Depending on the amount of time you've spent searching, could any of the early canidates have been trained by now by more experienced team members to fix #1? There definitely is a break-even point on the time-line, even considering the loss of productivity to the senior employee, and without factoring in the benefits gained by requiring that employee to teach -- you learn the most while you're teaching.
As far as #2, perhaps the team needs some instruction on learning to compromise and practicing a little personality diversity doesn't sound like it would hurt much either.
Perhaps two of the less-experienced canidates at lower pay scales with a requirement that the team teach them what they want them to know that are as close as possible to the team's working style while still changing up the political rules a bit would be more wise than trying to find the one singular "perfect" canidate?
Send in your pro-Republican articles. So far, Bush hasn't acted on any of his campaign promises other than to give a tax refund as Taxable Income, making it virtually worthless. Republicans seem just as blinded by his spinsters as the undecided voters.
Works both ways. In close elections it makes Colorado's popular vote very important. In the last election if Colorado had done this, the population here was split just about 50/50, and Gore would have won.
In elections that are not close already, it marginalizes Colorado's votes, yes.
So in general, it would give Colorado a lot of power in close elections it otherwise wouldn't have, making for a very interesting situation.
If a loaf of bread costs $1, and I make $10, it cost me 1/10th of my salary.
If a rich person makes $100, it costs him/here 1/100th of their salary.
Most taxes are not progressive relative to the income of the person. They're fixed in relation to the cost of the product being purchased.
Add another twist: Corporations pay taxes after expenses, people pay taxes before expenses.
If a super-rich person owns an asset that worth $1000 that makes him %1 annually, and the corporation is allowed to buy him bread as a "business expense", he gets a free loaf of bread and neither he nor the corporation pay any taxes at all on the "new" money that was created that paid for that loaf of bread he got as a benefit of simply owning a well-managed asset.
The super-rich pay very little in taxes. Their wealth is tied to assets that a corporation owns. A corporation pays taxes on profit AFTER expenses, people pay taxes before expenses.
The super-wealthy do not pay taxes if they've structured their corporations correctly. The corporation purchases cars and homes for the owner as business expenses, pre-tax, if everything is structured correctly. The owner can then take a very small salary (relatively) and pay virtually no taxes on that amount.
Corporations are taxpayers too, and pay taxes after expenses, while people pay taxes before expenses. Well-run corporations expend most of their gross income on expenses, thus lowering their taxes owed drastically.
Most personal fortunes are not owned directly the the fortunemaker. They're assets owned by a Corporation that pays taxes AFTER expenses. Individuals pay taxes before expenses.
This is one of the most commonly overlooked portions of our economic system. The rich own corporations, and have them structured to spend as much money as possible in expenses to lower the corporation's taxes. The super-rich only have their corporations pay them minimal salaries relative to the amount of assets owned by the corporation, and have the corporation purchase them things like cars and houses as expenses of the corporation -- before taxes.
Bush promised in the last election that he would change the tax structure in the U.S. and has not accomplished it with both a Republican House and Senate, thus leading me to believe he and the Republican Party are lying about wishing to do so. The main system of protecting corporations from paying taxes on anything other than profits is already in place, and businesspeople donating via special interest groups certainly want to keep it that way, and get further breaks on taxes on corporate profit too.
Corporations are taxpayers too, as well as legal entities that act as people in the legislative system. We're only lucky that they're not given votes, this being one of the only things from handing over full rights of "Citizenship" to Corporate "Citizens". (Man I'm sick of hearing that phrase, but it's ALMOST accurate.)
Not true. Smaller states get two Senators, and less Congresspeople. Thus giving smaller states a larger per capita say in things at the Senate level than their larger neighbors.
GWB has passed no legislation domestically to follow-through on his campaign promises of the last election, and is repeating those same promises this election. Listen to the "If elected, I will..." statements in his RNC speech.
He's had the luxury of a Republican House and Senate and yet has done NONE of what he promised and is repeating those promises. That's enough for me to say... NEXT!
What exactly *is* Bush doing? I hear the same promises in his Domestic policy in his campaign speeches as the last time around, and he's had the luxury of a Republican House and Senate for four years.
Methinks many Republicans are being distracted by Bush's spin people, just as much as they spin to try to win over swing voters with half-truths.
As a registered Republican, I see four years of non-execution of his promises. Call it because he's too busy fighting the "War on Terror", or call it him and the Party not truly wishing to actually DO any of those things, but either way, he's ineffective on his campaign promises. Mainly on taxes.
