It is hard to save $100 because our tax code punishes people who save money, and make investments. Do exceptionally well, and government takes 50% of what you earn, and people don't think that is punitive.
We could solve all sorts of problems if we taxed bad behavior and not desired behavior.
Indeed. Yet this is the very thing we tax, removing incentive to become more efficient at production.
We should tax the things that as a society we cannot (should not) legislate away. Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Prostitution etc. and so on. ALL regulations and taxes should govern what we DON'T want, and not what we do want.
If we managed to do this, then we'd have all the income our government needs.
Mandating fuel Mileage standards that are nearly impossible to meet is mandating what I can afford to buy. THAT is what people like you don't understand. You want to affect what cars people buy, Tax Gas to $25 gallon. You'll lower over all consumption (the REAL goal isn't it?) and lead to innovation in fuels (including renewables) that everyone wants.
But that is political suicide, because it is direct and to the point. It is much easier to say some nebulous unelected body dictated the higher fuel standards.
Your problem is that you suffer from Class Envy and believe you (though government) are entitled to other peoples hard earned income. Yeah, I read that from the code words you use.
In case you missed it, Congress did pass a "Luxury Tax" on things like new boats and airplanes, what happened was that it killed the boating and airplane industries until they repealed it. Didn't hurt the rich guys, it hurt the thousands of people building boats and airplanes who lost their jobs when the rich didn't want to pay those taxes.
You see, the RICH can afford to not pay any taxes, because they can move out of country or stop doing what is being taxed. All taxes are regressive, it is just that idiots like you don't ever realize it.
Mat 22:20 KJV - And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription? Mat 22:21 KJV - They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
You better ban the Star Spangled Banner while you're at it. The fourth verse goes like this:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
IF you weren't alive or if you were just a wee kid during Reagan's era, you'd never realize that it was Jimmy Carter who, much like Obama (and GWB before him) is now, doesn't know shit about economics and got us into this mess. In fact, I think the most stupid people you can have doing economics now, is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I'm sure there are a couple (R)s that should be on that list as well.
The biggest problem with our economy is that GOVERNMENT is in the way. Government regulations didn't stop the.Com bubble, or the housing bubble. In fact, I would suggest to you that that Housing bubble was caused by Government regulations (at least in part) doing unintended consequences of forcing lenders to NOT look at qualifications and supporting Mortgage Default Swaps with loan guarantees.
But I digress. Cut Spending. Increase taxes on everyone, because the RIch can only pay so much before you run out of their money. Ditch redistribution of wealth as a primary function of government.
The biggest problem we have is promises made that we cannot keep, because they were nothing short of a Ponzi scheme. And guess what part of the equation we cannot cut?
As someone said below, if we get out of the wars we're in. We don't need any more "War for Oil" when we don't get any oil out of the deal. Yeah, I count Libya as Obama's War for Oil.
Yeah, because everyone should drive a motorcycle and we should just abandon cars altogether.
If I had to drive in a car that was capable carrying me on 1 L Engine, I'd drive one. IT simply doesn't exist. I'm 6'5" and 270 lbs (122.5 kg). A two door micro car won't work for me. Mandating these things is just communism (central planning) and building cars that nobody wants is a sure way to further ruin cars.
IF they could build cars capable of that, AND be successful don't you think someone would be doing it already? Or do you really believe in the giant Petro-Automotive conspiracy ?
1 L Engine cars exist, just can't pass safety crash testing in the US.. Want that 5 star crash rating or 50 MPG? Can't have both.
Computers models didn't ever show the signs of GW that the alarmists wanted. They messaged the data until it produced the results they wanted, then conveniently lost the data and then attacked anyone that questioned the new data.
Then there is the story of the guy who studied polar bears drowning because they couldn't find ice to float on, which turns out to possibly be a bunch of hogwash and completely made up.
These people are making Sarah Palin look like a freakin genius!
Lying never helps your cause, eventually people see that you're a liar and not to be trusted, and dooms whatever cause you have.
If you're in the US, your choices of phone/carrier combinations pretty much makes it impossible to find anything reasonable by almost all definitions. AT&T's network is faster, when it works. Sprint's is nearly useless. Verizon at least has coverage.
If you're in a big city, hope you don't use AT&T because the their network is saturated. They need T-Mobile's towers. I feel sorry for the T-Mobile customers, they got screwed.
Which leaves Sprint, sucky coverage except cities. HTC makes decent phones that you can unlock the BL easily on. Sprint's only hope is a quick rollout of their 4G network, else they will be consumed by someone else.
