They already tax gasoline. So start from that number, say why it's not enough, and why it should be increased.
It may be a fine policy. But it's like when people talk about "tax cuts for the rich" (I'm not saying you say this, it's just an analogy). First you have to make the argument that taxes on the rich are too low (or just right), or the statement is meaningless.
No, it's more like injecting blood into a rock, and calling it a "blood rebate".
If 95% of people are getting a "tax break", that means a lot of people that don't pay any taxes at all are getting a "tax break". And that's not really a tax break at all.
On the first page of your own reference, you see that the number of us corporations with no tax liability is only 20-30% for large corporations.
That means that a few of the big corporations end up paying no taxes, likely because they don't make money that year. Corporations have up years and down years, so it makes sense that 1/5th of the time they don't make money (on average).
And what's a "Large Corporation"? Anyone with $50M+ in gross receipts. If you have a company that makes less than that (in gross receipts -- not profit), then the biggest it can really be is a small office with a small staff. That's the biggest of these small companies that make up the rest of your 70% number.
And you'd have us believe that these corporations have rich CEOs and teams of lobbyists.
Most of it is wrapped up in corporate tax credits or in under-valued water, mining, forestry, radio-frequency, grazing and other leases that convert public property into private profits.
All of those, put together, don't add up to anywhere near the outlays for Social Security.
Social Security makes up over 20% of total federal outlays. The federal government spends more on SS than the entire DoD -- during wartime.
And the federal medical spending is on a trajectory to exceed SS.
So a libertarian shoots trespassers on his first land and asks questions later, whereas a liberal checks if they are lost...
You are confusing political philosophies with personal choices, a common fallacy. A libertarian might not own a gun at all, but may feel that a government policy banning gun ownership is unjust and/or unwise.
Similarly, supporting marijuana legalization doesn't imply that one is a user of that particular substance, but may feel that the policy is unjust and/or unwise.
Similar to how high tech automatic transmissions can out perform even the best drivers now a days.
I wouldn't be surprised if an automatic transmission of some kind could outperform a manual in a straight line, with static conditions.
However, in an automatic, you really have no idea when your tires will have torque and when they won't. That's bad if you are entering a turn or doing something else that you know about, but your car doesn't.
Try this in an automatic: go in a straight line at around 60, brake hard, make a sharp right turn, and try to accelerate out of the turn. It's really a challenge to get the torque to arrive to the wheels at the apex of the turn unless you're driving a manual transmission.
When using an automatically-controlled "manual" transmission (like, e.g., the sequential manual gearbox on an M3, which is automatically controlled, but has no torque converter), you can control it much better -- but only if you're in the sport mode. And even then, when I test drove that car, something felt a little off about the timing, although perhaps I was just unaccustomed to it.
However, this doesn't detract from your point at all.
Once I got some tires that were a slightly smaller outside diameter. Everything was fine, 'til I got on the freeway.
My traction control decided that my tires must be slipping, and decided to apply the breaks or cut power or something. Now I'm going 35 on the freeway. I'm glad I knew how to turn the traction control off.
Also, in general, the traction control on my car isn't great. If I'm not paying much attention, and I'm driving in the rain, it's probably safer to have it on. However, in general, I have much better control when the traction control is off.
If it feels wrong, if it feels like it won't work for you, don't do it.
I see nothing wrong with seeking the counsel of others. Indeed, I would consider it against my moral compass to disregard the moral opinions of my family and peers.
The original poster didn't say what kind of job he was looking for, so we have to assume it's a developer position based on his CE degree and his personal projects.
In that case, I wouldn't stress anything about his current job, because it's nearly irrelevant.
In fact, maybe that's his problem. Maybe he spends too much time talking about his tech support job, and no time talking about his outside projects.
Why even put the tech support job on his resume? Your resume is supposed to list things you want to talk about, and an interviewer will naturally move the conversation towards your last job if you put it there. But that's not what he wants to talk about at all! He wants to talk about why he chose obscure language XYZ for his last project, or some interesting book he read.
If I were interviewing someone, and they tried to make their low-level tech support job sound like it would help him be a programmer somehow, I would get a negative impression. However, if they realized they were wasting their time during their day job, and spent their evenings working on stuff they found more interesting, I would see that as a positive.
Maybe they should drop out, and allow us to spend taxpayer resources on students who actually want to learn. If they later decide they do want to learn, they can always come back, and always make up the material.
2) Lets kids who realize they were slacking off get it together.
