I'm not saying corruption or an Imperial Presidency is acceptable. Take a look at the other post with the link and the quote.
I despise the concentration of power in the Executive Branch; and Reagan was one of those who pushed the limits of said power.
But the crucial point here is that we have not delineated the line between the Executive's Commander In Chief privileges and Congress' power of the purse. It's an important distinction and Reagan and his Attorney General (Ed Meese IIRC) carefully split hairs here.
I'm not saying what Reagan did was right only that the issue is up in the air. Of course Congress was pissed. But did the Bolan Ammendment pass constitutional muster. As you know - neither side, neither the Executive Branch, nor the Legislative Branch pushed the issue. If they had the Supreme Court would have reviewed it and we would have a legal ruling.
I'm always amazed by people who breed when they can't afford to take care of themselves and then expect others to take care of them. One of the many solutions in a post job, post scarcity world is less breeding.
" the
committees' misunderstanding of both the precedent and the problem inevitably
led them to the wrong prescription. For if, as the committees concluded,
the Iran-Contra Affair sprang mainly from the wayward acts of a
few colorful personalities, then the proper policy prescription would indeed
be to enforce the laws currently on the books. But if the Affair
stemmed from a more fundamental failure of legal structure, then a legislative
revamping of the statutory framework that governs our foreign affairs
is now in order"
This case should have been left as a he-said/she-said between Legislative and Executive Branches. We need clear-cut delineation describing where the Executive's branch prerogatives end the Legislative branch begins. We do not have that.
Did Reagan overstep the bounds as enacted by Congress. Of course. But were the laws Constitutional? Ah. That's something the New Yorker, Salon, Atlantic and others gloss over. That is the central concern. Not did Reagan go out of his way to circumvent a law.
No. There were different aspects to this situation.
I'm old enough to remember this; old enough to have asked many attorneys at the time. Ultimately this is a Supreme Court decision. Obviously Congress challenged Reagan. But notice they didn't take it to the courts. Ask yourself why? Interestingly enough Reagan didn't bring it to court either. For the exact same reason - neither side wanted a clear cut delineation of their powers and preferred to keep a murky middle.
Oliver North was in trouble for the same reason Clinton was. He lied in a court room.
Nixon's people planted bugs in the offices of their political enemies. Reagan's people did deals with Iran and the Contras in defiance of congressional laws. Bush Jr.'s people lied about weapons of mass destruction.
And the president is the Commander in Chief.
Were these laws constitutional? If they were, and the Democrats Congress thought it was they would have challenged it and brought it to the Supreme Court for a decision. Since the Congress did not challenge Reagan their attorneys reviewing the case probably told them that the case wouldn't stand up to judicial review.
The OP was saying that too many people BELIEVE in environmental causes to the point of not listening or not considering alternative positions. AND there are a lot of Gaia types out there who are religious fanatics.
Many of tese idiots believe the earth, itself, is alive and that humans are parasites.
That happened in 2008 when Rush said to vote for Hillary to cause confusion. I really don't think it's happening this year. Dem turnout is really low. And establishment Reps are voting for anyone but Trump. I don't think many would be voting for Sanders as opposed to Rubio, Kasich or whoever they think is their best shot at stopping Trump and Cruz.
I can't speak about the rest of the world. Here in the US items such as computers, vans, etc... are considered capital expenditure; the gov't gives it a useful life span and you write-off said asset over a period of time.
"A capital expenditure is recorded as an asset, rather than charging it immediately to expense. The fixed asset is then charged to expense over the useful life of the asset, using depreciation. For example, if you acquire a $25,000 asset and expect it to have a useful life of five years, charge $5,000 to depreciation expense in each of the next five years."
I'm old enough to remember this. The fact I stated stand. Respond to them. The Swift Water group later expanded their scope and tried to make a name for themselves.
That is not the point. I didn't bring up everything the group published a year and two years after they responded to John Kerry's claim.
Q1: Did Kerry make claims about his war service.
Q2: Did Kerry say (something along the line of) "ask the people I served with"
Q3 Did 22 out of 23 (or there about) disagree with Kerry?
These are the essential points. The fact that members of the group months and years later tried to capitalize on their fame is a separate and distinct issue.
That's like the comedy skit of your wife coming home after spending $1000 dollars on unnecessary shoes and dresses and saying how she saved $2000.
No. You didn't save $2000. You spent $1000 on unnecessary things.
The company spent money on an item. I think this "should" be a 100% write-off on the first year. It's an expense. To expand the definition of subsidy to include changing a depreciation schedule doesn't make sense. It stretches the definition of subsidy beyond it's definition.
I don't consider this to be a subsidy. And I'm a vocal proponent of subsidies for solar and wind; a proponent of spending a lot of research dollars on R&D. I'm against any subsidies for oil and coal. I'm not a fan of Big Oil. And yet... I consider it to by hyperbole to consider accelerated depreciation to be a "subsidy."