Bringing us back to VZ, which while has locked phones, at least gives you coverage and service that doesn't ultimately drive you crazy.
To coin a phrase... what good is a rooted smart phone if you're unable to use it?
1) Why have a "subset" at all is what I'm saying. Yes, Google + is more than Buzz, which is why Buzz will be integrated/migrated into what Google+ already has. There is no need to have Buzz and Plus at the same time, since Plus does what Buzz does, and more and often better.
2) Invites are still required. Though I've not had any issues giving mine out. Seems like an endless supply.
Google Buzz will eventually be integrated into Plus. It will be optional, as in Convert or Die. Some people will complain, most won't. Some people won't covert, most will. And it will be done.
This won't happen until Google Plus is open without Invites required
Actually, rich people ALREADY do this, so that is hogwash. The Politicians in Washington simply don't want to give the poor people the same opportunity they have for their children. Obama's kids, are in PRIVATE school, and yet, he has the audacity to tell others to put their kids in public schools. Hypocrite.
The goal of education is exactly what you said. That is the goal and it is failing. Public education has been warped so that it no longer educates, but rather indoctrinates.
And here you have a classic example of why shit stays broken everywhere, because if we can fix it most places but break it in one place it must be a bad idea.
The obvious answer is... someone else will open a new school. Not to mention subsidized public schools. sheesh, is that so hard?
What is the basis for your optimism? Qaddafi is an ass, that is for sure, and so was the Shaw of Iran, and look how taking him out helped US Iranian relations.
If you could show where adding MORE money to a SHITTY school fixes it, then I'll be happy to re-evaluate my suggestion. Washington DC schools spend an enormous amount of money per student, and are still under performing (recent cheating scandal not withstanding). Many Private schools spend much much less per student and yet achieve much higher scores.
There is little to no correlation between money spent on education and the results. Further, I would suggest to you that the reason why students perform poorly at school, is tightly related to how life is at home, regardless of income.
People like you love say "no" while the system continues to fail our kids. And if you say throw more money at the system that is failing, thinking that will solve non-economic problems then you're part of the problem. My suggestion at least attempts to address the problems apart from blaming economics for why schools suck so badly.
Except for the fact that with the advent of Charter and Home Schooling, Parents are removing their children from the societal pressures to be a slut at age 13 and drunk drug addicts by 16 that is popular in today's schools. And since Public Schools can't expel kids for being drug addicted or sluts as if those are "rights" of the children, then there is no choice but to allow Public Education become the bastion of the uncouth and uneducatable.
I blame parents, educators, politicians, and everyone else involved because not enough of the Adults are willing to stand up and say that this is unacceptable. And it really is unacceptable, and yet we, as a whole society, by our silence, is saying it is perfectly okay.
My solution is quite simple. Vouchers. Let the parents decide where to put their kids, given the voucher. This gives parents the ability to find the best school for their kids, allows schools to compete for vouchers, allows the best to succeed, and the worst to fail without a single politician crying foul.
The detractors of Vouchers, who will never let it be tried, are all whining about rich/privileged being able to afford schools above and beyond vouchers, and this is already the case. They don't send their kids to public schools. We can still subsidize public schools if we need to, just that it opens them up to evaluating everything we currently can't evaluate, like systemic teacher underperformance.
And for those that complain about special needs kids, the voucher program can address this by giving more voucher value for those kids, based on NEED, (evaluated by a panel) and the parents can find the best school for their kid.
The only people left who are against vouchers are those that support the status quo for no reason other than to support it. They are Teacher Unions, Politicians and whatnot that have all their efforts tied up to an archaic and arcane system. From the diversity of different approaches that will blossom out of this, those that succeed will be copied and those that fail will vanish into history. Right now, there is a single homogenous system that looks the same everywhere you go, and it is failing, often miserably.
All you have to do is see the "cheating" scandal in Georgia to see what happens when adults are looking after their interests rather than the interests of the kids we are supposed to be educating.
Slashdot Mirror
It is hard to save $100 because our tax code punishes people who save money, and make investments. Do exceptionally well, and government takes 50% of what you earn, and people don't think that is punitive.
We could solve all sorts of problems if we taxed bad behavior and not desired behavior.
Indeed. Yet this is the very thing we tax, removing incentive to become more efficient at production.
We should tax the things that as a society we cannot (should not) legislate away. Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Prostitution etc. and so on. ALL regulations and taxes should govern what we DON'T want, and not what we do want.
