A government needs to treat its citizens equally. It either gives tax breaks for couples or it doesn't, but only giving them to heterosexual couples is unfair.
Unfortunately, a government doesn't "need" to do anything as long as its sheeple "citizens" are willing to put up with it.
Sure, that filthy hippy Jesus waffled some peacenik tree hugging propaganda...
Actually, Jesus was a tree killer, not a tree huger.
Matthew 21:18: Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
Just sayin
Sheesh, that Jesus. What a petty, vindictive jackass. Who'd base their whole belief system around such a jerkoff?
Why is it okay to discriminate against people in such an expensive way? That's like taxing tampons or pads because they know that 50% of people need them. It conflicts with the Christian moral agenda in the first place in so many ways...
“The government of the United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion.” — (First) Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
I don't think you know what the difference between a debt and deficit is. A debt is caused by a deficit. There's a deficit that's 90% of the country's GDP. That means that the government spends our GDP plus 90% of it again, on shit.
Um, you have debt and deficit confused. It is the US gross debt that is getting close to 90% of GDP, not the annual deficit which is projected to be a "mere" trillion-plus for 2010.
Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.
Yes, but which taxpayers will benefit: Afghani or USA ones ?
The wealth should be for the Afghanis, not the western powers who will now try to put in ''development teams'' -- who, in reality, will try to get as much of the profits into western coffers.
Really? Are the Afghanis capable of developing the mines, processing the ore, selling it, shipping it, etc.? All that metal isn't worth anything to anyone until it is available on the market as ingots or whatever - and who's going to make that happen?
You're missing about 3 zeros off your cold war bombs. Those bombs were in the 25 Megatonne range.
There were weapons that powerful (actually the largest one ever lit off, the "Tsar Bomba", was over 50 MT), but the typical warheads (MIRV on a Minuteman or Trident for example) were in the 100-500 kT range.
I had a quick look at the Verizon FiOS site. 50Mb/20Mb was the fastest residential line they offer. For business customers, they offer a 35Mb/35Mb account if (for those serving or uploading), or the 50Mb/20Mb which would be more targeted towards offices who are downloading more than uploading.
OptimumOnline (Cablevision) offers 100Mb/s down and 15 Mb/s up, FWIW.
Name one food that the US manages to do better than the UK in. Just one.
Never been to Peter Luger, I take it?
There may be a few countries in the world that can do a rich, juicy, thick, dry-aged porterhouse like the US, but none of those countries are in Europe.
They use the government to ensure they actually own the 1,000 acres in the first place. Is a recognition of the exclusive use of land not a service that should be paid for?
Yes, it is, at least IMO. But a corporation doesn't need to own 1000 acres of land, at least not here in the US. All it needs here is a PO box in Delaware; the 1000 acres (and the people who work in the buildings on that land) can be in Malaysia.
I think we either need to abolish individual income taxes or corporate income taxes.
We can do better than that. If we abolish all taxes on earnings, and move entirely to consumption-based taxation, we'll reverse a lot of bad habits (like our negative rate of savings, for one example).
I agree with you (plus the idea of being punished by the government for being successful just irks me to no end) but the economic consequences might not be all rosy; e.g. taxing consumption would probably have the effect of reducing consumption and thus GDP, and thus industrial output, and thus corporate profits, which could lead to reduced salaries and unemployment. Or, it might not discourage consumption - just move it offshore, the way the current tax structure tends to move income offshore. People might buy vacation condos in Bermuda instead of Florida, etc.
Clever. Are you extending that argument so far as to say that without that "support" that those states would be in just as bad a position per capita were they left to fend for themselves? I would be very impressed to see anything that meaningfully connects your premise to your conclusion.
I guess that would depend on what you mean by "bad". All I'm saying is that, if red-staters are all about small government and taxation with representation and all, then they should practice what they preach and stop siphoning off Federal money that's being provided by the taxes paid by us blue-staters, and let us keep the money instead.
