1. Reduced tax income from the mortgage crisis recession (unregulated corporate corruption)
Don't forget government meddling in markets, providing the perverse incentive to create said corporate corruption. Don't forget Democrat Barney Frank's response when Bush was trying to tighten regulation on these corporations in 2003 to head off said mortgage crisis:
These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Meaningful regulation and enforcement was thus blocked.
Democrats have been riding on "Bush's fault" for years. Time to man up and take responsibility.
Crew, maintenance, repair parts, airport fees and all those petroleum industry employees paid for with expensive jet fuel. Easily hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars a year put into jobs for just one rich guy's desire to own a jet. And rich guys don't pay minimum wage for a flight crew since they like to remain among the living. IIRC, these jets tend to get redecorated when they change owners. That can cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and more, and you and your coworkers keep your jobs for that much longer.
And yachts. Unfortunately we've kicked most private shipbuilding out of this country, but those hundred million dollar yachts still come with an operating cost of around 10% of the purchase price per year with a large crew, maintenance, fuel, and expensive berthing fees. Paul Allen's boat employs a crew of 60, including helicopter pilots, pumping $20 million a year into the economy.
The legal obligations of purported news sources not to lie should be stronger, so at least one distortion on our system could be reduced
Hear hear! We need some control over the likes of NPR and CBS (remember Memogate?) spouting their lies.
Oh, you probably meant Fox, as if they were the only ones that lied. You probably weren't thinking about the same standards being applied to your favorite liberal sources and their lies.
"after you count up all the loopholes and compare how much of their "income" actually gets taxed at the much lower Capital Gains rates, actually pay less in taxes than the middle class do?"
I won't talk rates, I'll talk what's actually paid. Definition: Middle class has a broad definition, but I'll take $30,000-$100,000, which covers the span of most definitions and gives you a large middle class with which to make your argument.
The top 10% of earners, above 114,000, pay 70% of all income taxes. So, no, the middle class pays less than the rich. The lower 50%, below $33,000, pays almost nothing.
Short-term capital gains taxes go up with your tax bracket, and the rate is the same. Even if you bought something at $10,000 and a few laters it grew with inflation to $10,500, you still have to pay tax on the $500 even though you technically didn't make any money. Long-term rates are less in order to offset inflation losses and encourage long-term investment that helps the economy over quick flipping.
Obviously the rich are more likely to invest, so I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet to say that top 25% pay almost all capital gains taxes.
It's simple grass roots. Nobody controls it, and I mean nobody. Various politicians and organizations have tried to coopt it through endorsement and financial support, but it still remains largely uncontrolled. Religious conservatives have tried to attach their social issues like abortion and homosexuality in order to leverage the tea party's popularity, and have failed.
It is nothing more than the general expression of anger at the fact that our spending is out of control, and that the consequences of continuing down this path will one day be devastating.
I am very happy that this is being threatened. It's going to take a confrontation this big in order to get the big-government Democrats AND Republicans (oh yes, they love big government too) to finally do something to avoid a total catastrophe a few dades down the road.
Compromise is overrated anyway. I want to put a tablespoon of shit in your yogurt. You don't want any shit in your yogurt. Okay, let's compromise and only put a teaspoon of shit in your yogurt. Are you happy with that? Is any compromise on the amount acceptable to you?
One of mine said you have to declare any number you use as a constant in the beginning, and that means any number. If he saw a number used in your code, points taken off.
That meant "x*2" to double something once in your whole program was bad. You had to declare a constant in the beginning called "double" or some such, and then make it "x*double". A reasonably good practice taken to the absurd extreme.
If the guy isn't hired and produces it for his employer as part of his employment contract that states all products are considered works for hire, then he retains the copyright.
Lucasfilm paid for and got use of the products. That was the original extent of Lucasfilm's interest. This guy created a product and sold some of it to Lucasfilm. He is free to sell it to others, too.
