Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing.
Well I say, hard cheese.
http://www.internet-guide.co.uk/simpsons-quotes. ht ml
Or they could just raise taxes. Which was the original point.
But my original point is that they can and should cut spending instead. Also, I was pointing out that this possibility is often left out of the discussion.
Anything could happen. Lots of the those things are beside the point.
I'm tired of hearing that I (for example) will be better off if you pay more in taxes. I know I won't be better off. You'll be worse off though. So you lose and I don't win.
It's time we stopped letting the government "users" play the "producers" against one another. The "producers" need to politely, but firmly, demand the "users" start at least pulling their own weight whenever they can.
It this point the government cannot effectivly eliminate the debt with either a) sacrificing essential services or B) increasing revenue.
It's actually a lot easier than that. All they need to do is start increasing the debt at a rate slower than inflation. Eventually, it'll become a relatively small number and they can pay it off will a relatively small sum of money.
This post is ridiculous. No serious person is going to be for this, no matter how much of a fan of business he is.
This is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Stealing is wrong when customers shoplift. Stealing is wrong when the cashier steals from the till. And stealing is wrong when management steals from the employees. Stealing is always wrong.
Stealing is wrong when you hire people to do it on your behalf too. Hiring a person to shave time cards is wrong, even if you don't do it yourself.
BTW: Hiring a government official to steal for you is also wrong. Even if you call it a tax and even if the person being taken from is rich.
While the terrorists send people without any prior travel record as their catspaws.
Yeah. Really your least experienced, least traveled guys are going to be the most effective terrorist operatives. No chance they'll make a mistake and get caught, since it's their first time doing anything or even leaving their home town.
Slashdot Mirror
The sky talks to me all the time.
It tells me to burn things.
Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?!
. ht ml
Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing.
Well I say, hard cheese.
http://www.internet-guide.co.uk/simpsons-quotes
The main alternatives:
cold
darkness
poverty
hardship
In different combinations at varying levels.
No. This is a lot easier question. Just cut something else. There's a zillion things to cut.
My favorite federal program is probably defense -- because getting invaded and killed or enslaved is, you know, bad.
I think it's even worse than being expected, as an able-bodied sane adult, to pay your own rent and buy your own food. Easy for me to say, I guess.
How big of a tax break would I get? I'll say yes if it's high enough.
It would also be extremely easy to get a few of my newly low-taxed neighbors together and fund our own private fire department.
Since you picked the fire department for your example, though, it seems like you miss the point. I'm not say zero taxes, I'm saying much lower taxes.
Rather than shut down the fire department first, I'd start with something like farm subsidies.
Question: "Will you accept cuts in your favorite program in exchange for tax breaks?"
My answer: Yes.
Roads are "self-funded" by people driving and paying the gas tax. It would be more honest if you'd leave roads out of it.
My answer: turn signatures off in your preferences.
But my original point is that they can and should cut spending instead. Also, I was pointing out that this possibility is often left out of the discussion.
Only if you surrender and allow it. The vast majority don't want our taxes raised. Together, we can prevent it most of the time at the ballot box.
If you buy into the idea that it's either you or your neighbor that's going to pay -- so take the neighbor first -- then you've already lost.
I'm tired of hearing that I (for example) will be better off if you pay more in taxes. I know I won't be better off. You'll be worse off though. So you lose and I don't win.
It's time we stopped letting the government "users" play the "producers" against one another. The "producers" need to politely, but firmly, demand the "users" start at least pulling their own weight whenever they can.
If "certain programs get cut", that's not negative, that's positive.
Which means they'll just have to figure out how to spend less in the future.
Nope. Read it again. I never mentioned "fault".
If fewer people were cheating on their taxes, would the tax rate automatically get cut? Or would they find something to spend the extra $$$$ on?
It's actually a lot easier than that. All they need to do is start increasing the debt at a rate slower than inflation. Eventually, it'll become a relatively small number and they can pay it off will a relatively small sum of money.
No deal. Just cut the taxes.
The only way this could work in the average taxpayer's favor .... is too complicated to ever actually happen.
Just lower the rates. Loopholes and cheating will have a smaller advantage and they'll be used less often.
The idea that one person paying less (whether cheating or not) means another person is paying more is flat wrong.
Overspending is the problem, not underpaying.
When someone pays less, they'll just have to figure out how to spend less.
This post is ridiculous. No serious person is going to be for this, no matter how much of a fan of business he is.
This is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Stealing is wrong when customers shoplift. Stealing is wrong when the cashier steals from the till. And stealing is wrong when management steals from the employees. Stealing is always wrong.
Stealing is wrong when you hire people to do it on your behalf too. Hiring a person to shave time cards is wrong, even if you don't do it yourself.
BTW: Hiring a government official to steal for you is also wrong. Even if you call it a tax and even if the person being taken from is rich.
Um, that would be insightful if that amendment applied to the federal government and not the state government.
Since we're talking about a federal government policy and the 14th amendment only binds state governments, it's a non sequitur.
Did you know that convicted rapists are generally required to wear clothes in public and so are foreign tourists? I'm outraged!
Yeah. Really your least experienced, least traveled guys are going to be the most effective terrorist operatives. No chance they'll make a mistake and get caught, since it's their first time doing anything or even leaving their home town.
But would it be an up-mod or a down-mod?
You also "hand them over" every time you touch a shiny surface. But I guess they're private.....?
Yeah, business decisions aren't about money or anything. They're all about body language and subtle mannerisms.
That's why completely whimsical, flighty, artist-types make up the top management of most of the worlds largest corporations.