They accelerated depreciation doesn't mean you pay less. You pay the same amount.
Example you start a consulting business. You have expenses. You have a phone bill, travel to your customers, buy business cards. You make $2,000 for the year and spend $1,00. You pay taxes on your profit of $1000.
The next year you again make $2000, you again spend $1000 on phone, travel, business cards but your computer broke. This time you spend $1000 on a computer. You may think, that since you spent everything you made that you wouldn't have to pay taxes. But you would be wrong. Since the computer has a life span of 5 years you would only be able to declare $200 from your computer.
This means that you had expenses, according to the government of $1200 (even though you spent $2000) and so you need to pay taxes on $800.
Accelerated depreciation would be that you could depreciate the equipment at a faster rate. Say 50% the first year, 20% the second, and 10% for each of the final 3 years.
This isn't "giving" you anything.
You would still need to pay taxes on profit even though you didn't make anything. Everything you made went into the business.
I am NOT pro oil by any means. What I would like are examples of subsidies instead of people parroting what they believe are irrefutable facts.
If you start a moving business, rent a van. Your rental costs are 100% deductible. Meaning that if you charged $1000 for moving. Paid $100 for the van you would pay taxes on $900. If you bought a dolly and some padding they would be 100% deductible. But if you bought a van it would not be 100% deductible. It's a capital expense and you could only write off a portion of the money spent buying the van. If the government thinks that the van has a life expectancy of 5 years then you can only declare a portion of the investment off each year.
There are many, I'm one of them, who despises the way the government considers the life of an capital good. If you were to be a consultant and spent $500 on a SSD card would you think you were "subsidized" by the government if you wrote off the card over 2 years instead of 3? I wouldn't.
The capital good depreciation schedule is a foolish idea. The company spent the money. It was an expense, they can't declare it again the next year; and if they sell the equipment they have to pay taxes on what they received.
Explain, in your words, how this qualifies as a subsidy.
I did that a copy times in the beginning as an experiment. I doubt, really doubt, that newbie "does this sh1t actually work?" transactions are a meaningful percentage of the bitcoin market
Did Kerry proclaim himself to be a war hero with 3 purple hearts proving his point. (It was a little shaky - but he wouldn't have been the first politically ambitious man to have gone to war to give himself stature. Fine).
Then what does he do he says "ask the people I served with. They will tell you." And they did. 22 out of 23 (AFAIR) said they did not support him.
So - where do the above statements go wrong? If they aren't wrong then why pretend that Swift Boating means to falsely accuse/to smear an opponent?
Stop making assumptions are look at his base. His base are not those who have voted in previous elections.
Social conservatives don't him because he is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage.
And main stream republicans despise him. (Including the hated Koch Brothers).
His support is from the disaffected labor and working class who had been voting Democrat but started not voting as the Democrats became more and more progressive (and less and less of a labor party).
Example (in case the above statement is not clear): A labor party would be for the Keystone Pipeline. A progressive part (more in tune with environmentalists) would be against the pipeline.
You do realize that the establishment, middle-of-the-road, country-club, wall street, and Chamber of Commerce types hate Trump.
You do realize that social conservatives are not happy with a pro-abortion, pro-planned parenthood, pro-gay marriage guy. So these "extreme" conservatives hate him.
You do realize that a lot of people who have NEVER voted before are voting for him and registered to vote because of him.
You do realize that many Democrats have voted for him - either because they support him or strategically gaming the system.
And you do realize don't you that Trump is only getting 35% of the Republican vote. (And a far, far less percentage of those who considered themselves Republican one year ago.)
Reason for admittance: Animal bite
Where: Right gastrocnemius
What kind of animal: (long list) - dog
What kind of dog: (long list)
Stray or owned
x or y
Having a doctor spend time on a chart means less time doing something else. Now we do need information to make reasoned decisions but when you make a doctor answer a question such as "what kind of dog" and the answer from the patient is "who the f**k knows? It was a black dog with a white tail."
Then what will the doctor put down on the form? you've heard of the expression GIGO haven't you?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying corruption or an Imperial Presidency is acceptable. Take a look at the other post with the link and the quote.
I despise the concentration of power in the Executive Branch; and Reagan was one of those who pushed the limits of said power.
But the crucial point here is that we have not delineated the line between the Executive's Commander In Chief privileges and Congress' power of the purse. It's an important distinction and Reagan and his Attorney General (Ed Meese IIRC) carefully split hairs here.
I'm not saying what Reagan did was right only that the issue is up in the air. Of course Congress was pissed. But did the Bolan Ammendment pass constitutional muster. As you know - neither side, neither the Executive Branch, nor the Legislative Branch pushed the issue. If they had the Supreme Court would have reviewed it and we would have a legal ruling.