It boils down to this: Lucasfilm paid for the uniforms, not the right to the design of the uniforms. They are two very separate things. You pay a photographer and get pictures. You have to pay a lot more if you want that photographer to hand over the copyright for the pictures too.
Islam has its #1 and #2 holy places under its direct control, and nobody else is even allowed to go there.
Islam stole the location of Judaism's #1 holy place and build the Al Aqsa mosque on it as their #3 most holy place. I think it's fair to destroy Islam's #3 so that the Jews can have their #1 back.
I''m researching this as I go, so I don't know what the result will be, but I have a good guess.
Take the General Electric GE90, a powerful, efficient turbofan. It produces a wide range of thrusts, but I'll stick with the simple 500 kN near the top. It weighs 8,283 kg.
An EMD 710 diesel locomotive engine used in an efficient V20 configuration produces 3,098 kW and weighs 18,365 kg dry.
It obviously gets complicated from there because we're comparing power to thrust. How about, since you're thinking diesel-electric, I compare to a turboshaft? They're both rated in power, and both numbers would be converted to thrust in some manner, with whatever attending losses of the thrust system (propeller/ducted fan/etc.) being equal.
If you want fuel flexibility, the Honeywell AGT1500 from the M-1 tank can produce 1,120 kW running on, from what my tanker friends tell me, "greasy kid's stuff." However, it's not an aircraft design so it's quite heavy at 1,134 kg (for example, it sits in a heavy steel frame so it can be quickly plucked out to change engines).
So we use the later aviation version, the PLT27 that produces 1,434 kW and weighs 145 kg.
That's half the power at 1/127th the weight. No, diesels aren't going to work in airplanes. Far too low of a power/weight ratio. The equivalent weight in turbines would give you 182,118 kW, or almost a quarter-million horsepower.
Why do we still use diesels in locomotives then? The diesel is more reliable, long-lived and requires less maintenance. We don't care so much about an extra dozen tons since it doesn't matter much when it gets up to speed.
If you could do the whole trip on battery, it's going to take many, many tons of batteries -- far more than fuel as you said -- and depending on your electricity generation source you could be putting out more pollution in the end anyway.
If it augments fuel in a hybrid configuration, then every pound of battery makes you burn fuel faster. Where are the savings? You don't get to do regenerative braking either.
"I have picked-up the trust and courage to write to you this letter with divine confidence that you are a reliable and honest person who will be capable for this important business transaction..."
for the CPU and IIRC 7 times as fast for the graphics, all at the same price. A lot of people dump their current computing products for something like that.
Basically, "sight unseen" is irrelevant here. We know it's basically going to kick-ass. There is almost no chance that it won't. It's a pretty safe bet to say you'd buy it, especially if you're already invested in the ecosystem. Love that lock-in.
It's a liberal politial non-profit working on the side of the Democrats that mainly publishes liberal opinion pieces. They were rabidly anti-Bush during his term..
These are the people who claimed Karl Rove had been indicted over the Plame thing, and when told it was false continued to press the claim. Rove was never indicted.
Choosing to buy now isn't completely a blind purchase. It's sure to have the A5 processor, Bluetooth 4 Low Energy and a dual GSM/CDMA chip. Less sure are a bigger camera with dual LED flash and the exact case design that is supposed to be thinner and lighter.
If you like these features, and you're looking to upgrade your iPhone anyway, it's a fairly safe purchase decision. It's certainly not buying in the dark.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget government meddling in markets, providing the perverse incentive to create said corporate corruption. Don't forget Democrat Barney Frank's response when Bush was trying to tighten regulation on these corporations in 2003 to head off said mortgage crisis:
Meaningful regulation and enforcement was thus blocked.
Democrats have been riding on "Bush's fault" for years. Time to man up and take responsibility.
Crew, maintenance, repair parts, airport fees and all those petroleum industry employees paid for with expensive jet fuel. Easily hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars a year put into jobs for just one rich guy's desire to own a jet. And rich guys don't pay minimum wage for a flight crew since they like to remain among the living. IIRC, these jets tend to get redecorated when they change owners. That can cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and more, and you and your coworkers keep your jobs for that much longer.
