Most banks repaid the government loans long ago, with interest. Some banks went through forced mergers... then the absorbing banks were punished with billion-dollar fines for the violations committed by the banks that were absorbed. Wachovia and Washington Mutual come readily to mind.
AIG cost the US government at least $200 billion. But AIG is not a bank. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac have cost the US government at least $238 billion; in return the government received assets of unknown value... though probably worth more than zero.
I guess I would like to know if there are any banks out there that still owe the US Treasury. Certainly there are some that are "underwater", but if they fail then the FDIC covers the losses, and the FDIC is financed by fees collected from banks.
No, but the narrative is that he's not just successful, but a ruthless plutocrat. The narrative (true or not) is that he's not just successful, but he'll do anything to make a buck, moral or not.
That's the Obama narrative, because Obama cannot run on his own record. It's been widely known for more than a year that Obama would run a totally negative campaign against whichever Republican was nominated. Romney was the strongest of the potential GOP candidates, so their negative campaign against Romney is orders of magnitude greater than if Santorum or someone else had been nominated. Of course, even after months of relentless negativity, Romney is still even with Obama in the polls.
The question now is, after all that they've thrown at Romney, do they have anything left? Or will they just keep making up stuff, hoping the mainstream media repeats the accusations without questioning the veracity?
Romney is not even the most wealthy of recent candidates. John and Teresa Kerry were/are worth nearly $1 billion -- though John earned very little of that. Clinton and Gore did not become extremely wealthy until after they left office, but does it matter if a person is rich before or after they become president or vice-president?
Romney would probably be a lot richer if he did not donate so much to his church and to other charities.
When McCain was vetting Romney and others as prospective vice-presidents in 2008, Romney provided several years' tax returns to the McCain campaign. Those who saw those returns have said publicly that there was nothing there that would have disqualified Romney. McCain really didn't like Romney, so if he had something that could be used against Romney, he would have made sure at least one of the primary opponents had some of the information. None of them received anything like that.
When one considers the recent returns that Romney has made public, and the earlier ones he provided to McCain, most of the returns from the last ten years have been reviewed, with nothing illegal or even questionable being found.
There are some roads where a speed limit is appropriate, but others were a simply advisory would be enough. Why do we waste so much tax money on patrolmen whose main job is to punish us for driving at safe but illegal speeds? It sometimes seems as if the purpose is to generate revenue for the courts system, and to justify keeping so many extraneous policemen, judges, bailiffs, attorneys, and clerks on the public payroll.
The problem with most flat tax advocates though is that they want the rich to play less and keep getting all their benefits, but want the poor to pay more and get fewer benefits.
Wrong. The problem is that a pure flat tax works best with the elimination of all exemptions, credits, and other tax preferences and expenditures. Then, as soon as you start the discussion, people want to introduce exceptions like mortgage interest deductions and charitable contribution deductions. And some want to keep municipal bond interest tax-free. Or capital gains and dividends should be taxed more lightly or not at all.
If we were starting from scratch, it would be easy to create a proper flat-tax system. But our federal income tax system was screwed up within one or two years of its creation back in 1913 or so.
How can the information technology sector prosper if the rest of the economy is shit?
That's what you get if Barack Obama Junior is reelected.
So no matter where these IT executives live, even if surrounded on all sides by lefties, if they have any cajones then they need to prove it. Checking "not sure" is hardly a sign of moral courage.
The key point, of course, is that if you want to pack a lot of features and computing power into a tiny space, there's no room for anything that is not absolutely essential. Thus the iPhone, iPad, and Mac laptops. It would be great, I suppose, if users could replace the batteries in these machines. But it should not be a make-or-break feature.
If you want an upgradeable machine, then buy a desktop machine. There's no absolute need to squeeze components into every cubic millimeter of space. Surely the author of that Computer Age article understood this when he discussed his ancient PowerMac 8500 -- the reason it was so upgradeable was because there was available space inside that box.
I have an iPhone, and will use it until it breaks or until it becomes unusable due to total obsolescence. I also have two desktop Macs that I use constantly (and two or three older ones that are sitting in a closet). I've upgraded the RAM in the Power Mac G5, but won't add more RAM to the newer Mini until I have to. (When I do, it'll be easy.)
