Well, that's kind of reasoned response I would expect from someone with an emotional investment in politics.
Republicans have clearly demonstrated their policies to favor the rich and concentrate wealth
Yes, both wings of the Ruling Party do that. Maybe you didn't notice, but your hero voted to give hundreds of billions of dollars to failed bankers before he was elected, and is pushing the congress to extend and compound every one of Bush's mistakes.
If he succeeds, you won't change your view point to see hey, maybe the Republicans don't really have all the answers.
You didn't see me offering up the Republican wing of the Ruling Party as an alternative. It does not follow that if I oppose Obama's theft, that I must support the other pack of thieves. Someday you may realize that not everyone fits into one of the two boxes in your tiny little mind.
This will push more families into poverty, put many of our small businesses out of business causing a serious job loss, and push us even deeper into an economic death spiral.
I think that Waxman is destined to be remembered like Smoot and Hawley.
Energy taxes are about as regressive as they come.
Democrats love the poor! That's why they want to make more of them.
I don't think it's a stretch to predict that this will be offset with an "tax credit" (read: subsidy) for low income workers.
More like there will be a program that will claim to do so, but it will be a bureaucratic nightmare that will strongly discourage anyone from actually applying for it. Think "earned income tax credit".
Actually, it's been falling since the election, and it went negative last week. It's not a steady drop, but the trend is down as people realize that he's not going to deliver on his promises.
Sorry you're stupid enough to believe that mentioning fox is some kind of magic word that lets Obama off the hook.
Take a look at the scoreboard: he claims that he's entitled to violate the right of habeus corpus. He promised an end to the DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries; what he actually delivered was a one-week hiatus. He has made no move to investigate (let alone prosecute) anyone for torturing prisoners. He's done precisely squat about his campaign promises regarding gay rights. He appointed a member of the Federal Reserve board of governors as the secretary of the treasury.
As for the economy, he's continued and compounded all of Bush's mistakes. Bush was a failure as a businessman; Obama never even attempted any endeavor where he had responsibility to investors, employees and customers.
Face it, the man is an empty suit. He's Mitt Romney with a better-sounding script in the teleprompter.
People will still drive SUVs, they will just complain about the price.
The USA isn't just the middle class. The people who will suffer the most from this new tax scheme are the people who are living hand-to-mouth, who are about to get fucked good and hard by the need to choose between driving to work or heating their homes.
They might as well call it the "starve and freeze" bill.
Depending on how quickly its effects show up, it could also be called "the democrats piss away their majority in both houses of congress in a single election cycle" bill.
The quality of their work, or the lack thereof is entirely beside the point. The question at hand is whether to rob productive activities to support unproductive activities, which makes us all that much poorer.
If you like newspapers, then great: buy as many copies as you like. Just don't go mugging anyone else to keep them afloat, and we don't have a problem.
More to the point, the money he has came from people who parted with it willingly. (Except to the extent that his products were purchased by government agencies.) I'm a small shareholder in AAPL, and I'm entirely happy with his performance.
When we started looking for cost cutting measures, we discovered we'd been paying 250,000 a year for phones at a distribution center we'd closed 5 years prior.
Holy crap! That's the kind of thing that should get your internal auditors replaced.
Things change. Printing news on mass quantities of paper is on its way to becoming a museum hobby, and that's as it should be. The proposal at hand is to penalize a productive sector of the economy to keep people and resources misallocated. There are sentimental reasons for keeping newspapers around, but if it made economic sense to do so, they wouldn't be going belly-up.
I wonder if anyone proposed taxing kerosene to pay idle whalers when people gave up on whale-oil lamps?
So the short answer is, you don't actually spend $800M on clinical tests.
My point exactly. I've seen a photograph once of a forklift palette of papers which was the entirety of one drug company's submissions to the FDA to get a drug approved.
My own experience with the FDA was many years ago when I was working on a karyotyping system. It could have cost $25K or so, including the computer, the microscope, and the camera, but with the cost of obtaining FDA approval, we just couldn't make the numbers work and bring it to market.
I wonder, is Ohio a "shall-issue" state for concealed carry? Rocks can be lethal, and if anyone was throwing rocks at me to make a political point, I'd sure as hell want to be carrying something rather more effective.
I agree. Part of the problem here is that some jurors go nuts when presented with the opportunity to award seven-figure damages, since it's more money than most of them will ever deal with in their lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh screw you.
Well, that's kind of reasoned response I would expect from someone with an emotional investment in politics.
Republicans have clearly demonstrated their policies to favor the rich and concentrate wealth
Yes, both wings of the Ruling Party do that. Maybe you didn't notice, but your hero voted to give hundreds of billions of dollars to failed bankers before he was elected, and is pushing the congress to extend and compound every one of Bush's mistakes.
If he succeeds, you won't change your view point to see hey, maybe the Republicans don't really have all the answers.
You didn't see me offering up the Republican wing of the Ruling Party as an alternative. It does not follow that if I oppose Obama's theft, that I must support the other pack of thieves. Someday you may realize that not everyone fits into one of the two boxes in your tiny little mind.
-jcr
I guess they prefer a lot better to be fucked good and hard by the corporations,
If you believe that the government protects poor people from getting screwed by corporations, I have a bridge to sell you.
-jcr
A free press is vital to democracy. Letting ours die and be replaced by blogging is going to hurt the country.
Just how free do you expect the press to be if it's living on the government teat?