I'm always amazed by people who breed when they can't afford to take care of themselves and then expect others to take care of them. One of the many solutions in a post job, post scarcity world is less breeding.
You might find the following interesting: (And it's not by a Reagan apologist - not by a long shot)
http://digitalcommons.law.yale...
" the committees' misunderstanding of both the precedent and the problem inevitably
led them to the wrong prescription. For if, as the committees concluded,
the Iran-Contra Affair sprang mainly from the wayward acts of a
few colorful personalities, then the proper policy prescription would indeed
be to enforce the laws currently on the books. But if the Affair
stemmed from a more fundamental failure of legal structure, then a legislative
revamping of the statutory framework that governs our foreign affairs
is now in order"
This case should have been left as a he-said/she-said between Legislative and Executive Branches. We need clear-cut delineation describing where the Executive's branch prerogatives end the Legislative branch begins. We do not have that.
Did Reagan overstep the bounds as enacted by Congress. Of course. But were the laws Constitutional? Ah. That's something the New Yorker, Salon, Atlantic and others gloss over. That is the central concern. Not did Reagan go out of his way to circumvent a law.
No. There were different aspects to this situation.
I'm old enough to remember this; old enough to have asked many attorneys at the time. Ultimately this is a Supreme Court decision. Obviously Congress challenged Reagan. But notice they didn't take it to the courts. Ask yourself why? Interestingly enough Reagan didn't bring it to court either. For the exact same reason - neither side wanted a clear cut delineation of their powers and preferred to keep a murky middle.
Oliver North was in trouble for the same reason Clinton was. He lied in a court room.
Nixon's people planted bugs in the offices of their political enemies. Reagan's people did deals with Iran and the Contras in defiance of congressional laws. Bush Jr.'s people lied about weapons of mass destruction.
And the president is the Commander in Chief.
Were these laws constitutional? If they were, and the Democrats Congress thought it was they would have challenged it and brought it to the Supreme Court for a decision. Since the Congress did not challenge Reagan their attorneys reviewing the case probably told them that the case wouldn't stand up to judicial review.
The sad thing is having to put /sarc.
Too many of the faux outraged out there.
-- The preceding is my opinion. Don't like it? Get your own.
saying "brown nose" has been flagged and considered as racist.
/sarc
in case it wasn't obvious
these - not tese
The OP was saying that too many people BELIEVE in environmental causes to the point of not listening or not considering alternative positions. AND there are a lot of Gaia types out there who are religious fanatics.
Many of tese idiots believe the earth, itself, is alive and that humans are parasites.
That happened in 2008 when Rush said to vote for Hillary to cause confusion. I really don't think it's happening this year. Dem turnout is really low. And establishment Reps are voting for anyone but Trump. I don't think many would be voting for Sanders as opposed to Rubio, Kasich or whoever they think is their best shot at stopping Trump and Cruz.
In my mind too. But that's only in our minds until it becomes part of the tax and legal code. As of now it's not.
We don't externalize the costs of mining for precious metals either.
I can't speak about the rest of the world. Here in the US items such as computers, vans, etc... are considered capital expenditure; the gov't gives it a useful life span and you write-off said asset over a period of time.
http://www.accountingtools.com...
"A capital expenditure is recorded as an asset, rather than charging it immediately to expense. The fixed asset is then charged to expense over the useful life of the asset, using depreciation. For example, if you acquire a $25,000 asset and expect it to have a useful life of five years, charge $5,000 to depreciation expense in each of the next five years."
I'm old enough to remember this. The fact I stated stand. Respond to them. The Swift Water group later expanded their scope and tried to make a name for themselves.
That is not the point. I didn't bring up everything the group published a year and two years after they responded to John Kerry's claim.
Q1: Did Kerry make claims about his war service.
Q2: Did Kerry say (something along the line of) "ask the people I served with"
Q3 Did 22 out of 23 (or there about) disagree with Kerry?
These are the essential points. The fact that members of the group months and years later tried to capitalize on their fame is a separate and distinct issue.
That's like the comedy skit of your wife coming home after spending $1000 dollars on unnecessary shoes and dresses and saying how she saved $2000.
... I consider it to by hyperbole to consider accelerated depreciation to be a "subsidy."
No. You didn't save $2000. You spent $1000 on unnecessary things.
The company spent money on an item. I think this "should" be a 100% write-off on the first year. It's an expense. To expand the definition of subsidy to include changing a depreciation schedule doesn't make sense. It stretches the definition of subsidy beyond it's definition.
I don't consider this to be a subsidy. And I'm a vocal proponent of subsidies for solar and wind; a proponent of spending a lot of research dollars on R&D. I'm against any subsidies for oil and coal. I'm not a fan of Big Oil. And yet
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They accelerated depreciation doesn't mean you pay less. You pay the same amount.