His "Largest Tax Refund in History" was given to us as Taxable Income with it's own line-item on next year's tax forms, thus lower it's effectiveness by approximately 40% or more after it's been put back into the economy, and his promise to reduce the tax code loopholes and laws dramatically is just a farce.
His job creation numbers are abominable, as lower than every other President since Hoover and only slightly lower than his father's (yes, the Bush's hold the record for least jobs created EVER in the country's history during their terms), and this during a period when a so-called Conservative hired the most Federal employees EVER hired... yeah, that'll be free to the taxpayers and we'll have refunds for that too, right? Sure.
Let's not even mention the record-setting Deficit.
10 Nobel-prize winning Economists endorse Kerry. I figure that's enough for me to tell "All Hat, No Cattle" GWB to take a hike.
Note: On the world stage, many view the entire U.S. system as skewed to the Right.
One example, politicalcompass.com puts Kerry nearly center on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian, with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
A differnt type of world leader, such as Ghandi and Nelson Mandella fall left and libertarian.
In that light, Kerry's the more "centered" to the world, which GWB is the radical. The far left in the Dems are probably quite a way over on the graph, but could be either authoritarian or libertarian depending on their views.
Of interesting note, virtually no world leaders fall in the Libertarian/Right quadrant - a rare person indeed.
My own home state of Colorado may be one of the first states to buck the system completely on this topic.
A recently announced item that may be voted on in the General Election which was put on the ballot by Referendum (another fairly progressive political tool) is that Colorado's Electoral votes may no longer be "all or nothing". The proposed change to the Colorado Constitution may require that the number of Electoral voters from each party may be required to follow the popular vote by percentage. 50/50 popular vote, means 50/50 Electoral nominations.
Lots of details to work out (we don't have an even number of Electoral votes currently, for example, so a 50/50 -- who gets the left-over vote, or is it just not cast at all?) means that it may not go through, but there's obviously enough local interest that it will probably make it to the ballot boxes soon.
Bring Edwards into it and we'd better talk about Cheney, then.
Let's start with his blackmail comment from yesterday threatening the public with more terrorism if they don't vote for Bush.
There's leadership for ya... threaten the public and give no reasonable solution for the problem. As well as no updates on the promise to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.
"Why do we have a media frenzy over the one and a media blackout over the other? Answer: 85% of employees in the news media are Democrats."
Sorry that may have been true many years ago, but I do believe it was CNN that caught Fox News correspondants and camera crew shouting "Four more years" at the Republican National Convention. "Fair and Balanced" my ass.
Actually Kennedy motivated people to make their own lives better, instead of claiming to be a Saint. Thus, people remember him fondly as the person who was their leader.
I would dearly love for either party to propose a candidate that is actually going to improve the quality of life for every US citizen -- without meddling in the lives of citizens of other countries.
Our best chance of that is finding a President who will fight the real war going on in the world, the Economic one. The one we're presently learning how to lose as a Nation to our own Corporations who have gone multinational and have no loyalty to their home country other than asking investors to pay for their overseas expansions.
10 Nobel Prize winning Economists endorse the Kerry campaign.
10 Texas Oilmen endorse the Bush campaign.
Which do you think stands the better chance in the real world?
Bush promises "if re-elected" he will reform Tax law in our country. But he's had four years with a Republican House and Senate and hasn't done so.
Bush claims he gave "the largest Tax cut in history" but I see that it was all given as Taxable Income, with its own line-item to add it back in to next year's taxes, therefore lowering its effectiveness by approximately 40% for most citizens. And Citizens without children, who are already taxed at a higher rate, were given a much smaller refund than their peers.
Corporations already have the largest tax benefit in the U.S. - they're taxed AFTER expenses. You and I aren't. The Republican Party doesn't care about giving the "Average American" a tax break at all, they care about protecting tax benefits the owners of the corporations that fund their campaigns already have.
Or they'd have already PASSED legislation to change it. They have the power to do it and have had for almost four years.
I keep wondering why Republican voters aren't asking why Republicans really aren't truely Conservative anymore. My best guess is that they already have the majority of the wealth in the country and are simply playing a protection game... keep the people thinking you're cutting taxes and lowering the size of government while twisting government to protect the sizeable assets already owned by Republicans.
That's about as un-American (to use their phrase they like to use) as it gets.
Of course, smart Republicans *or* Democrats who simply study the numbers just go about their business, enjoying the low risk of corporations and building their assets. While the world worries about "jobs" and people are happy to be employees of their Corporations.