If we managed to do this, then we'd have all the income our government needs.
Mandating fuel Mileage standards that are nearly impossible to meet is mandating what I can afford to buy. THAT is what people like you don't understand. You want to affect what cars people buy, Tax Gas to $25 gallon. You'll lower over all consumption (the REAL goal isn't it?) and lead to innovation in fuels (including renewables) that everyone wants.
But that is political suicide, because it is direct and to the point. It is much easier to say some nebulous unelected body dictated the higher fuel standards.
Your problem is that you suffer from Class Envy and believe you (though government) are entitled to other peoples hard earned income. Yeah, I read that from the code words you use.
In case you missed it, Congress did pass a "Luxury Tax" on things like new boats and airplanes, what happened was that it killed the boating and airplane industries until they repealed it. Didn't hurt the rich guys, it hurt the thousands of people building boats and airplanes who lost their jobs when the rich didn't want to pay those taxes.
You see, the RICH can afford to not pay any taxes, because they can move out of country or stop doing what is being taxed. All taxes are regressive, it is just that idiots like you don't ever realize it.
What a charming personality. Your god give you that?
FYI, I believe I WAS (past tense) trying to say the same thing. Money has pictures of Caesar on it, not god (any version).
Pity you can't see the forest for the trees.
Toss the Public Official in jail for felony false whatever we can come up with. That way, they can't even vote ever again.
Mat 22:20 KJV - And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
Mat 22:21 KJV - They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
You better ban the Star Spangled Banner while you're at it. The fourth verse goes like this:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
IF you weren't alive or if you were just a wee kid during Reagan's era, you'd never realize that it was Jimmy Carter who, much like Obama (and GWB before him) is now, doesn't know shit about economics and got us into this mess. In fact, I think the most stupid people you can have doing economics now, is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I'm sure there are a couple (R)s that should be on that list as well.
The biggest problem with our economy is that GOVERNMENT is in the way. Government regulations didn't stop the .Com bubble, or the housing bubble. In fact, I would suggest to you that that Housing bubble was caused by Government regulations (at least in part) doing unintended consequences of forcing lenders to NOT look at qualifications and supporting Mortgage Default Swaps with loan guarantees.
But I digress. Cut Spending. Increase taxes on everyone, because the RIch can only pay so much before you run out of their money. Ditch redistribution of wealth as a primary function of government.
The biggest problem we have is promises made that we cannot keep, because they were nothing short of a Ponzi scheme. And guess what part of the equation we cannot cut?
As someone said below, if we get out of the wars we're in. We don't need any more "War for Oil" when we don't get any oil out of the deal. Yeah, I count Libya as Obama's War for Oil.
Yeah, because everyone should drive a motorcycle and we should just abandon cars altogether.
If I had to drive in a car that was capable carrying me on 1 L Engine, I'd drive one. IT simply doesn't exist. I'm 6'5" and 270 lbs (122.5 kg). A two door micro car won't work for me. Mandating these things is just communism (central planning) and building cars that nobody wants is a sure way to further ruin cars.
IF they could build cars capable of that, AND be successful don't you think someone would be doing it already? Or do you really believe in the giant Petro-Automotive conspiracy ?
1 L Engine cars exist, just can't pass safety crash testing in the US.. Want that 5 star crash rating or 50 MPG? Can't have both.
Computers models didn't ever show the signs of GW that the alarmists wanted. They messaged the data until it produced the results they wanted, then conveniently lost the data and then attacked anyone that questioned the new data.
Then there is the story of the guy who studied polar bears drowning because they couldn't find ice to float on, which turns out to possibly be a bunch of hogwash and completely made up.
These people are making Sarah Palin look like a freakin genius!
Lying never helps your cause, eventually people see that you're a liar and not to be trusted, and dooms whatever cause you have.
This is probably US, where AT&T uses GSM SIMs. Nice try though. ;)
If you're in the US, your choices of phone/carrier combinations pretty much makes it impossible to find anything reasonable by almost all definitions. AT&T's network is faster, when it works. Sprint's is nearly useless. Verizon at least has coverage.
If you're in a big city, hope you don't use AT&T because the their network is saturated. They need T-Mobile's towers. I feel sorry for the T-Mobile customers, they got screwed.
Which leaves Sprint, sucky coverage except cities. HTC makes decent phones that you can unlock the BL easily on. Sprint's only hope is a quick rollout of their 4G network, else they will be consumed by someone else.
Bringing us back to VZ, which while has locked phones, at least gives you coverage and service that doesn't ultimately drive you crazy.