Example you start a consulting business. You have expenses. You have a phone bill, travel to your customers, buy business cards. You make $2,000 for the year and spend $1,00. You pay taxes on your profit of $1000.
The next year you again make $2000, you again spend $1000 on phone, travel, business cards but your computer broke. This time you spend $1000 on a computer. You may think, that since you spent everything you made that you wouldn't have to pay taxes. But you would be wrong. Since the computer has a life span of 5 years you would only be able to declare $200 from your computer.
This means that you had expenses, according to the government of $1200 (even though you spent $2000) and so you need to pay taxes on $800.
Accelerated depreciation would be that you could depreciate the equipment at a faster rate. Say 50% the first year, 20% the second, and 10% for each of the final 3 years.
This isn't "giving" you anything.
You would still need to pay taxes on profit even though you didn't make anything. Everything you made went into the business.
Do you know what an accelerated depreciation is?
It's not a subsidy.
I am NOT pro oil by any means. What I would like are examples of subsidies instead of people parroting what they believe are irrefutable facts.
If you start a moving business, rent a van. Your rental costs are 100% deductible. Meaning that if you charged $1000 for moving. Paid $100 for the van you would pay taxes on $900. If you bought a dolly and some padding they would be 100% deductible. But if you bought a van it would not be 100% deductible. It's a capital expense and you could only write off a portion of the money spent buying the van. If the government thinks that the van has a life expectancy of 5 years then you can only declare a portion of the investment off each year.
There are many, I'm one of them, who despises the way the government considers the life of an capital good. If you were to be a consultant and spent $500 on a SSD card would you think you were "subsidized" by the government if you wrote off the card over 2 years instead of 3? I wouldn't.
The capital good depreciation schedule is a foolish idea. The company spent the money. It was an expense, they can't declare it again the next year; and if they sell the equipment they have to pay taxes on what they received.
Explain, in your words, how this qualifies as a subsidy.
:-)
I did that a copy times in the beginning as an experiment. I doubt, really doubt, that newbie "does this sh1t actually work?" transactions are a meaningful percentage of the bitcoin market
If bitcoin is only being horded then where are all the transactions coming from?
Facts are facts.
Refusal to continue to discuss a position after bringing up facts and having these facts / propositions ignored is one thing.
Refusing to mention any facts; and more than that refusing to dispute a stated fact / proposition is another.
So what are the facts?
Did Kerry proclaim himself to be a war hero with 3 purple hearts proving his point. (It was a little shaky - but he wouldn't have been the first politically ambitious man to have gone to war to give himself stature. Fine).
Then what does he do he says "ask the people I served with. They will tell you." And they did. 22 out of 23 (AFAIR) said they did not support him.
So - where do the above statements go wrong? If they aren't wrong then why pretend that Swift Boating means to falsely accuse/to smear an opponent?
Project much?
Stop making assumptions are look at his base. His base are not those who have voted in previous elections.
Social conservatives don't him because he is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage.
And main stream republicans despise him. (Including the hated Koch Brothers).
His support is from the disaffected labor and working class who had been voting Democrat but started not voting as the Democrats became more and more progressive (and less and less of a labor party).
Example (in case the above statement is not clear): A labor party would be for the Keystone Pipeline. A progressive part (more in tune with environmentalists) would be against the pipeline.
Swift Boat wasn't true?
Didn't Kerry say"just ask those who served with me?" And then 22 of the 23 said they disagreed and publicly came out for Bush?
What about this was untruthful?
You do realize that the establishment, middle-of-the-road, country-club, wall street, and Chamber of Commerce types hate Trump.
You do realize that social conservatives are not happy with a pro-abortion, pro-planned parenthood, pro-gay marriage guy. So these "extreme" conservatives hate him.
You do realize that a lot of people who have NEVER voted before are voting for him and registered to vote because of him.
You do realize that many Democrats have voted for him - either because they support him or strategically gaming the system.
And you do realize don't you that Trump is only getting 35% of the Republican vote. (And a far, far less percentage of those who considered themselves Republican one year ago.)
So having a doctor spend time filling out charts.
Reason for admittance: Animal bite
Where: Right gastrocnemius
What kind of animal: (long list) - dog
What kind of dog: (long list)
Stray or owned
x or y
Having a doctor spend time on a chart means less time doing something else. Now we do need information to make reasoned decisions but when you make a doctor answer a question such as "what kind of dog" and the answer from the patient is "who the f**k knows? It was a black dog with a white tail."
Then what will the doctor put down on the form? you've heard of the expression GIGO haven't you?
Which subsidies are you referring to. Every time I ask I get the same answer: accelerated depreciation. Sorry. I don't consider that to be a subsidy.
I'm not a fan of fossil fuels so if you have links to subsidies (again not accelerated depreciation) I would be interested in seeing them.