And reduces the consequences of slacking off in the first place, because they know that they can always just put in a "good effort" later and everyone will just pass them along through the education system. Meanwhile, they're wasting valuable resources -- not just money, but teachers' time that could be spent attending to other children.
3) It's HS. An opportunity to learn from mistakes and still pass is a good thing.
Maybe they would learn more from their mistakes if they had to make up all of the material, rather than being rewarded free points. The only lesson here is that mistakes have no consequences. If they realized that slacking off now meant more work later, maybe they'd think twice.
4) This will not allow for 'skating' in any realistic manner
What about an A or B student? Might as well stay out all night partying, because missing a few assignments won't hurt their grade as much any more.
5) When averaged out over a number of test, someone who isn't trying will still fail.
Maybe.
5[6]) Teaching kids how to get back after a slip is a great way to prepare them for the real world.
The way to "get back after a slip" is to correct the behavior and make up the work. If you're a contractor tiling a floor, and halfway through your customer points out that tile pattern doesn't match up, then you redo it, and you don't get to charge extra for it. It was a mistake, and nobody's mad about it, but you have to fix it by making up the work. Nobody will say "well, on the second half of the floor, do it right".
If you were in a class and had gotten 10% or something ridiculous like that, then you got your life together, decided to start trying in school and catching up, how would it be to be unable to pass the class because you'd average less than 60%?
Hey, these are public schools. Aren't we all investors in these children? I say we demand a return on our investment, like any good investor would. If someone is given an opportunity (the average per-student spending is around $7-14K per year, depending on the state), and they just totally reject it, perhaps our resources are best used elsewhere until they really decide they want to learn.
Rather than pushing failed children through the system year after year, how about we get rid of them, and when they want to come back, we hand them a couple books and say "tell us when you're ready to pass a test on this material, and we'll resume your education".
If they just do poorly for a semester then they can still catch up, of course. But not by getting free points, they should catch up by making up all the material.
And some of the stuff you're saying just makes no sense. "Is it possible to get an A? No. B? No." Yes, it is, because individual assignments bottom out at 50%. That means, if you are an A or a B student, you can blow off a few assignments without it really hurting your grade much.
Sounds a whole lot like government-attached work to me.
Maybe it was for her personal political career (as opposed to official state business), and maybe there are laws preventing her from using state resources to conduct her political career.
That sounds pretty likely to me, given that "ethics issues" are often unrelated to official business, and often related to a personal political career.
Firearm rights? That's a significant issue in the presidential election? There is no threat of guns being taken away.
Of course there's a threat. There are already laws that take guns from people, in some cases for misdemeanor crimes.
There are also laws on the books that prevent having a functional firearm in the home. If someone gets caught violating such an law, no doubt their guns will be taken and they will never be able to legally own guns again.
Palin has no legitimate stance on any real issues.
Just because you don't agree with her position on an issue doesn't make the issue itself any less legitimate, nor does it mean that her candidacy did not emphasize the issue.
Re:Can we try to be a little more precise here?
on
Palin Email Hacker Found
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Logically the two are completely unrelated.
I agree completely. However, I never said she wasn't guilty of some impropriety, nor that being intruded upon is an excuse.
and that the violations uncovered evidence of impropriety on her part
As I understand it, there are laws preventing politicians from using public networks to advance their own political careers, and therefore must conduct their personal political business using their own resources.
So, what makes you so sure that she was conducting official state business with the yahoo account, and not just advancing her own political career?
I'd say it's relationship would be described as "identity"
Someone violating a law on the books is very different from someone violating a law that you wish was on the books.
And some abstract Republican supporting a law that is unconstitutional is very different from Palin specifically supporting such a law.
Republicons can violate any constitutional protections they wish on their own say-so, but pry just a little into one of their lives and suddenly they're the champions of liberty.
I am consistently a champion of liberty and the Constitution, so you have not made the case that I am a hypocrite.
I would support the immediate end of all wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant. I believe it is unconstitutional to allow it.
By being a hypocrite, you do a lot of damage to the cause for liberty.
Do you think that the same people who want to spy on you with wiretaps will suddenly change their tune because someone, somewhere, hacked the yahoo email account of one of their political allies? I think it's much more likely that the privacy invasions just escalate until we have no more.
every member of her staff -- independently, with no guidance or direction from their boss
Maybe they were advised by lawyers not to respond. And that's perfectly believable if that's the legally wise thing to do.
If you become aware that your subordinates are doing something illegal
So she's supposed to hand out legal advice about the nuances of some legal proceedings? If they are following competent legal advice, and you don't know that they are guilty of any serious crime, I think a "wait and see" attitude is perfectly appropriate.