And yachts. Unfortunately we've kicked most private shipbuilding out of this country, but those hundred million dollar yachts still come with an operating cost of around 10% of the purchase price per year with a large crew, maintenance, fuel, and expensive berthing fees. Paul Allen's boat employs a crew of 60, including helicopter pilots, pumping $20 million a year into the economy.
Hear hear! We need some control over the likes of NPR and CBS (remember Memogate?) spouting their lies.
Oh, you probably meant Fox, as if they were the only ones that lied. You probably weren't thinking about the same standards being applied to your favorite liberal sources and their lies.
"after you count up all the loopholes and compare how much of their "income" actually gets taxed at the much lower Capital Gains rates, actually pay less in taxes than the middle class do?"
I won't talk rates, I'll talk what's actually paid. Definition: Middle class has a broad definition, but I'll take $30,000-$100,000, which covers the span of most definitions and gives you a large middle class with which to make your argument.
The top 10% of earners, above 114,000, pay 70% of all income taxes. So, no, the middle class pays less than the rich. The lower 50%, below $33,000, pays almost nothing.
Short-term capital gains taxes go up with your tax bracket, and the rate is the same. Even if you bought something at $10,000 and a few laters it grew with inflation to $10,500, you still have to pay tax on the $500 even though you technically didn't make any money. Long-term rates are less in order to offset inflation losses and encourage long-term investment that helps the economy over quick flipping.
Obviously the rich are more likely to invest, so I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet to say that top 25% pay almost all capital gains taxes.
It's simple grass roots. Nobody controls it, and I mean nobody. Various politicians and organizations have tried to coopt it through endorsement and financial support, but it still remains largely uncontrolled. Religious conservatives have tried to attach their social issues like abortion and homosexuality in order to leverage the tea party's popularity, and have failed.
It is nothing more than the general expression of anger at the fact that our spending is out of control, and that the consequences of continuing down this path will one day be devastating.
I am very happy that this is being threatened. It's going to take a confrontation this big in order to get the big-government Democrats AND Republicans (oh yes, they love big government too) to finally do something to avoid a total catastrophe a few dades down the road.
Compromise is overrated anyway. I want to put a tablespoon of shit in your yogurt. You don't want any shit in your yogurt. Okay, let's compromise and only put a teaspoon of shit in your yogurt. Are you happy with that? Is any compromise on the amount acceptable to you?
One of mine said you have to declare any number you use as a constant in the beginning, and that means any number. If he saw a number used in your code, points taken off.
That meant "x*2" to double something once in your whole program was bad. You had to declare a constant in the beginning called "double" or some such, and then make it "x*double". A reasonably good practice taken to the absurd extreme.
If the guy isn't hired and produces it for his employer as part of his employment contract that states all products are considered works for hire, then he retains the copyright.
Lucasfilm paid for and got use of the products. That was the original extent of Lucasfilm's interest. This guy created a product and sold some of it to Lucasfilm. He is free to sell it to others, too.
It boils down to this: Lucasfilm paid for the uniforms, not the right to the design of the uniforms. They are two very separate things. You pay a photographer and get pictures. You have to pay a lot more if you want that photographer to hand over the copyright for the pictures too.
Islam has its #1 and #2 holy places under its direct control, and nobody else is even allowed to go there.
Islam stole the location of Judaism's #1 holy place and build the Al Aqsa mosque on it as their #3 most holy place. I think it's fair to destroy Islam's #3 so that the Jews can have their #1 back.
They ran it for 15.
You never know what will happen to the plans in the future.
We purposely sink ships and subs to create artificial reefs.
Columbus to DC.
Is how incredibly huge and strong a transmission would have to be. Diesel-electric lets them eliminate the transmission.