GWB didn't serve. Either in Vietnam or in the Senate.
If Kerry's required to open his military and voting records for the public to browse through during this election, then let's be fair and open all of the financial books of Bush's companies, whether public or private since he left the ANG.
Kerry may have made mistakes for 30 years, but he made them in public. GWB's mistakes are hidden and he likes it that way.
As a pilot, I can say that I've NEVER met a single pilot, either military or civilian who would let his or her medical certificate lapse unless they were a) never going to fly again anytime soon, or b) unfit to pass a flight medical.
I let my flight medical lapse after I ran out of money for flying. Since that's not the case with a military man, I have to question - Why would a pilot in the Air National Guard let the most basic requirement for flight lapse unless he were simply not going to do the job?
He wasn't lazy - he willfully terminated the #1 requirement of the job.
Professional pilots today take out INSURANCE policies against losing their Flight Medicals. A missed medical grounds you instantly and immediately.
Kerry doesn't run on his 20 years in the senate- which would be most relevant- because he'll get nowhere on it. His votes on defense, on taxes, on many issues were consistently the type of positions that would play very poorly with at least half of america.
And well with the other half. And GWB wouldn't survive a single term in the Senate, now would he? Where's his 20 years of service to America? Oh yeah, running companies into the ground. Great man, there.
Kerry survived 20 years in the Senate because he knew when to compromise and when to be tough.
Bush, on the other hand, is running on his past four years as president, not on being in the ANG 30 years ago.
No he's not. Did you listen to his speech? "If you elect me I will..." He's running on promises he still hasn't delivered from his first campaign -- and he's had a Republican House and Senate. Therefore he's either lying about his goals, or completely ineffective at them. Take your pick.
And let's not forget that GWB took great pains to dress up in a flight suit and stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier, mocking the very job he did so poorly at 30 years ago. At best, he deserved a Dishonorable Discharge which would have tanked his first run for the Presidency before it even got started.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the amount of time you've spent searching, could any of the early canidates have been trained by now by more experienced team members to fix #1? There definitely is a break-even point on the time-line, even considering the loss of productivity to the senior employee, and without factoring in the benefits gained by requiring that employee to teach -- you learn the most while you're teaching.
As far as #2, perhaps the team needs some instruction on learning to compromise and practicing a little personality diversity doesn't sound like it would hurt much either.
Perhaps two of the less-experienced canidates at lower pay scales with a requirement that the team teach them what they want them to know that are as close as possible to the team's working style while still changing up the political rules a bit would be more wise than trying to find the one singular "perfect" canidate?
Send in your pro-Republican articles. So far, Bush hasn't acted on any of his campaign promises other than to give a tax refund as Taxable Income, making it virtually worthless. Republicans seem just as blinded by his spinsters as the undecided voters.
Works both ways. In close elections it makes Colorado's popular vote very important. In the last election if Colorado had done this, the population here was split just about 50/50, and Gore would have won.
In elections that are not close already, it marginalizes Colorado's votes, yes.
So in general, it would give Colorado a lot of power in close elections it otherwise wouldn't have, making for a very interesting situation.
Money loves money.
If the Democrats had run McCain and he hadn't switched sides, the result would have been a landslide victory. I wish they'd learn to play to win.
Yes, but progressively taxes are not equal.
If a loaf of bread costs $1, and I make $10, it cost me 1/10th of my salary.
If a rich person makes $100, it costs him/here 1/100th of their salary.
Most taxes are not progressive relative to the income of the person. They're fixed in relation to the cost of the product being purchased.
Add another twist: Corporations pay taxes after expenses, people pay taxes before expenses.
If a super-rich person owns an asset that worth $1000 that makes him %1 annually, and the corporation is allowed to buy him bread as a "business expense", he gets a free loaf of bread and neither he nor the corporation pay any taxes at all on the "new" money that was created that paid for that loaf of bread he got as a benefit of simply owning a well-managed asset.
The super-rich pay very little in taxes. Their wealth is tied to assets that a corporation owns. A corporation pays taxes on profit AFTER expenses, people pay taxes before expenses.
The super-wealthy do not pay taxes if they've structured their corporations correctly. The corporation purchases cars and homes for the owner as business expenses, pre-tax, if everything is structured correctly. The owner can then take a very small salary (relatively) and pay virtually no taxes on that amount.