She said she would cooperate with the investigation.
I would see a problem with this if she changed her mind after the election, but I don't see a problem with volunteering to participate, and then declining later.
Not that cooperation with a legislative investigation is voluntary to begin with.
What exactly was she required by law to do, and then did not do? Clearly some aspects of participation are voluntary (for instance, testifying against herself is voluntary).
No surprise here. Why would she voluntarily subject herself to that kind of distraction during a presidential race?
Palin's staff is ignoring supoenas
But is Palin telling them to, or are they just ignoring them? The post to which I replied said specifically that she directed them to ignore the subpoenas.
Funny, I clicked on every word in your post, and none of them were links to this damning evidence you keep talking about.
The most I've heard is that a few emails might have been marked "CONFIDENTIAL", but nothing explaining whether those emails are official government business or something related to her personal political career.
Palin was using her personal account for government work, which is illegal.
Reference, please. Be specific: what kinds of email are required under the law to send using a government account, and what did a specific email contain that fell under that requirement?
And she's telling her staff to ignore subpoenas about whether she campaigned with state resources.
Palin wants to continue the policies of the current White House administration where everyones privacy can be violated by the White House without any consequences even though it breakes federal law.
Even if that's true, it's unrelated to the matter at hand. It's illegal for government to read your email without a warrant, and illegal for private citizens to do so without your permission.
It's hypocritical of you to stand for privacy rights when it suits your needs, but then act as an apologist for people who violate the privacy laws already on the books.
used a non-governmental email account to hide how she uses the powers given her by her office.
I still have seen no evidence that she used the Yahoo account for the specific purpose of hiding communications.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama has already added a stipulation that you cannot simply get a rebate if you do not have a paycheck.
But you can get a rebate if you get a paycheck, and don't pay federal income taxes.
How is this not welfare?
They already tax gasoline. So start from that number, say why it's not enough, and why it should be increased.
It may be a fine policy. But it's like when people talk about "tax cuts for the rich" (I'm not saying you say this, it's just an analogy). First you have to make the argument that taxes on the rich are too low (or just right), or the statement is meaningless.
It's like getting blood out of a rock.
No, it's more like injecting blood into a rock, and calling it a "blood rebate".
If 95% of people are getting a "tax break", that means a lot of people that don't pay any taxes at all are getting a "tax break". And that's not really a tax break at all.
On the first page of your own reference, you see that the number of us corporations with no tax liability is only 20-30% for large corporations.
That means that a few of the big corporations end up paying no taxes, likely because they don't make money that year. Corporations have up years and down years, so it makes sense that 1/5th of the time they don't make money (on average).
And what's a "Large Corporation"? Anyone with $50M+ in gross receipts. If you have a company that makes less than that (in gross receipts -- not profit), then the biggest it can really be is a small office with a small staff. That's the biggest of these small companies that make up the rest of your 70% number.
And you'd have us believe that these corporations have rich CEOs and teams of lobbyists.
Most of it is wrapped up in corporate tax credits or in under-valued water, mining, forestry, radio-frequency, grazing and other leases that convert public property into private profits.
All of those, put together, don't add up to anywhere near the outlays for Social Security.
Social Security makes up over 20% of total federal outlays. The federal government spends more on SS than the entire DoD -- during wartime.
And the federal medical spending is on a trajectory to exceed SS.
This is the first link I found, although I originally got these numbers straight from the government:
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461544509/u_s_federal_receipts_and_outlays.html
So a libertarian shoots trespassers on his first land and asks questions later, whereas a liberal checks if they are lost...
You are confusing political philosophies with personal choices, a common fallacy. A libertarian might not own a gun at all, but may feel that a government policy banning gun ownership is unjust and/or unwise.
Similarly, supporting marijuana legalization doesn't imply that one is a user of that particular substance, but may feel that the policy is unjust and/or unwise.
Similar to how high tech automatic transmissions can out perform even the best drivers now a days.
I wouldn't be surprised if an automatic transmission of some kind could outperform a manual in a straight line, with static conditions.
However, in an automatic, you really have no idea when your tires will have torque and when they won't. That's bad if you are entering a turn or doing something else that you know about, but your car doesn't.
Try this in an automatic: go in a straight line at around 60, brake hard, make a sharp right turn, and try to accelerate out of the turn. It's really a challenge to get the torque to arrive to the wheels at the apex of the turn unless you're driving a manual transmission.