Scroll down
http://www.everythingpanam.com/1960_-_1970.html
I''m researching this as I go, so I don't know what the result will be, but I have a good guess.
Take the General Electric GE90, a powerful, efficient turbofan. It produces a wide range of thrusts, but I'll stick with the simple 500 kN near the top. It weighs 8,283 kg.
An EMD 710 diesel locomotive engine used in an efficient V20 configuration produces 3,098 kW and weighs 18,365 kg dry.
It obviously gets complicated from there because we're comparing power to thrust. How about, since you're thinking diesel-electric, I compare to a turboshaft? They're both rated in power, and both numbers would be converted to thrust in some manner, with whatever attending losses of the thrust system (propeller/ducted fan/etc.) being equal.
If you want fuel flexibility, the Honeywell AGT1500 from the M-1 tank can produce 1,120 kW running on, from what my tanker friends tell me, "greasy kid's stuff." However, it's not an aircraft design so it's quite heavy at 1,134 kg (for example, it sits in a heavy steel frame so it can be quickly plucked out to change engines).
So we use the later aviation version, the PLT27 that produces 1,434 kW and weighs 145 kg.
That's half the power at 1/127th the weight. No, diesels aren't going to work in airplanes. Far too low of a power/weight ratio. The equivalent weight in turbines would give you 182,118 kW, or almost a quarter-million horsepower.
Why do we still use diesels in locomotives then? The diesel is more reliable, long-lived and requires less maintenance. We don't care so much about an extra dozen tons since it doesn't matter much when it gets up to speed.
That's why airlines charge for luggage now.
If you could do the whole trip on battery, it's going to take many, many tons of batteries -- far more than fuel as you said -- and depending on your electricity generation source you could be putting out more pollution in the end anyway.
If it augments fuel in a hybrid configuration, then every pound of battery makes you burn fuel faster. Where are the savings? You don't get to do regenerative braking either.
"I have picked-up the trust and courage to write to you this letter with divine confidence that you are a reliable and honest person who will be capable for this important business transaction ..."
Then do your business anywhere in the tube and wash it down.
for the CPU and IIRC 7 times as fast for the graphics, all at the same price. A lot of people dump their current computing products for something like that.
Basically, "sight unseen" is irrelevant here. We know it's basically going to kick-ass. There is almost no chance that it won't. It's a pretty safe bet to say you'd buy it, especially if you're already invested in the ecosystem. Love that lock-in.
John Quincy Adams in1824
Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876
Benjamin Harrison in 1888
George W. Bush in 2000
That's the American system.
"In Florida, back then, the Republicans clearly proved that they were in this to win the presidency, not win an election."
So was Gore, trying to win an already lost presidency in the courts. He thought it was owed to him as VP. Guess not.
It's a liberal politial non-profit working on the side of the Democrats that mainly publishes liberal opinion pieces. They were rabidly anti-Bush during his term..
These are the people who claimed Karl Rove had been indicted over the Plame thing, and when told it was false continued to press the claim. Rove was never indicted.
Choosing to buy now isn't completely a blind purchase. It's sure to have the A5 processor, Bluetooth 4 Low Energy and a dual GSM/CDMA chip. Less sure are a bigger camera with dual LED flash and the exact case design that is supposed to be thinner and lighter.
If you like these features, and you're looking to upgrade your iPhone anyway, it's a fairly safe purchase decision. It's certainly not buying in the dark.
The claim was that NO long-term or theoretical research comes out of private funding. That is simply not true.
Apple paid the lion's share for the 6,000 Nortel patents purchased by the Apple/MS/RIM consortium.
And much of that isn't software patents and such, it's hard-core telecommunications patents, including many covering LTE.
Relatively cheap, like this.
All of your power plants are nuclear or hydroelectric. Both cost vastly more to build and maintain.
With its 60% efficient design, it produces 200 MW.
Nuclear power plants are about 30% efficient, but we don't lop 700 MW off a rated output of 1 GW.