Under current law, all companies that produce goods are entitled to a lower corporate tax rate. President Obama has proposed eliminating this tax break for certain very large oil companies, leaving it in place for all the smaller oil companies and for all other goods-producing firms. This hardly seems fair.
I suggest eliminating all corporate income taxes, but taxing their owners and shareholders for the income earned by these companies. This way, the companies can focus on maximizing income and not on minimizing taxes.
The Rosenbergs were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war, which is not the same as treason. Treason has a very limited definition under US law. The Rosenbergs were traitors, loosely defined, but it was easier to convict them for espionage.
It is probably a good thing that we do not often charge people as traitors, even if we frequently accuse them. Aaron Burr was undoubtedly a traitor, but he was acquitted because there were no witnesses willing to testify that they observed specific acts.
If we took treason seriously, we'd probably have to hang a great many Democrats. It would be very messy.
... are three things: budget reform, tax reform, and entitlement reform.
President Obama has shown no interest in reform of any kind; I guess he must be viewed as a reactionary, interested only in keeping and amassing power.
It is no wonder that he views Paul Ryan as a mortal threat to this power.
As for cuts in non-discretionary domestic spending, that is what you get when entitlements grow uncontrollably and absorb an ever increasing share of GDP.
The article mentioned federal spending on "General Science, Space, and Technology", line 250 in the budget documents. I looked for it in the Historical Tables and it appears that the Obama administration has kept this spending flat since 2009 and expects no increases through FY 2017. Assuming that there will be inflation, this means Obama plans cuts in real spending for science.
If you oppose these spending cuts for scientific research, then you should vote for a candidate who is interested in cutting entitlement spending. Then there may actually be resources available for basic science, for space exploration, and other technology research. You really must vote for the team of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Unfortunately (for the usefulness of your idea) there are a number of states in which it is illegal to have any kind of cover over the license plate. I learned about this after I bought clear plastic covers to protect the extra-cost "nature" plates. (The extra money goes to the Dept of Natural Resources.)
Feingold was as much a collectivist as any other Democrat. Which is to say that he was just as active in limiting individual liberties as any of the others. His vote against the Patriot Act could be seen as an effort to protect Islamic extremists from the consequences of their actions.
The politics around the civil war changed things(true). It became clear that states were no longer part of the union by their own choice (regardless of the reason they wanted to leave.
The Constitution was ratified by conventions in each state, not by the state legislatures. Thus it was argued that the people and not the states had created the union. Those states which tried to secede lost the argument.
The drought and abnormally warm temperatures in the Midwest started nearly a year ago, and it was clear from the beginning that the cause was a shift in the jet stream. The midwestern US was receiving the heat and precipitation normal for New Mexico and west Texas, because nearly all the weather patterns were flowing directly from there. We weren't getting Pacific storms, Alberta clippers, or flows north from the Gulf of Mexico.
Do the global warmists have an explanation that incorporates a shift in the jet stream?
I still a copy of a college paper I wrote in the early 1990s on the subject of global warming. The bibliography included several articles by Dr Hansen. So I've been familiar with his work for a very long time.
I don't remember exactly when I began to lose respect for his work -- it was when he decided to become an advocate for a political cause, while still pretending to be a scientist. Now I'm not even sure if he's sane -- he's close to the edge.
We need a military that is sufficiently powerful that no other nation will bother to consider attacking us.
If that means continuing to spend 4% or 5% of GDP to maintain this superiority, then so be it. Spending the money more efficiently would give us an even greater advantage.
There could be a good reason why Charles Koch's foundation might give money to support the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study.
But let us separate that from 1) Muller's use of the temperature data, and 2) Muller's claim that he's a "recently converted skeptic", which is a flat-out lie as he has always been a warmist.
Even other warmists are ridiculing Muller's article, including scientists who used to co-author papers with him.
When Gore said that there was "no controlling legal authority" that could punish his solicitation of campaign funds on government property using government telephones, was that not sufficiently nuanced?
As to whether Gore is a buffoon, there's a whole lot more evidence to support that charge.
Slashdot Mirror
Most banks repaid the government loans long ago, with interest. Some banks went through forced mergers... then the absorbing banks were punished with billion-dollar fines for the violations committed by the banks that were absorbed. Wachovia and Washington Mutual come readily to mind.
AIG cost the US government at least $200 billion. But AIG is not a bank. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac have cost the US government at least $238 billion; in return the government received assets of unknown value... though probably worth more than zero.