84.5% of Nevada and 69.1% of Alaska are "owned" by the Federal Government. They damn well better be getting more money from the Feds than they are paying out.
Other "red" states, like Texas, are also on the net-receiving end of Federal "wealth redistribution". I always think it's funny to hear red-staters yell about taxes and statism, while it's us "socialists" in NY, CA, MA, etc. that make the money to pay the Federal taxes to finance their "free, small-government" lifestyles. (Actually, no, it's not funny at all.)
Those "studies" must be BS, because nobody ever said "man I'll suck your dick" for a pack of sugar.
If you could buy cocaine for a couple of bucks a pound like sugar, no one would fellate anyone for coke either.
Addiction doesn't necessarily have anything to do with price or scarcity. Addiction is when you can't stop yourself from doing something in spite of the negative effects (like, in the case of sugar, weight gain, hypertension, diabetes etc.)
You mean, places that generally receive more Federal money than they pay? (As opposed to places like New York that pay more in Federal taxes than they get back?) Your recipe for "freedom" is to be a ward of the Federal government?
China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.
- so you think that China has a bubble economy then?
It's a currency bubble; the Chinese government is keeping the yuan artificially low vs. the dollar. Plus they're building bogus empty cities in the desert to prop up their GDP.
Most of South America, Africa, and Australasia (with the obvious exception of Australia itself on the coasts) would not have been hit at all, in all likelihood.
Well, at the very least, we know Buenos Aires will get it big-time...
Slashdot Mirror
A government needs to treat its citizens equally. It either gives tax breaks for couples or it doesn't, but only giving them to heterosexual couples is unfair.
Unfortunately, a government doesn't "need" to do anything as long as its sheeple "citizens" are willing to put up with it.
Sure, that filthy hippy Jesus waffled some peacenik tree hugging propaganda...
Actually, Jesus was a tree killer, not a tree huger.
Matthew 21:18: Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
Just sayin
Sheesh, that Jesus. What a petty, vindictive jackass. Who'd base their whole belief system around such a jerkoff?
Of course, you don't get married to get a tax break.
You have kids to get a tax break.
Meh. Buying a house is an even better deal (unless you have a few kids).
Why is it okay to discriminate against people in such an expensive way? That's like taxing tampons or pads because they know that 50% of people need them. It conflicts with the Christian moral agenda in the first place in so many ways...
“The government of the United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion.” — (First) Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
I take it, then, that you do not support the idea of a professional, volunteer, standing army?
National debt stands at almost 90% of GDP.
I don't think you know what the difference between a debt and deficit is. A debt is caused by a deficit. There's a deficit that's 90% of the country's GDP. That means that the government spends our GDP plus 90% of it again, on shit.
Um, you have debt and deficit confused. It is the US gross debt that is getting close to 90% of GDP, not the annual deficit which is projected to be a "mere" trillion-plus for 2010.
Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.
Yes, but which taxpayers will benefit: Afghani or USA ones ?
The wealth should be for the Afghanis, not the western powers who will now try to put in ''development teams'' -- who, in reality, will try to get as much of the profits into western coffers.
Really? Are the Afghanis capable of developing the mines, processing the ore, selling it, shipping it, etc.? All that metal isn't worth anything to anyone until it is available on the market as ingots or whatever - and who's going to make that happen?
You're missing about 3 zeros off your cold war bombs. Those bombs were in the 25 Megatonne range.
There were weapons that powerful (actually the largest one ever lit off, the "Tsar Bomba", was over 50 MT), but the typical warheads (MIRV on a Minuteman or Trident for example) were in the 100-500 kT range.
I had a quick look at the Verizon FiOS site. 50Mb/20Mb was the fastest residential line they offer. For business customers, they offer a 35Mb/35Mb account if (for those serving or uploading), or the 50Mb/20Mb which would be more targeted towards offices who are downloading more than uploading.
OptimumOnline (Cablevision) offers 100Mb/s down and 15 Mb/s up, FWIW.
Name one food that the US manages to do better than the UK in. Just one.
