But wait! If we follow the inverse of the reasoning you find in many of these posts, the increase from 30.9 to 31.1 was temporary. So it's just going back to what it was and it's not actually a decrease.
Going by that logic, no raise in a tax rate, regardless of timing, could ever be called a tax hike unless it exceeded the historical high for that tax.
So you would would not call a raise in the highest income tax rate from 39% to 90% a tax hike because it's been that high before.
These "across the board cuts" are merely targeted cuts with the bureaucracy deciding the targets. In this case, they are making the cuts hurt as much as they can by affecting vital services (ATC, for instance) instead of REMFs.
The Budgeting process is largely on automatic pilot. The proposed budget is generated with the baseline increases included and then attempts to change it are met with howls of "draconian cuts!" and "taking food from children and elderly".
And it's not even a real cut. It's merely a reduction to the increase.
Baseline Budgeting ensures that ALL budgets increase by a certain percentage every year automatically. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to discussing the budget. The dollar value of the increases will get bigger and bigger as each subsequent increase is a percentage of large budget.
So when you hear people whining about a 2% cut, the are actually whining that they won't get the usual X% increase.
Baseline Budgeting needs to be killed...with fire if possible.
Don't forget that investors look at more than just the product and the market. The look at the regulatory environment too because that can derail an otherwise profitable venture.
I'm betting it all comes down to government regulatory barriers. Financial, zoning, environmental, etc. And to be clear, the barrier will be costs, not refusals, like that idiot in Chicago that used his power to threaten Chick-fil-a.
That's it right there. The big companies have been using the law to stifle competition.
If a group people tried to do what B4RN is doing there'd be lawyers in their fancy suits and expensive shoes stumbling about in the field, trying to stop them.
This is what happens with Government sanctioned monopolies.
You think we can control future population distributions, and technological and societal change?
Because if you do, then that puts your right up there with Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. They thought they could control those things and we see how well that turned out.
I'm not going to give cites, look it up yourselves, but I think it goes like this:
AGW big wig, upon seeing the the mean temp did not rise in the past X years says that you can't make a judgement based on X years. It has to be X+Y some number.
Y has been steadily increasing and I guess the sum of X+Y is 17 years at the moment.
Uncertainties and caveats associated with these projections include climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions, and technological and societal change.
Because this is after all, just a projection based on computer models. And we know how well they work "out of sample." --- Spot on. In other words, they make a statement and then say that it could be wrong based on just about everything.
I didn't read anything suggesting that they admitted it.
A HuffingtonPost (not exactly your objective source) article claimed that the DOJ "admitted it". This was picked up by the OP's cited source which then added its own spin: UPDATE #2: A DOJ official says (in the outlet “Broadcasting & Cable,” an odd choice if you ask me) that my characterization of the prosecution as “political” is inaccurate. No argument as to why or how, so color me unconvinced.
Slashdot Mirror
But wait! If we follow the inverse of the reasoning you find in many of these posts, the increase from 30.9 to 31.1 was temporary. So it's just going back to what it was and it's not actually a decrease.
Going by that logic, no raise in a tax rate, regardless of timing, could ever be called a tax hike unless it exceeded the historical high for that tax.
So you would would not call a raise in the highest income tax rate from 39% to 90% a tax hike because it's been that high before.
Just another "me first" retard.
Excellent point!
These "across the board cuts" are merely targeted cuts with the bureaucracy deciding the targets. In this case, they are making the cuts hurt as much as they can by affecting vital services (ATC, for instance) instead of REMFs.
The Budgeting process is largely on automatic pilot. The proposed budget is generated with the baseline increases included and then attempts to change it are met with howls of "draconian cuts!" and "taking food from children and elderly".
House Republicans passed two bills to address this last year and the Senate didn't even bother to look at them.
Obama has threatened to veto a couple or proposed solutions.
So, who get's' the majority of the blame?
And it's not even a real cut. It's merely a reduction to the increase.
Baseline Budgeting ensures that ALL budgets increase by a certain percentage every year automatically. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to discussing the budget. The dollar value of the increases will get bigger and bigger as each subsequent increase is a percentage of large budget.
So when you hear people whining about a 2% cut, the are actually whining that they won't get the usual X% increase.
Baseline Budgeting needs to be killed...with fire if possible.
Zzzzzzzzz
Don't forget that investors look at more than just the product and the market. The look at the regulatory environment too because that can derail an otherwise profitable venture.
I'm betting it all comes down to government regulatory barriers. Financial, zoning, environmental, etc. And to be clear, the barrier will be costs, not refusals, like that idiot in Chicago that used his power to threaten Chick-fil-a.
That's it right there. The big companies have been using the law to stifle competition.
If a group people tried to do what B4RN is doing there'd be lawyers in their fancy suits and expensive shoes stumbling about in the field, trying to stop them.
This is what happens with Government sanctioned monopolies.
So then they have not spent over 70 billion since 2008 researching global warming?
Oh, I see. You don't like the message so you have to discredit the messenger.
But the Press is trying hard to make it so!
How ironic that your sig should mention tedious and stupid.
You think we can control future population distributions, and technological and societal change?
Because if you do, then that puts your right up there with Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. They thought they could control those things and we see how well that turned out.
I'd rather they spent $70 billion on nuclear power research. Or, that's about 14 good sized nuclear power plants.
I'm not going to give cites, look it up yourselves, but I think it goes like this:
AGW big wig, upon seeing the the mean temp did not rise in the past X years says that you can't make a judgement based on X years. It has to be X+Y some number.
Y has been steadily increasing and I guess the sum of X+Y is 17 years at the moment.
I ran into the IPCC people the other day.
Huffingtonpost, then this TarenSK person, then Slashdot.
Too clever by half.
How else can they justify the 70+ Billion dollars on climate change research?
Got to produce reports!
From Jamesl in "Below the headline...
--- ... far below the headline ...
Uncertainties and caveats associated with these projections include climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions, and technological and societal change.
Because this is after all, just a projection based on computer models. And we know how well they work "out of sample."
---
Spot on. In other words, they make a statement and then say that it could be wrong based on just about everything.
Garbage.
I didn't read anything suggesting that they admitted it.
A HuffingtonPost (not exactly your objective source) article claimed that the DOJ "admitted it". This was picked up by the OP's cited source which then added its own spin:
UPDATE #2: A DOJ official says (in the outlet “Broadcasting & Cable,” an odd choice if you ask me) that my characterization of the prosecution as “political” is inaccurate. No argument as to why or how, so color me unconvinced.
So, biased source to biased source to here.
Show me a transcript.
Is there anything bad in the world that is not caused by global warming?
It must be Accccccchmed, the dead terrorist.
Although, the story was that he blew himself up.