It says what it says. If you don't like it get a movement started to ammend it. A1 specificaly gives Congress the right to tax and spend for the General Welfare.
In Contract law there is a concept called "Plain Meaning" a definition of which is "Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, subtract from, or vary the terms of a written contract."
If you think of the constitution as a "social contract" then you have to take the constitution for what it says, not based on some letter Madison wrote to his brother, or any other ancillary materials.
BTW Hamilton viewed the "General Welfare" clause to be a broad grant of power. For more info I'd suggest reading United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65.
State pension systems lack a number of basic features that define Ponzi schemes, and so are fundamentally different:
* There is no belief that there are large profits coming from something; rather, it is clear that these are pay-as-you go systems, where workers (at any given time) are providing money to those who have retired.
* There is no growth of incoming funds driven by the enticement of high returns over a short period of time, with new investors continually entering in order to support payouts to early investors.
* State pension systems are in some way insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.
* Because receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that timeframe, there will never be a sudden collapse.
* General tax revenues can be used to supplement worker payments into the systems, although many taxpayers will be unhappy with such supplementation. Similarly, benefits can be reduced through the political process, either across-the-board or by reducing benefits to the well-off, although there will clearly be opposition by those who will get less.
At the last House Financial Services Comittee with Greenspan some ignorant Republican asked Al if Revenue increases offset tax cuts. He started laughing at the Congressman. Sort of like I'm laughing at you.
Search CSPAN's archives. I think it was in september, they've probably got the video archived. It was classic.
If I was bidding out for someone to fix my PC and 'Puterz-R-Us shows up with recomendation letters from Microsoft and IBM you bet I'm going to take it seriously.
If EA is so eager to buy these companies maybe the current shareholders ought to be asking their boards what value EA sees that they haven't been able to realize.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't support a basic feature like folders, it's not very attractive in my eyes.
I think they can find better.
I doubt the FBI doesn't scan emails during an investigation anymore.
in 1985 the 68000 was an excellent CPU, certainly compared to the 8086.
To understand the constitution you read it.
It says what it says. If you don't like it get a movement started to ammend it. A1 specificaly gives Congress the right to tax and spend for the General Welfare.
In Contract law there is a concept called "Plain Meaning" a definition of which is "Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, subtract from, or vary the terms of a written contract."
If you think of the constitution as a "social contract" then you have to take the constitution for what it says, not based on some letter Madison wrote to his brother, or any other ancillary materials.
BTW Hamilton viewed the "General Welfare" clause to be a broad grant of power. For more info I'd suggest reading United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65.
The intuition obvious and appealing, but the theory has been studied and rejected.
Prof Slemrod @ U Mich studied this and found that it was not the case.
His book is here.
Slemrod found no evidence that the Reagan cuts in '86 nor the Bush increases in '92 affected the labor supply curve.
It's an optimization problem, namely:
Max G(x)
x
s.t. x is greater than or equal to 0
x is less than or equal to 100
Where G is government revenue as a function of the tax rate x.
You are entirely correct that You cannot argue that cutting taxes always decreases revenue, however we are well on the G'(x)>0 side of the curve.
Unfortunately, most people and most congress critters do not know and do not care about following the constitution.
It says what it says. "General Welfare" sounds pretty general to me.
---Writtings of Madison snipped---
That's interesting but I thought you care about following the constitution not the personal writtings of Madison?
The Constitution was ratified by the states based on what it said, not on what Madison really meant.
from Wiki:
State pension systems lack a number of basic features that define Ponzi schemes, and so are fundamentally different:
* There is no belief that there are large profits coming from something; rather, it is clear that these are pay-as-you go systems, where workers (at any given time) are providing money to those who have retired.
* There is no growth of incoming funds driven by the enticement of high returns over a short period of time, with new investors continually entering in order to support payouts to early investors.
* State pension systems are in some way insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.
* Because receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that timeframe, there will never be a sudden collapse.
* General tax revenues can be used to supplement worker payments into the systems, although many taxpayers will be unhappy with such supplementation. Similarly, benefits can be reduced through the political process, either across-the-board or by reducing benefits to the well-off, although there will clearly be opposition by those who will get less.
At the last House Financial Services Comittee with Greenspan some ignorant Republican asked Al if Revenue increases offset tax cuts. He started laughing at the Congressman. Sort of like I'm laughing at you.
Search CSPAN's archives. I think it was in september, they've probably got the video archived. It was classic.
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare
... general Welfare
provide for the
There's two instances. Of course the Constution leaves out the specific "how", that is left for the Congress, Executive, and Judiciary to hammer out.
Maybe if we sold enough of them we could fund our own series!
If I was bidding out for someone to fix my PC and 'Puterz-R-Us shows up with recomendation letters from Microsoft and IBM you bet I'm going to take it seriously.
Tivo units will continue to function in their current state for years to come
How is your Tivo going to update its program schedule if Tivo corp doesn't answer the phone?
I have to take issue with the claim that such technology, concepts, and products are not enough for a successful business
/. on our Amiga 10000's?
Exactly. Why else would we all be reading
I can't think of anything more foolish if you are an IT professional than to "assume" products are secure.
Simply put - economics is about predicting the future,
Or explaining the past, and the present.
which is so hard to do that the economists current cute little linear models didn't hurt.
You mean cute little linear as in Stochastic Dynamic General Equilibrium
you can't trust complex models
So you disapprove of both "cute little" as well as "complex" models?
Not to mention it was a common saying in the Quake 1 days. It was a line used by the Thunderwalker CTF guys.
Perfect price discrimination. Yay.
Booooring
is the XR4Ti.
If EA is so eager to buy these companies maybe the current shareholders ought to be asking their boards what value EA sees that they haven't been able to realize.
Wow. Can't the poor guy do anything right?
I'll support just about anything.
Hasn't already debuted 5 or 6 times?