition of right wing, but then you would have to say that the modern day Democratic party in the US is right wing. There are many economic parallels between the American Progressive movement and the Italian Fascist movement.
To summarize your description simplistically, we might say that Left means "power to the people" and Right "power to the state". However, with Marx-Engels notion of the progression of the ideal (Communist) state as one centered around the maximization of the interests of the people, with authoritarian government only a transitional step until said government dissolves itself in favor of the people... which oddly, never seems to actually happen once a group of people gets in power, incidentally... we have a skewed public interpretation of where that "is" on the spectrum.
We might. But here in the US, it is the left that is constantly arguing that the State needs more power, and the right that is arguing that the State is too powerful. I think your descriptions of Left and RIght are correct, it's just that the perceptions of left and right in the US are distorted, eventually those perceptions will snap into alignment.
The states on the other hand, are free to do as their constitution allows.
The states were free, until the incorporation doctrine was established in the 1890's. Most of the bill of rights since then has limited the powers of the states as well as the federal government.
My point is that tax rates and tax revenue are not directly coupled. The government sets tax rates and with the tax code, and then people adjust accordingly in response. There are certainly instances in which an increase in tax rates will result in a decrease in revenue and vice versa. If you would like an example, here is an article on property taxes in Detroit:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130221/METRO01/302210375
Rates yes, revenue no. Every time the president states that revenue must be part of the deal, he is clouding the issue. The government is certainly able to legislate tax rates, but has no control over tax revenue. Smart tax policy will increase revenue if it can be supported. Stupid tax policy will lead to lower revenue.
going to wake the hell up, and realize that the people you so avidly support really just want to control everything you do. Do you really believe net neutrality is really going to improve your life? Screw all of you people who are supposedly concerned about civil liberties. There are at least a dozen articles in the archives about Sarah Palin's email, and yet there has been no mention of the rampant law breaking at the EPA. What is the point of your so called Liberal utopia, if it is imposed by authoritarian rule? We should all be arguing for liberalism, which is completely and totally the opposite of this current Liberal fascism.
We had record revenue, and an almost balanced budget, and rapidly shrinking deficit, with the Bush tax rates at the height of the Iraq war. I don't think those tax rates are responsible for our deficit. I think it has more to do with sharp increase in spending from 2007-2009 (actual years, not funky fiscal years). The last budget that was signed into law in 2009, was intentionally used to set a new baseline for huge spending that has carried until today. The large hit from the wars does not affect our deficit, because like you said, it would be kept off budget if we had one. That hasn't changed.
These are all reasonable arguments. What doesn't make sense to me is that our deficit went from 165 billion to 1.4 trillion in the span of two years, and federal spending correlates with the increased deficit. Did all these things suddenly happen in 2007?
Backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government...who's credit rating was downgraded last year. That phrase does not have the weight that it used to. When the government is borrowing money from social security AND China AND the American people; it's a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
We have a funding crisis every 3 to 6 months now like clockwork. If the the federal government had a budget this wouldn't happen. The blame lies with the senate.
No, ABS does not, and never will have a higher yield strength than steel.
Who pays for crap like this?
Seeing as the study was produced by NOAA, we do. With sequestration in the news, I wonder how many autistic children with hearing aids could have been vaccinated with the money that was spent on this study.
I'm so glad Amazon got permission from a Federal Court to engage in commerce. How did this case even make it to Federal Court?
I think maybe what you mean to say is that if you are a classical liberal you are labeled a right wing conservative. But by definition, you are a liberal, which is distinctly different, if not the opposite of, a Liberal or Progressive.
My point is that in modern day American politics, belief in the free-market and individualism gets you labeled a right-winger. Hitler and Mussolini were fervent opponents of the free market and individualism. But when you start comparing the economic components and to a lesser extent the social components of Fascism to the American Progressive movement, parallels emerge.