-jcr
This will push more families into poverty, put many of our small businesses out of business causing a serious job loss, and push us even deeper into an economic death spiral.
I think that Waxman is destined to be remembered like Smoot and Hawley.
-jcr
Energy taxes are about as regressive as they come.
Democrats love the poor! That's why they want to make more of them.
I don't think it's a stretch to predict that this will be offset with an "tax credit" (read: subsidy) for low income workers.
More like there will be a program that will claim to do so, but it will be a bureaucratic nightmare that will strongly discourage anyone from actually applying for it. Think "earned income tax credit".
-jcr
Yet Obama's approval rating keeps going up.
Actually, it's been falling since the election, and it went negative last week. It's not a steady drop, but the trend is down as people realize that he's not going to deliver on his promises.
-jcr
Sorry you're stupid enough to believe that mentioning fox is some kind of magic word that lets Obama off the hook.
Take a look at the scoreboard: he claims that he's entitled to violate the right of habeus corpus. He promised an end to the DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries; what he actually delivered was a one-week hiatus. He has made no move to investigate (let alone prosecute) anyone for torturing prisoners. He's done precisely squat about his campaign promises regarding gay rights. He appointed a member of the Federal Reserve board of governors as the secretary of the treasury.
As for the economy, he's continued and compounded all of Bush's mistakes. Bush was a failure as a businessman; Obama never even attempted any endeavor where he had responsibility to investors, employees and customers.
Face it, the man is an empty suit. He's Mitt Romney with a better-sounding script in the teleprompter.
-jcr
People will still drive SUVs, they will just complain about the price.
The USA isn't just the middle class. The people who will suffer the most from this new tax scheme are the people who are living hand-to-mouth, who are about to get fucked good and hard by the need to choose between driving to work or heating their homes.
You don't actually know any poor people, do you?
-jcr
in Western Europe, where pollution per capita is four times less than in the US,
[Citation needed]
While you're at it, do the figures you allude to account for pollution generated outside of Europe in the process of manufacturing imported goods?
-jcr
They might as well call it the "starve and freeze" bill.
Depending on how quickly its effects show up, it could also be called "the democrats piss away their majority in both houses of congress in a single election cycle" bill.
-jcr
The quality of their work, or the lack thereof is entirely beside the point. The question at hand is whether to rob productive activities to support unproductive activities, which makes us all that much poorer.
If you like newspapers, then great: buy as many copies as you like. Just don't go mugging anyone else to keep them afloat, and we don't have a problem.
-jcr
So, your standard of fairness is that anything goes as long as rich people are not immune to disease?
How do you infer that from anything I've said?
-jcr
It is open to debate whether that larger share is warranted.
If you think he's overpaid, then buy a share of AAPL, come to the shareholders' meeting, and propose an executive pay cut. I'll vote against it.
-jcr
More to the point, the money he has came from people who parted with it willingly. (Except to the extent that his products were purchased by government agencies.) I'm a small shareholder in AAPL, and I'm entirely happy with his performance.
-jcr
Steve Jobs is another example of how wealth buys health and an easy life.
Yeah, cause being rich kept him from getting pancreatic cancer in the first place, right?
Oh, wait.
-jcr
When we started looking for cost cutting measures, we discovered we'd been paying 250,000 a year for phones at a distribution center we'd closed 5 years prior.
Holy crap! That's the kind of thing that should get your internal auditors replaced.
-jcr
I know some journalists and they get paid at the low end of the professional wage spectrum.
Do you mean they get paid less than lawyers or journeyman carpenters?
-jcr
I know this goes against groupthink,
No, it goes against logic altogether.
Things change. Printing news on mass quantities of paper is on its way to becoming a museum hobby, and that's as it should be. The proposal at hand is to penalize a productive sector of the economy to keep people and resources misallocated. There are sentimental reasons for keeping newspapers around, but if it made economic sense to do so, they wouldn't be going belly-up.
I wonder if anyone proposed taxing kerosene to pay idle whalers when people gave up on whale-oil lamps?
-jcr
platform wise, this app wouldn't even be possible on the iPhone or Pre.
Why not?
Do you mean that the iPhone and the Pre prohibit this kind of app, or are you referring to the availability of Java?
-jcr
What I take away from TFA is that developing an app for the Blackberry is more hassle than it's worth.
-jcr
his app has an ass UI. It's RIM's fault, of course.
RIM may not be helping much, but that doesn't make it their fault. A developer certainly has the option of implementing their own UI.
-jcr
Mr. Bradbury shook his cane at the reporter, and demanded that he remove himself from Mr. Bradbury's lawn.
-jcr
So the short answer is, you don't actually spend $800M on clinical tests.
My point exactly. I've seen a photograph once of a forklift palette of papers which was the entirety of one drug company's submissions to the FDA to get a drug approved.
My own experience with the FDA was many years ago when I was working on a karyotyping system. It could have cost $25K or so, including the computer, the microscope, and the camera, but with the cost of obtaining FDA approval, we just couldn't make the numbers work and bring it to market.
-jcr
I wonder, is Ohio a "shall-issue" state for concealed carry? Rocks can be lethal, and if anyone was throwing rocks at me to make a political point, I'd sure as hell want to be carrying something rather more effective.
-jcr
I agree. Part of the problem here is that some jurors go nuts when presented with the opportunity to award seven-figure damages, since it's more money than most of them will ever deal with in their lives.
-jcr