And that is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to warrants being necessary to search a safe deposit box or storage rental but not for searching dropbox or for intercepting and reading snail mail or eavesdropping on phone conversation but not fro reading emails.
The world would be a far better place if we weren't so quick to jump out with "it is new so the old law no longer applies."
Very few corporations aren't paying property taxes and such. They might get a break for a few years but those breaks generally coincide with a ramp-up period for opening a new facility. For every anecdote of a corporation getting those breaks, we can give you 5 or 10 that got no breaks. And if you look at the property taxes paid by the employees that would otherwise not have been paid, it is probably a wash anyway.
Dude, they already pay 70% or more of all income tax paid in the US, depending on which level of rich you want to look at. The 1%ers everybody gripes about pay over half. 1% of the people pay half the tax. 10% pay around three-quarters of the tax. And yet people still gripe about not paying their fair share.
Exactly what percentage of the income tax receipts in any year should be paid by the top 1%, the top 10%, the top 50%, the bottom 50%?
For all the talk about how the US is not socialized, please explain how the top half pays the whole bill and the bottom quarter actually gets money out? That, by definition, is government transferring wealth which is very socialistic.
sort of. They are mandated to exist by the Constitution so they are sort of a government agency. They operate an armed police force required to use warrants and use US Attorneys to prosecute just like all other federal law enforcement agencies, so they kind of are a government agency.
Agreed. And the same people who complain that Congress is requiring the Post Office to be responsible with their pension plan will also be the first ones to complain about how irresponsible XYZ corp or union was when those retirees turn to the feds to bail out an unfunded pension. Maybe the answer is that pensions are the problem and all workers should be responsible for themselves. That removes a whole lot of power and temptation from a few people at the top.
Oh yes, the True Scotsman theory. Mao, Lenin, Stalin et. al weren't really communists, they just hijacked the term. Communism has yet to fail because it has yet to be implemented.
I guess I can also claim that a free market has yet to fail to solve the worlds problems because we have never seen a truly free market. Capitalism cannot have been shown to fail because it has never actually been implemented.
We could just remember that DDT was only banned because of some whopping big lies that were told and start using it again.
We actually solved this problem decades ago and abandoned the solution. One way to get over the hurdle caused by the big lie is to have all those who still believe the big lie actually live for a decade in the dengue fever and malaria infested areas along with any children they may have and in the same housing as the native populations. They may then figure what is actually important and be less willing to sacrifice a few lives to hinder the chemical industry.
As for him hiring Goldman-Sachs employees... Most liberals claim he hasn't done that when he obviously has so you at least admitted to part of the truth so you aren't completely insane.
Nothing I wrote contradicts what Barack Obama has actually said. Why is it that people absolutely refuse to accept that when Obama complains that things must change because outcomes are not equal that he wants equality of outcome to be the standard by which we measure success? It is his words yet you don't believe that is what he stands for?
Or are you so confused that you actually believe that "equality of outcome" is the free market ideal and not a socialist/communist ideal?
Raising the minimum will probably raise the average. One thing is certain, the minimum wage will never be sufficient to qualify as a "living wage." The reason is that all other wages go up also because those making x% above minimum wage still want to make x% above minimum wage because they want to continue their lifestyle and costs going up mean prices go up so everything goes up and a new equilibrium is reached and the minimum wage is no better.
" Several others were so deeply mired in post-modernism that it would be impossible for anybody else to evaluate their critical thinking, because, quite frankly, most studies of post-modernism devolve into using buzz-words and gobbledegook which nobody can comprehend."
Obviously, our critical thinking skills are not as good as we think. If they were, we would easily understand all that post-modern crap.
What exactly would be the benefit to society of 3/4 of society spending 4 years and $50,000 getting a degree in Black Women Studies? Exactly what are they going to do for society that is a tangible benefit?
What part about "fiction" did you not understand when you wrote "science fiction". The word "science" does not automatically override the word "fiction" and make it real.
Yes, we all understand that there are plenty of people who want to study things which will never help them earn a living for themselves adn then they will clamor for the rest of us to support them. We get it. We also strongly disagree with it.
But Obama is working hard on that with his latest "Equal Pay" proposal. Since a 4-year college degree is a 4-year college degree, there is obviously discrimination happening if somebody that got a 4-year degree is making less than someone else who got a different 4-year degree and we need a law to fix that.