Mussolini emerged from the left to found the Fascist movement. He was originally a member of the Italian PSI, and once was the editor of Avanti!. Mussolini's Fascist movement emerged from Socialism, just like the German Workers's Party, and later Hitler's National Socialist German Worker's Party. I suppose you could make the argument that these meet the classical definition of right wing, but then you would have to say that the modern day Democratic party in the US is right wing. There are many economic parallels between the American Progressive movement and the Italian Fascist movement.
To summarize your description simplistically, we might say that Left means "power to the people" and Right "power to the state". However, with Marx-Engels notion of the progression of the ideal (Communist) state as one centered around the maximization of the interests of the people, with authoritarian government only a transitional step until said government dissolves itself in favor of the people... which oddly, never seems to actually happen once a group of people gets in power, incidentally... we have a skewed public interpretation of where that "is" on the spectrum.
We might. But here in the US, it is the left that is constantly arguing that the State needs more power, and the right that is arguing that the State is too powerful. I think your descriptions of Left and RIght are correct, it's just that the perceptions of left and right in the US are distorted, eventually those perceptions will snap into alignment.
What rightist autocracies? The only one that comes to mind was Pinochet in Chile.
I wouldn't classify him as a leftist or a Liberal, more like a liberal. The two former categories are too authoritarian.
Those darn guns. I hate it when they jump up of their own accord, aim, and fire at unarmed people.
The states on the other hand, are free to do as their constitution allows.
The states were free, until the incorporation doctrine was established in the 1890's. Most of the bill of rights since then has limited the powers of the states as well as the federal government.
My point is that tax rates and tax revenue are not directly coupled. The government sets tax rates and with the tax code, and then people adjust accordingly in response. There are certainly instances in which an increase in tax rates will result in a decrease in revenue and vice versa. If you would like an example, here is an article on property taxes in Detroit: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130221/METRO01/302210375
Congress did it's job and passed two bills that would have stopped the sequester, you moron. Where's the solution from the President and the senate?
Rates yes, revenue no. Every time the president states that revenue must be part of the deal, he is clouding the issue. The government is certainly able to legislate tax rates, but has no control over tax revenue. Smart tax policy will increase revenue if it can be supported. Stupid tax policy will lead to lower revenue.
Did you have to go to school to learn how to twist the obvious so well? Argentina works the same way. How is that scheme working there?
But the president supports same-sex marriage, so really, abuse of power in different areas can be overlooked.
is called combustion. Just because it is in a box, does not mean it happens magically.
going to wake the hell up, and realize that the people you so avidly support really just want to control everything you do. Do you really believe net neutrality is really going to improve your life? Screw all of you people who are supposedly concerned about civil liberties. There are at least a dozen articles in the archives about Sarah Palin's email, and yet there has been no mention of the rampant law breaking at the EPA. What is the point of your so called Liberal utopia, if it is imposed by authoritarian rule? We should all be arguing for liberalism, which is completely and totally the opposite of this current Liberal fascism.
No it doesn't. We don't have a budget. And haven't for 4 years.
We had record revenue, and an almost balanced budget, and rapidly shrinking deficit, with the Bush tax rates at the height of the Iraq war. I don't think those tax rates are responsible for our deficit. I think it has more to do with sharp increase in spending from 2007-2009 (actual years, not funky fiscal years). The last budget that was signed into law in 2009, was intentionally used to set a new baseline for huge spending that has carried until today. The large hit from the wars does not affect our deficit, because like you said, it would be kept off budget if we had one. That hasn't changed.
I see. People are too dumb to manage their own affairs, so we must appoint other people who will do it by force.
These are all reasonable arguments. What doesn't make sense to me is that our deficit went from 165 billion to 1.4 trillion in the span of two years, and federal spending correlates with the increased deficit. Did all these things suddenly happen in 2007?
Backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government...who's credit rating was downgraded last year. That phrase does not have the weight that it used to. When the government is borrowing money from social security AND China AND the American people; it's a problem.
Why don't we put citizens in charge of their own SS funds? We have more options than just the FedGov and Busness people.