When using an automatically-controlled "manual" transmission (like, e.g., the sequential manual gearbox on an M3, which is automatically controlled, but has no torque converter), you can control it much better -- but only if you're in the sport mode. And even then, when I test drove that car, something felt a little off about the timing, although perhaps I was just unaccustomed to it.
However, this doesn't detract from your point at all.
Once I got some tires that were a slightly smaller outside diameter. Everything was fine, 'til I got on the freeway.
My traction control decided that my tires must be slipping, and decided to apply the breaks or cut power or something. Now I'm going 35 on the freeway. I'm glad I knew how to turn the traction control off.
Also, in general, the traction control on my car isn't great. If I'm not paying much attention, and I'm driving in the rain, it's probably safer to have it on. However, in general, I have much better control when the traction control is off.
If it feels wrong, if it feels like it won't work for you, don't do it.
I see nothing wrong with seeking the counsel of others. Indeed, I would consider it against my moral compass to disregard the moral opinions of my family and peers.
The original poster didn't say what kind of job he was looking for, so we have to assume it's a developer position based on his CE degree and his personal projects.
In that case, I wouldn't stress anything about his current job, because it's nearly irrelevant.
In fact, maybe that's his problem. Maybe he spends too much time talking about his tech support job, and no time talking about his outside projects.
Why even put the tech support job on his resume? Your resume is supposed to list things you want to talk about, and an interviewer will naturally move the conversation towards your last job if you put it there. But that's not what he wants to talk about at all! He wants to talk about why he chose obscure language XYZ for his last project, or some interesting book he read.
If I were interviewing someone, and they tried to make their low-level tech support job sound like it would help him be a programmer somehow, I would get a negative impression. However, if they realized they were wasting their time during their day job, and spent their evenings working on stuff they found more interesting, I would see that as a positive.
First female IBM Fellow and first woman to win the Turing Award, yet no one seems to have mentioned her. I think she qualifies!
Your description suggests that she's famous for being a woman programmer, not famous for being a programmer.
You should focus on her accomplishments, like her work with optimizing compilers.
1) Helps prevent drop outs.
Maybe they should drop out, and allow us to spend taxpayer resources on students who actually want to learn. If they later decide they do want to learn, they can always come back, and always make up the material.
2) Lets kids who realize they were slacking off get it together.
And reduces the consequences of slacking off in the first place, because they know that they can always just put in a "good effort" later and everyone will just pass them along through the education system. Meanwhile, they're wasting valuable resources -- not just money, but teachers' time that could be spent attending to other children.
3) It's HS. An opportunity to learn from mistakes and still pass is a good thing.
Maybe they would learn more from their mistakes if they had to make up all of the material, rather than being rewarded free points. The only lesson here is that mistakes have no consequences. If they realized that slacking off now meant more work later, maybe they'd think twice.
4) This will not allow for 'skating' in any realistic manner
What about an A or B student? Might as well stay out all night partying, because missing a few assignments won't hurt their grade as much any more.
5) When averaged out over a number of test, someone who isn't trying will still fail.
Maybe.
5[6]) Teaching kids how to get back after a slip is a great way to prepare them for the real world.
The way to "get back after a slip" is to correct the behavior and make up the work. If you're a contractor tiling a floor, and halfway through your customer points out that tile pattern doesn't match up, then you redo it, and you don't get to charge extra for it. It was a mistake, and nobody's mad about it, but you have to fix it by making up the work. Nobody will say "well, on the second half of the floor, do it right".
If you were in a class and had gotten 10% or something ridiculous like that, then you got your life together, decided to start trying in school and catching up, how would it be to be unable to pass the class because you'd average less than 60%?
Hey, these are public schools. Aren't we all investors in these children? I say we demand a return on our investment, like any good investor would. If someone is given an opportunity (the average per-student spending is around $7-14K per year, depending on the state), and they just totally reject it, perhaps our resources are best used elsewhere until they really decide they want to learn.
Rather than pushing failed children through the system year after year, how about we get rid of them, and when they want to come back, we hand them a couple books and say "tell us when you're ready to pass a test on this material, and we'll resume your education".
If they just do poorly for a semester then they can still catch up, of course. But not by getting free points, they should catch up by making up all the material.
And some of the stuff you're saying just makes no sense. "Is it possible to get an A? No. B? No." Yes, it is, because individual assignments bottom out at 50%. That means, if you are an A or a B student, you can blow off a few assignments without it really hurting your grade much.
Sounds a whole lot like government-attached work to me.
Maybe it was for her personal political career (as opposed to official state business), and maybe there are laws preventing her from using state resources to conduct her political career.