If the landlord runs around changing which apartment the antennas are connected to every time a tenant wants to watch a show, then maybe.
A landlord putting a few antennas on the building and connecting X number of apartments to each antenna and leaving it that way because every tenant is now watching TV is nowhere close to what Aero is doing.
Obama has stated on more than one occasion (including his writings where he claimed to agree with his father, an avid anti-American communist) that he does support many socialist/communist ideals. He believes in equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. That is very much a socialist/communist ideal and very definitely not a free market advocate.
Yeah, my reading comprehension is sufficient to notice that "In my own country it was the NZ LABOUR..." that you most likely were not from the US.
So what is a "new-breed" neo-con since neo-con is a derogatory term for a new breed of conservative?
But they still demand that the grid be there when the sun ain't shining or the wind ain't blowing and many of them want a situation where the utility is forced to buy their excess so the analogy comes close.
On the latter point it is kind of like a fisherman brings his boat to the dock and demands that the restaurants build roads and buy trucks and come to get his fish or the farmer demands that the grocer come and pick the corn.
Debt-fueled growth is a neo-con idea? Did I miss the part where Obama came out as a neo-con? Or are you admitting that the liberal reason for going into debt isn't to eventually gain something from it but simply is being used as a precursor to nationalize and steal vast amounts of wealth from the private citizens?
From everything I've seen, no one is in actual opposition to the development of said vehicular monstrosity; they are only in opposition to outlawing the horse-drawn carriage. If the liberals were actually "pro-choice" in general, they would simply allow group to run its version to compete with the horses and see which one fairs better.
Are you attempting to argue against the notion that progressives desire more and more government control (regulation)? Everything about the progressive agenda is a push for more and more government regulation.
But I and every one else has the power to stop buying from them and finding alternatives. I believe that government plays a role and limited regulation is necessary to assure an even playing field, etc. but we have gone well beyond that in most (all?) western countries.
Slashdot Mirror
And that is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to warrants being necessary to search a safe deposit box or storage rental but not for searching dropbox or for intercepting and reading snail mail or eavesdropping on phone conversation but not fro reading emails.
The world would be a far better place if we weren't so quick to jump out with "it is new so the old law no longer applies."
Very few corporations aren't paying property taxes and such. They might get a break for a few years but those breaks generally coincide with a ramp-up period for opening a new facility. For every anecdote of a corporation getting those breaks, we can give you 5 or 10 that got no breaks. And if you look at the property taxes paid by the employees that would otherwise not have been paid, it is probably a wash anyway.
Dude, they already pay 70% or more of all income tax paid in the US, depending on which level of rich you want to look at. The 1%ers everybody gripes about pay over half. 1% of the people pay half the tax. 10% pay around three-quarters of the tax. And yet people still gripe about not paying their fair share.
Exactly what percentage of the income tax receipts in any year should be paid by the top 1%, the top 10%, the top 50%, the bottom 50%?
For all the talk about how the US is not socialized, please explain how the top half pays the whole bill and the bottom quarter actually gets money out? That, by definition, is government transferring wealth which is very socialistic.
sort of. They are mandated to exist by the Constitution so they are sort of a government agency. They operate an armed police force required to use warrants and use US Attorneys to prosecute just like all other federal law enforcement agencies, so they kind of are a government agency.
Agreed. And the same people who complain that Congress is requiring the Post Office to be responsible with their pension plan will also be the first ones to complain about how irresponsible XYZ corp or union was when those retirees turn to the feds to bail out an unfunded pension. Maybe the answer is that pensions are the problem and all workers should be responsible for themselves. That removes a whole lot of power and temptation from a few people at the top.
Oh yes, the True Scotsman theory. Mao, Lenin, Stalin et. al weren't really communists, they just hijacked the term. Communism has yet to fail because it has yet to be implemented.
I guess I can also claim that a free market has yet to fail to solve the worlds problems because we have never seen a truly free market. Capitalism cannot have been shown to fail because it has never actually been implemented.
At least we can agree on these, I guess.
We could just remember that DDT was only banned because of some whopping big lies that were told and start using it again.