Corporations are taxpayers too, and pay taxes after expenses, while people pay taxes before expenses. Well-run corporations expend most of their gross income on expenses, thus lowering their taxes owed drastically.
Most personal fortunes are not owned directly the the fortunemaker. They're assets owned by a Corporation that pays taxes AFTER expenses. Individuals pay taxes before expenses.
This is one of the most commonly overlooked portions of our economic system. The rich own corporations, and have them structured to spend as much money as possible in expenses to lower the corporation's taxes. The super-rich only have their corporations pay them minimal salaries relative to the amount of assets owned by the corporation, and have the corporation purchase them things like cars and houses as expenses of the corporation -- before taxes.
Bush promised in the last election that he would change the tax structure in the U.S. and has not accomplished it with both a Republican House and Senate, thus leading me to believe he and the Republican Party are lying about wishing to do so. The main system of protecting corporations from paying taxes on anything other than profits is already in place, and businesspeople donating via special interest groups certainly want to keep it that way, and get further breaks on taxes on corporate profit too.
Corporations are taxpayers too, as well as legal entities that act as people in the legislative system. We're only lucky that they're not given votes, this being one of the only things from handing over full rights of "Citizenship" to Corporate "Citizens". (Man I'm sick of hearing that phrase, but it's ALMOST accurate.)
Not true. Smaller states get two Senators, and less Congresspeople. Thus giving smaller states a larger per capita say in things at the Senate level than their larger neighbors.
GWB has passed no legislation domestically to follow-through on his campaign promises of the last election, and is repeating those same promises this election. Listen to the "If elected, I will..." statements in his RNC speech.
He's had the luxury of a Republican House and Senate and yet has done NONE of what he promised and is repeating those promises. That's enough for me to say... NEXT!
What exactly *is* Bush doing? I hear the same promises in his Domestic policy in his campaign speeches as the last time around, and he's had the luxury of a Republican House and Senate for four years.
Methinks many Republicans are being distracted by Bush's spin people, just as much as they spin to try to win over swing voters with half-truths.
As a registered Republican, I see four years of non-execution of his promises. Call it because he's too busy fighting the "War on Terror", or call it him and the Party not truly wishing to actually DO any of those things, but either way, he's ineffective on his campaign promises. Mainly on taxes.
His "Largest Tax Refund in History" was given to us as Taxable Income with it's own line-item on next year's tax forms, thus lower it's effectiveness by approximately 40% or more after it's been put back into the economy, and his promise to reduce the tax code loopholes and laws dramatically is just a farce.
His job creation numbers are abominable, as lower than every other President since Hoover and only slightly lower than his father's (yes, the Bush's hold the record for least jobs created EVER in the country's history during their terms), and this during a period when a so-called Conservative hired the most Federal employees EVER hired... yeah, that'll be free to the taxpayers and we'll have refunds for that too, right? Sure.
Let's not even mention the record-setting Deficit.
10 Nobel-prize winning Economists endorse Kerry. I figure that's enough for me to tell "All Hat, No Cattle" GWB to take a hike.
Crap - wrong link. Try this one instead...
politicalcompass.ORG
Oops.
Note: On the world stage, many view the entire U.S. system as skewed to the Right.
One example, politicalcompass.com puts Kerry nearly center on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian, with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
A differnt type of world leader, such as Ghandi and Nelson Mandella fall left and libertarian.
In that light, Kerry's the more "centered" to the world, which GWB is the radical. The far left in the Dems are probably quite a way over on the graph, but could be either authoritarian or libertarian depending on their views.
Of interesting note, virtually no world leaders fall in the Libertarian/Right quadrant - a rare person indeed.
My own home state of Colorado may be one of the first states to buck the system completely on this topic.
A recently announced item that may be voted on in the General Election which was put on the ballot by Referendum (another fairly progressive political tool) is that Colorado's Electoral votes may no longer be "all or nothing". The proposed change to the Colorado Constitution may require that the number of Electoral voters from each party may be required to follow the popular vote by percentage. 50/50 popular vote, means 50/50 Electoral nominations.
Lots of details to work out (we don't have an even number of Electoral votes currently, for example, so a 50/50 -- who gets the left-over vote, or is it just not cast at all?) means that it may not go through, but there's obviously enough local interest that it will probably make it to the ballot boxes soon.
Which puts Kerry two awards and 3 Purple Hearts ahead of GWB.
Bring Edwards into it and we'd better talk about Cheney, then.
Let's start with his blackmail comment from yesterday threatening the public with more terrorism if they don't vote for Bush.