That sounds pretty likely to me, given that "ethics issues" are often unrelated to official business, and often related to a personal political career.
Firearm rights? That's a significant issue in the presidential election? There is no threat of guns being taken away.
Of course there's a threat. There are already laws that take guns from people, in some cases for misdemeanor crimes.
There are also laws on the books that prevent having a functional firearm in the home. If someone gets caught violating such an law, no doubt their guns will be taken and they will never be able to legally own guns again.
Palin has no legitimate stance on any real issues.
Just because you don't agree with her position on an issue doesn't make the issue itself any less legitimate, nor does it mean that her candidacy did not emphasize the issue.
Logically the two are completely unrelated.
I agree completely. However, I never said she wasn't guilty of some impropriety, nor that being intruded upon is an excuse.
and that the violations uncovered evidence of impropriety on her part
As I understand it, there are laws preventing politicians from using public networks to advance their own political careers, and therefore must conduct their personal political business using their own resources.
So, what makes you so sure that she was conducting official state business with the yahoo account, and not just advancing her own political career?
I'd say it's relationship would be described as "identity"
Someone violating a law on the books is very different from someone violating a law that you wish was on the books.
And some abstract Republican supporting a law that is unconstitutional is very different from Palin specifically supporting such a law.
Republicons can violate any constitutional protections they wish on their own say-so, but pry just a little into one of their lives and suddenly they're the champions of liberty.
I am consistently a champion of liberty and the Constitution, so you have not made the case that I am a hypocrite.
I would support the immediate end of all wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant. I believe it is unconstitutional to allow it.
By being a hypocrite, you do a lot of damage to the cause for liberty.
Do you think that the same people who want to spy on you with wiretaps will suddenly change their tune because someone, somewhere, hacked the yahoo email account of one of their political allies? I think it's much more likely that the privacy invasions just escalate until we have no more.
every member of her staff -- independently, with no guidance or direction from their boss
Maybe they were advised by lawyers not to respond. And that's perfectly believable if that's the legally wise thing to do.
If you become aware that your subordinates are doing something illegal
So she's supposed to hand out legal advice about the nuances of some legal proceedings? If they are following competent legal advice, and you don't know that they are guilty of any serious crime, I think a "wait and see" attitude is perfectly appropriate.
She said she would cooperate with the investigation.
I would see a problem with this if she changed her mind after the election, but I don't see a problem with volunteering to participate, and then declining later.
Not that cooperation with a legislative investigation is voluntary to begin with.
What exactly was she required by law to do, and then did not do? Clearly some aspects of participation are voluntary (for instance, testifying against herself is voluntary).
declined to participate in the investigation
No surprise here. Why would she voluntarily subject herself to that kind of distraction during a presidential race?
Palin's staff is ignoring supoenas
But is Palin telling them to, or are they just ignoring them? The post to which I replied said specifically that she directed them to ignore the subpoenas.
And just what issues have been discussed since she was announced the VP candidate?
Palin has, through her actions or words, emphasized the following issues:
1. Abortion
2. Religion in public schools
3. Firearm rights
4. The role of the US government at home
5. The role of the US government in other nations
I disagree with Palin on some of these issues, but they are all legitimate issues.
She's doing it this way exactly for the reason that she can do so without leaving a trail.
So the evidence against her is that there's no evidence against her? Wow.
Whether or not we can legally prove what she did, I think there is MORE than enough proof to convince myself that she did wrong.
I didn't ask for legal proof... just some kind of evidence.
Funny, I clicked on every word in your post, and none of them were links to this damning evidence you keep talking about.
The most I've heard is that a few emails might have been marked "CONFIDENTIAL", but nothing explaining whether those emails are official government business or something related to her personal political career.
Palin was using her personal account for government work, which is illegal.
Reference, please. Be specific: what kinds of email are required under the law to send using a government account, and what did a specific email contain that fell under that requirement?
And she's telling her staff to ignore subpoenas about whether she campaigned with state resources.
Reference, please.
Palin wants to continue the policies of the current White House administration where everyones privacy can be violated by the White House without any consequences even though it breakes federal law.
Even if that's true, it's unrelated to the matter at hand. It's illegal for government to read your email without a warrant, and illegal for private citizens to do so without your permission.
It's hypocritical of you to stand for privacy rights when it suits your needs, but then act as an apologist for people who violate the privacy laws already on the books.
used a non-governmental email account to hide how she uses the powers given her by her office.
I still have seen no evidence that she used the Yahoo account for the specific purpose of hiding communications.