We actually solved this problem decades ago and abandoned the solution. One way to get over the hurdle caused by the big lie is to have all those who still believe the big lie actually live for a decade in the dengue fever and malaria infested areas along with any children they may have and in the same housing as the native populations. They may then figure what is actually important and be less willing to sacrifice a few lives to hinder the chemical industry.
It is called amortization, you should familiarize yourself with a bit of economics.
As for him hiring Goldman-Sachs employees... Most liberals claim he hasn't done that when he obviously has so you at least admitted to part of the truth so you aren't completely insane.
Nothing I wrote contradicts what Barack Obama has actually said. Why is it that people absolutely refuse to accept that when Obama complains that things must change because outcomes are not equal that he wants equality of outcome to be the standard by which we measure success? It is his words yet you don't believe that is what he stands for?
Or are you so confused that you actually believe that "equality of outcome" is the free market ideal and not a socialist/communist ideal?
No it isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when the person doing it expects the rest of society to pay the bills.
Raising the minimum will probably raise the average. One thing is certain, the minimum wage will never be sufficient to qualify as a "living wage." The reason is that all other wages go up also because those making x% above minimum wage still want to make x% above minimum wage because they want to continue their lifestyle and costs going up mean prices go up so everything goes up and a new equilibrium is reached and the minimum wage is no better.
" Several others were so deeply mired in post-modernism that it would be impossible for anybody else to evaluate their critical thinking, because, quite frankly, most studies of post-modernism devolve into using buzz-words and gobbledegook which nobody can comprehend."
Obviously, our critical thinking skills are not as good as we think. If they were, we would easily understand all that post-modern crap.
What exactly would be the benefit to society of 3/4 of society spending 4 years and $50,000 getting a degree in Black Women Studies? Exactly what are they going to do for society that is a tangible benefit?
What part about "fiction" did you not understand when you wrote "science fiction". The word "science" does not automatically override the word "fiction" and make it real.
Yes, we all understand that there are plenty of people who want to study things which will never help them earn a living for themselves adn then they will clamor for the rest of us to support them. We get it. We also strongly disagree with it.
But Obama is working hard on that with his latest "Equal Pay" proposal. Since a 4-year college degree is a 4-year college degree, there is obviously discrimination happening if somebody that got a 4-year degree is making less than someone else who got a different 4-year degree and we need a law to fix that.
If the landlord runs around changing which apartment the antennas are connected to every time a tenant wants to watch a show, then maybe.
A landlord putting a few antennas on the building and connecting X number of apartments to each antenna and leaving it that way because every tenant is now watching TV is nowhere close to what Aero is doing.
Obama has stated on more than one occasion (including his writings where he claimed to agree with his father, an avid anti-American communist) that he does support many socialist/communist ideals. He believes in equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. That is very much a socialist/communist ideal and very definitely not a free market advocate.
Yeah, my reading comprehension is sufficient to notice that "In my own country it was the NZ LABOUR..." that you most likely were not from the US.
So what is a "new-breed" neo-con since neo-con is a derogatory term for a new breed of conservative?
But they still demand that the grid be there when the sun ain't shining or the wind ain't blowing and many of them want a situation where the utility is forced to buy their excess so the analogy comes close.
On the latter point it is kind of like a fisherman brings his boat to the dock and demands that the restaurants build roads and buy trucks and come to get his fish or the farmer demands that the grocer come and pick the corn.
Debt-fueled growth is a neo-con idea? Did I miss the part where Obama came out as a neo-con? Or are you admitting that the liberal reason for going into debt isn't to eventually gain something from it but simply is being used as a precursor to nationalize and steal vast amounts of wealth from the private citizens?
Not exactly the only way. If a company is profitable it can always return a portion of that profit to its investors. This is called dividends.
From everything I've seen, no one is in actual opposition to the development of said vehicular monstrosity; they are only in opposition to outlawing the horse-drawn carriage. If the liberals were actually "pro-choice" in general, they would simply allow group to run its version to compete with the horses and see which one fairs better.
Are you attempting to argue against the notion that progressives desire more and more government control (regulation)? Everything about the progressive agenda is a push for more and more government regulation.
But I and every one else has the power to stop buying from them and finding alternatives. I believe that government plays a role and limited regulation is necessary to assure an even playing field, etc. but we have gone well beyond that in most (all?) western countries.