I guess I would like to know if there are any banks out there that still owe the US Treasury. Certainly there are some that are "underwater", but if they fail then the FDIC covers the losses, and the FDIC is financed by fees collected from banks.
No, but the narrative is that he's not just successful, but a ruthless plutocrat. The narrative (true or not) is that he's not just successful, but he'll do anything to make a buck, moral or not.
That's the Obama narrative, because Obama cannot run on his own record. It's been widely known for more than a year that Obama would run a totally negative campaign against whichever Republican was nominated. Romney was the strongest of the potential GOP candidates, so their negative campaign against Romney is orders of magnitude greater than if Santorum or someone else had been nominated. Of course, even after months of relentless negativity, Romney is still even with Obama in the polls.
The question now is, after all that they've thrown at Romney, do they have anything left? Or will they just keep making up stuff, hoping the mainstream media repeats the accusations without questioning the veracity?
Romney is not even the most wealthy of recent candidates. John and Teresa Kerry were/are worth nearly $1 billion -- though John earned very little of that. Clinton and Gore did not become extremely wealthy until after they left office, but does it matter if a person is rich before or after they become president or vice-president?
Romney would probably be a lot richer if he did not donate so much to his church and to other charities.
When McCain was vetting Romney and others as prospective vice-presidents in 2008, Romney provided several years' tax returns to the McCain campaign. Those who saw those returns have said publicly that there was nothing there that would have disqualified Romney. McCain really didn't like Romney, so if he had something that could be used against Romney, he would have made sure at least one of the primary opponents had some of the information. None of them received anything like that.
When one considers the recent returns that Romney has made public, and the earlier ones he provided to McCain, most of the returns from the last ten years have been reviewed, with nothing illegal or even questionable being found.
If this happens, the Obama campaign will be blamed. And rightfully so, since it has made such a big deal over those tax returns.
If 80 is good, then 85 is better.
There are some roads where a speed limit is appropriate, but others were a simply advisory would be enough. Why do we waste so much tax money on patrolmen whose main job is to punish us for driving at safe but illegal speeds? It sometimes seems as if the purpose is to generate revenue for the courts system, and to justify keeping so many extraneous policemen, judges, bailiffs, attorneys, and clerks on the public payroll.
I have no idea what's abundant on Mars, however, and I'm curious about that as well.
The fossilized bones of the Martians, and the ruins of their cities and civilization.
The problem with most flat tax advocates though is that they want the rich to play less and keep getting all their benefits, but want the poor to pay more and get fewer benefits.
Wrong. The problem is that a pure flat tax works best with the elimination of all exemptions, credits, and other tax preferences and expenditures. Then, as soon as you start the discussion, people want to introduce exceptions like mortgage interest deductions and charitable contribution deductions. And some want to keep municipal bond interest tax-free. Or capital gains and dividends should be taxed more lightly or not at all.
If we were starting from scratch, it would be easy to create a proper flat-tax system. But our federal income tax system was screwed up within one or two years of its creation back in 1913 or so.
How can the information technology sector prosper if the rest of the economy is shit?
That's what you get if Barack Obama Junior is reelected.
So no matter where these IT executives live, even if surrounded on all sides by lefties, if they have any cajones then they need to prove it. Checking "not sure" is hardly a sign of moral courage.
The key point, of course, is that if you want to pack a lot of features and computing power into a tiny space, there's no room for anything that is not absolutely essential. Thus the iPhone, iPad, and Mac laptops. It would be great, I suppose, if users could replace the batteries in these machines. But it should not be a make-or-break feature.
If you want an upgradeable machine, then buy a desktop machine. There's no absolute need to squeeze components into every cubic millimeter of space. Surely the author of that Computer Age article understood this when he discussed his ancient PowerMac 8500 -- the reason it was so upgradeable was because there was available space inside that box.
I have an iPhone, and will use it until it breaks or until it becomes unusable due to total obsolescence. I also have two desktop Macs that I use constantly (and two or three older ones that are sitting in a closet). I've upgraded the RAM in the Power Mac G5, but won't add more RAM to the newer Mini until I have to. (When I do, it'll be easy.)
If deviancy can be defined downward, then so can mean IQ.
"You didn't build that!"
But Sun Jifa obviously did.