There's leadership for ya... threaten the public and give no reasonable solution for the problem. As well as no updates on the promise to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.
I would have settled for a Dishonorable Discharge for him, so the last four years of broken promises and "talking points" could have been avoided.
"Why do we have a media frenzy over the one and a media blackout over the other? Answer: 85% of employees in the news media are Democrats."
Sorry that may have been true many years ago, but I do believe it was CNN that caught Fox News correspondants and camera crew shouting "Four more years" at the Republican National Convention. "Fair and Balanced" my ass.
Actually Kennedy motivated people to make their own lives better, instead of claiming to be a Saint. Thus, people remember him fondly as the person who was their leader.
I would dearly love for either party to propose a candidate that is actually going to improve the quality of life for every US citizen -- without meddling in the lives of citizens of other countries.
Our best chance of that is finding a President who will fight the real war going on in the world, the Economic one. The one we're presently learning how to lose as a Nation to our own Corporations who have gone multinational and have no loyalty to their home country other than asking investors to pay for their overseas expansions.
10 Nobel Prize winning Economists endorse the Kerry campaign.
10 Texas Oilmen endorse the Bush campaign.
Which do you think stands the better chance in the real world?
Bush promises "if re-elected" he will reform Tax law in our country. But he's had four years with a Republican House and Senate and hasn't done so.
Bush claims he gave "the largest Tax cut in history" but I see that it was all given as Taxable Income, with its own line-item to add it back in to next year's taxes, therefore lowering its effectiveness by approximately 40% for most citizens. And Citizens without children, who are already taxed at a higher rate, were given a much smaller refund than their peers.
Corporations already have the largest tax benefit in the U.S. - they're taxed AFTER expenses. You and I aren't. The Republican Party doesn't care about giving the "Average American" a tax break at all, they care about protecting tax benefits the owners of the corporations that fund their campaigns already have.
Or they'd have already PASSED legislation to change it. They have the power to do it and have had for almost four years.
I keep wondering why Republican voters aren't asking why Republicans really aren't truely Conservative anymore. My best guess is that they already have the majority of the wealth in the country and are simply playing a protection game... keep the people thinking you're cutting taxes and lowering the size of government while twisting government to protect the sizeable assets already owned by Republicans.
That's about as un-American (to use their phrase they like to use) as it gets.
Of course, smart Republicans *or* Democrats who simply study the numbers just go about their business, enjoying the low risk of corporations and building their assets. While the world worries about "jobs" and people are happy to be employees of their Corporations.
Kerry served. Both in Vietnam and in the Senate.
GWB didn't serve. Either in Vietnam or in the Senate.
If Kerry's required to open his military and voting records for the public to browse through during this election, then let's be fair and open all of the financial books of Bush's companies, whether public or private since he left the ANG.
Kerry may have made mistakes for 30 years, but he made them in public. GWB's mistakes are hidden and he likes it that way.
As a pilot, I can say that I've NEVER met a single pilot, either military or civilian who would let his or her medical certificate lapse unless they were a) never going to fly again anytime soon, or b) unfit to pass a flight medical.
I let my flight medical lapse after I ran out of money for flying. Since that's not the case with a military man, I have to question - Why would a pilot in the Air National Guard let the most basic requirement for flight lapse unless he were simply not going to do the job?
He wasn't lazy - he willfully terminated the #1 requirement of the job.
Professional pilots today take out INSURANCE policies against losing their Flight Medicals. A missed medical grounds you instantly and immediately.
Kerry doesn't run on his 20 years in the senate- which would be most relevant- because he'll get nowhere on it. His votes on defense, on taxes, on many issues were consistently the type of positions that would play very poorly with at least half of america.
And well with the other half. And GWB wouldn't survive a single term in the Senate, now would he? Where's his 20 years of service to America? Oh yeah, running companies into the ground. Great man, there.
Kerry survived 20 years in the Senate because he knew when to compromise and when to be tough.
Bush, on the other hand, is running on his past four years as president, not on being in the ANG 30 years ago.
No he's not. Did you listen to his speech? "If you elect me I will..." He's running on promises he still hasn't delivered from his first campaign -- and he's had a Republican House and Senate. Therefore he's either lying about his goals, or completely ineffective at them. Take your pick.
And let's not forget that GWB took great pains to dress up in a flight suit and stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier, mocking the very job he did so poorly at 30 years ago. At best, he deserved a Dishonorable Discharge which would have tanked his first run for the Presidency before it even got started.