To coin a phrase ... what good is a rooted smart phone if you're unable to use it?
What good is toiling away in obscurity making great films that nobody will see, and dying in poverty?
I know a guy who writes lots and lots of songs that nobody will ever hear. It is sad.
Stuffed Animal Zombies ... I think I saw that in a Muse music video
1) Why have a "subset" at all is what I'm saying. Yes, Google + is more than Buzz, which is why Buzz will be integrated/migrated into what Google+ already has. There is no need to have Buzz and Plus at the same time, since Plus does what Buzz does, and more and often better.
2) Invites are still required. Though I've not had any issues giving mine out. Seems like an endless supply.
It seems you mostly agree with me.
"I still use Google."
Of course you do.
Bing
Is
Not
Google
Google Buzz will eventually be integrated into Plus. It will be optional, as in Convert or Die. Some people will complain, most won't. Some people won't covert, most will. And it will be done.
This won't happen until Google Plus is open without Invites required
It makes sense this way.
Actually, rich people ALREADY do this, so that is hogwash. The Politicians in Washington simply don't want to give the poor people the same opportunity they have for their children. Obama's kids, are in PRIVATE school, and yet, he has the audacity to tell others to put their kids in public schools. Hypocrite.
The goal of education is exactly what you said. That is the goal and it is failing. Public education has been warped so that it no longer educates, but rather indoctrinates.
And here you have a classic example of why shit stays broken everywhere, because if we can fix it most places but break it in one place it must be a bad idea.
The obvious answer is ... someone else will open a new school. Not to mention subsidized public schools. sheesh, is that so hard?
"One, it likely brings in better players"
What is the basis for your optimism? Qaddafi is an ass, that is for sure, and so was the Shaw of Iran, and look how taking him out helped US Iranian relations.
If your choice is between a pro-US Dictatorship, and a dictatorship that is anti-US, which would you choose?
Sometimes the world doesn't give you fluffy bunny rabbits, sometimes it is rattlesnakes it gives you.
Private Schools can be put out of business, public schools cannot. See the difference yet?
If you could show where adding MORE money to a SHITTY school fixes it, then I'll be happy to re-evaluate my suggestion. Washington DC schools spend an enormous amount of money per student, and are still under performing (recent cheating scandal not withstanding). Many Private schools spend much much less per student and yet achieve much higher scores.
There is little to no correlation between money spent on education and the results. Further, I would suggest to you that the reason why students perform poorly at school, is tightly related to how life is at home, regardless of income.
People like you love say "no" while the system continues to fail our kids. And if you say throw more money at the system that is failing, thinking that will solve non-economic problems then you're part of the problem. My suggestion at least attempts to address the problems apart from blaming economics for why schools suck so badly.
Except for the fact that with the advent of Charter and Home Schooling, Parents are removing their children from the societal pressures to be a slut at age 13 and drunk drug addicts by 16 that is popular in today's schools. And since Public Schools can't expel kids for being drug addicted or sluts as if those are "rights" of the children, then there is no choice but to allow Public Education become the bastion of the uncouth and uneducatable.
I blame parents, educators, politicians, and everyone else involved because not enough of the Adults are willing to stand up and say that this is unacceptable. And it really is unacceptable, and yet we, as a whole society, by our silence, is saying it is perfectly okay.
My solution is quite simple. Vouchers. Let the parents decide where to put their kids, given the voucher. This gives parents the ability to find the best school for their kids, allows schools to compete for vouchers, allows the best to succeed, and the worst to fail without a single politician crying foul.
The detractors of Vouchers, who will never let it be tried, are all whining about rich/privileged being able to afford schools above and beyond vouchers, and this is already the case. They don't send their kids to public schools. We can still subsidize public schools if we need to, just that it opens them up to evaluating everything we currently can't evaluate, like systemic teacher underperformance.
And for those that complain about special needs kids, the voucher program can address this by giving more voucher value for those kids, based on NEED, (evaluated by a panel) and the parents can find the best school for their kid.
The only people left who are against vouchers are those that support the status quo for no reason other than to support it. They are Teacher Unions, Politicians and whatnot that have all their efforts tied up to an archaic and arcane system. From the diversity of different approaches that will blossom out of this, those that succeed will be copied and those that fail will vanish into history. Right now, there is a single homogenous system that looks the same everywhere you go, and it is failing, often miserably.
All you have to do is see the "cheating" scandal in Georgia to see what happens when adults are looking after their interests rather than the interests of the kids we are supposed to be educating.