Under current law, all companies that produce goods are entitled to a lower corporate tax rate. President Obama has proposed eliminating this tax break for certain very large oil companies, leaving it in place for all the smaller oil companies and for all other goods-producing firms. This hardly seems fair.
I suggest eliminating all corporate income taxes, but taxing their owners and shareholders for the income earned by these companies. This way, the companies can focus on maximizing income and not on minimizing taxes.
The Rosenbergs were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war, which is not the same as treason. Treason has a very limited definition under US law. The Rosenbergs were traitors, loosely defined, but it was easier to convict them for espionage.
It is probably a good thing that we do not often charge people as traitors, even if we frequently accuse them. Aaron Burr was undoubtedly a traitor, but he was acquitted because there were no witnesses willing to testify that they observed specific acts.
If we took treason seriously, we'd probably have to hang a great many Democrats. It would be very messy.
... are three things: budget reform, tax reform, and entitlement reform.
President Obama has shown no interest in reform of any kind; I guess he must be viewed as a reactionary, interested only in keeping and amassing power.
It is no wonder that he views Paul Ryan as a mortal threat to this power.
As for cuts in non-discretionary domestic spending, that is what you get when entitlements grow uncontrollably and absorb an ever increasing share of GDP.
The article mentioned federal spending on "General Science, Space, and Technology", line 250 in the budget documents. I looked for it in the Historical Tables and it appears that the Obama administration has kept this spending flat since 2009 and expects no increases through FY 2017. Assuming that there will be inflation, this means Obama plans cuts in real spending for science.
If you oppose these spending cuts for scientific research, then you should vote for a candidate who is interested in cutting entitlement spending. Then there may actually be resources available for basic science, for space exploration, and other technology research. You really must vote for the team of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Unfortunately (for the usefulness of your idea) there are a number of states in which it is illegal to have any kind of cover over the license plate. I learned about this after I bought clear plastic covers to protect the extra-cost "nature" plates. (The extra money goes to the Dept of Natural Resources.)
Feingold was as much a collectivist as any other Democrat. Which is to say that he was just as active in limiting individual liberties as any of the others. His vote against the Patriot Act could be seen as an effort to protect Islamic extremists from the consequences of their actions.
The politics around the civil war changed things(true). It became clear that states were no longer part of the union by their own choice (regardless of the reason they wanted to leave.
The Constitution was ratified by conventions in each state, not by the state legislatures. Thus it was argued that the people and not the states had created the union. Those states which tried to secede lost the argument.
Obama did the same thing four years ago, announcing Joe Biden as "the next president of the United States".
It just flows off the tongue, whereas saying "the next vice-president" requires a conscious effort.
The drought and abnormally warm temperatures in the Midwest started nearly a year ago, and it was clear from the beginning that the cause was a shift in the jet stream. The midwestern US was receiving the heat and precipitation normal for New Mexico and west Texas, because nearly all the weather patterns were flowing directly from there. We weren't getting Pacific storms, Alberta clippers, or flows north from the Gulf of Mexico.
Do the global warmists have an explanation that incorporates a shift in the jet stream?
I still a copy of a college paper I wrote in the early 1990s on the subject of global warming. The bibliography included several articles by Dr Hansen. So I've been familiar with his work for a very long time.
I don't remember exactly when I began to lose respect for his work -- it was when he decided to become an advocate for a political cause, while still pretending to be a scientist. Now I'm not even sure if he's sane -- he's close to the edge.
We need a military that is sufficiently powerful that no other nation will bother to consider attacking us.
If that means continuing to spend 4% or 5% of GDP to maintain this superiority, then so be it. Spending the money more efficiently would give us an even greater advantage.
There could be a good reason why Charles Koch's foundation might give money to support the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study.
But let us separate that from 1) Muller's use of the temperature data, and 2) Muller's claim that he's a "recently converted skeptic", which is a flat-out lie as he has always been a warmist.
Even other warmists are ridiculing Muller's article, including scientists who used to co-author papers with him.
When Gore said that there was "no controlling legal authority" that could punish his solicitation of campaign funds on government property using government telephones, was that not sufficiently nuanced?
As to whether Gore is a buffoon, there's a whole lot more evidence to support that charge.
RIP, Tom Davis, the brain behind "Franken and Davis".
I think the $1 billion for "master teachers" could be obtained by cutting the pay or simply getting rid of the bad teachers.