Never been to Peter Luger, I take it?
There may be a few countries in the world that can do a rich, juicy, thick, dry-aged porterhouse like the US, but none of those countries are in Europe.
In Soviet Russia the government decides how many atoms to make
And they always get it wrong. Always too much carbon and nitrogen, never enough gold and platinum. Stupid commies...
Yes, obviously we should just tax poor unsuccessful people.
Yes, because those are obviously the only two choices.
How is it justified that I should pay for a road if I take my car out once a month?
How is it justified that I should have to pay for food if I only go to the supermarket once a month?
They use the government to ensure they actually own the 1,000 acres in the first place. Is a recognition of the exclusive use of land not a service that should be paid for?
Yes, it is, at least IMO. But a corporation doesn't need to own 1000 acres of land, at least not here in the US. All it needs here is a PO box in Delaware; the 1000 acres (and the people who work in the buildings on that land) can be in Malaysia.
I think we either need to abolish individual income taxes or corporate income taxes.
We can do better than that. If we abolish all taxes on earnings, and move entirely to consumption-based taxation, we'll reverse a lot of bad habits (like our negative rate of savings, for one example).
I agree with you (plus the idea of being punished by the government for being successful just irks me to no end) but the economic consequences might not be all rosy; e.g. taxing consumption would probably have the effect of reducing consumption and thus GDP, and thus industrial output, and thus corporate profits, which could lead to reduced salaries and unemployment. Or, it might not discourage consumption - just move it offshore, the way the current tax structure tends to move income offshore. People might buy vacation condos in Bermuda instead of Florida, etc.
Clever. Are you extending that argument so far as to say that without that "support" that those states would be in just as bad a position per capita were they left to fend for themselves? I would be very impressed to see anything that meaningfully connects your premise to your conclusion.
I guess that would depend on what you mean by "bad". All I'm saying is that, if red-staters are all about small government and taxation with representation and all, then they should practice what they preach and stop siphoning off Federal money that's being provided by the taxes paid by us blue-staters, and let us keep the money instead.
So why not go with Menkin on this one and give them what they want good and hard. Why not just laugh at them and graciously take your own money back?
Um, because I don't personally control the Federal government?
84.5% of Nevada and 69.1% of Alaska are "owned" by the Federal Government. They damn well better be getting more money from the Feds than they are paying out.
Other "red" states, like Texas, are also on the net-receiving end of Federal "wealth redistribution". I always think it's funny to hear red-staters yell about taxes and statism, while it's us "socialists" in NY, CA, MA, etc. that make the money to pay the Federal taxes to finance their "free, small-government" lifestyles. (Actually, no, it's not funny at all.)
Those "studies" must be BS, because nobody ever said "man I'll suck your dick" for a pack of sugar.
If you could buy cocaine for a couple of bucks a pound like sugar, no one would fellate anyone for coke either.
Addiction doesn't necessarily have anything to do with price or scarcity. Addiction is when you can't stop yourself from doing something in spite of the negative effects (like, in the case of sugar, weight gain, hypertension, diabetes etc.)
Alaska? Nevada? Montana?
You mean, places that generally receive more Federal money than they pay? (As opposed to places like New York that pay more in Federal taxes than they get back?) Your recipe for "freedom" is to be a ward of the Federal government?
China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.
- so you think that China has a bubble economy then?
It's a currency bubble; the Chinese government is keeping the yuan artificially low vs. the dollar. Plus they're building bogus empty cities in the desert to prop up their GDP.
We could use the birds to build houses for the very poor...
Recall that China officially and overtly indoctrinates it's citizens to be pro-Chinese-government. It's like wondering why a Baptist is republican.
OK, but then pardon the naive question - if they love China so damn much, then why do they come here?
What's the other 1/4?
Horndog, apparently.
Most of South America, Africa, and Australasia (with the obvious exception of Australia itself on the coasts) would not have been hit at all, in all likelihood.
Well, at the very least, we know Buenos Aires will get it big-time...