That's called trickle down, and it has never, ever worked. Not once. If it did, we would be swimming in jobs. Heck, we'd be drowning in jobs.
Canada has much higher taxes than the US, and they also have a wealthier middle class, much more vacation time, better benefits, public health care, a year's parental leave, all those things that are supposed to crush the economy.
Guess what - the Canadian middle class is better off than the American middle class. But keep dreaming that you can cut and starve your way to health.
I think by using phrases like "fuzzy-warm feel-good liberal nitwits" you pretty much sideline yourself. Politics is all about compromise and finding a common solution, something that is obviously missing from your world view. No wonder you feel that your efforts have come to naught. No one wants to be called a nitwit.
Statistically the US is far safer today than when you were growing up. And a kid has about a 20x greater chance of being abused by a cop than by a sex offender. And some 200x greater chance of being abused by mom than by a random stranger.
If you listen to the airlines, they have been losing money each and every year since 1947 or thereabouts. Yet they're still around, and their CEOs are making millions in bonuses and salaries. Something tells me that the airlines aren't quite telling the whole truth.
The bad airlines have died and rightfully so. But many of the others are making money, just whining about how hard it is to make money and provide decent service.
I bought and paid for a journey. In the business world, schedules change a lot. I change my itinerary a lot. I fly with airlines that understand that; Alaska and American are good work with in this regard. United is not. If an airline tried to charge me more for providing me less - I paid for 3 flights and I used 2 - how does that work out? What price would they use for the surchage? The price on the day I bought the ticket? The current price? Some other totally made up price?
The problem is that airline pricing is not based on cost, it's based on time of day, marketing, and apparently pixie dust. The airline can't go back and retroactively charge me some arbitrary cost since they can't explain how they arrive at that cost.
You might have a point with "conditions of carriage" but it would be marketing suicide for an airline to try to attempt this.
Much better that they just provide a sane marketing model.
As a frequent traveler, if an airline attempted to do this they would be sued, not just by me but by the millions of business people out there. I buy the ticket for a price. They can't come back and renegotiate the price after the fact.
Especially since the prices change on a day-to-day basis, and bear little to no relationship to actual cost.
Because air line ticket pricing makes no sense. Literally. I fly a lot (as in somewhere around 100K miles a year) and ticket pricing is pretty absurd. A one-way ticket can sometimes cost 3x what a round trip does to the same destination. Flying from my home airport (a small regional destination) can sometimes lower the price of the ticket, even though I fly one extra leg and 100 miles to a major airport.
United is by far the worst of the price abusers; one reason I no longer fly United. The last time I needed to make a route change, they wanted to charge me $250 for the change, and $1200 for the "additional fare". I bought a one-way on American for $350. Of course, walking away from the second leg is "against ticket policy" so as a good drone I was supposed to cough up $1450 to United.
In my experience no other airline gouges its customers as badly as United when it comes to these sorts of policies, so it does not surprise me that they are on this lawsuit. They are also on the bottom of nearly every customer satisfaction survey; maybe the two are related? Anyone at United listening? Hello?
I think you have cause and effect backwards. "Liberals" run the schools in the ghettoes because the "conservatives" have all but abandonded the poor. The conservative attitude more and more is "If you're poor, you deserve to die, and don't expect me to lift a finger or spend a penny to help you."
The "conservatives" are all about preserving their own wealth and screwing everyone else.
The reality, however, is that the poor are often conservative white rural folks, who get equally screwed. And there are more rural white poor than urban ghetto poor.
So I stand by my earlier assessment; you have learned shockingly little about how society works.
This way lies feudalism. The rich have the good schools, the poor are uneducated, and the gap will never close, in fact it will only grow. Eventually you have a Dickensian world where the rich live in splendor, and the poor die in the streets, uneducated, unable to rise above their station, because it takes money to run a decent school system.
If you're really "nearing 60 years old" then you have learned shockingly little of how a society works.
Most of your rant aside. Texas is the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to school textbooks. Texas basically dictates the content of most school books, since Texas buys more school books than any other state, and thus imposes its will on the textbook publishers.
And last I checked, with the exception of Austin, most of Texas is definitely not "liberal". You have to wonder when "conservatives" find textbooks whose content is driven by one of the most conservative states too "liberal".
Unfortunately most modern "conservatism" boils down to "I don't like it, it must be liberal, and we all know that liberal is a bad thing."
Seeing as the state has laws that limit the teaching of contraception, do you really think they have a "human sexual health" class in public schools? Unless it's taught at church on Sunday.
But GT signed up for this. When I had my small business, we turned down big contracts regularly. You can't have a single client be 90% of your business, because if anything glitches,you're out of business. We would never take on a job that was more than half of our annual revenues, and we only took on one job like that at a time, filling the rest of the calendar with smaller jobs.
And by today's standards he would be a RINO, a carpetbagger, and probably a few other choice words. Let's not forget he raised taxes, let illegals stay, and a whole bunch of other things that are anathema to the current rightwing nutjob movement.
And you must not be thinking of the Russians famously defecating in the hallways of the Czechoslovak National Museum after ransacking it and destroying what they could not steal in 1967.
Tell me about reverence by the Russians for anything other than vodka.
Not really. These are backwoods weapons that see little to no maintenance. They don't get depot cleaning and parts aren't available. (Check out where and how the rangers operate).
I shoot bolt action rifles and after a while you need to strip the bolts and clean them. The Lee Enfields may not see that for years if ever, and they still have to shoot, since the Ranger's life probably depends on it.
So it's not "almost any brand" since few brands have that kind of reliability and track record.
"Progressive" is newspeak for "regressive". There's no practical way to pull off a "progressive tax" on consumption, unless you charge everyone the highest tax rate and then refund it at the end of tax year. Still, the wealthiest would find ways to exempt themselves from the biggest hit; buy that yacht in Ireland instead of New England. Hey, overseas purchases are excluded, right?
Except that consumption tax is usually designed to hit the poorest the hardest, and have little to no impact on the wealthiest. For example, sales tax is capped on cars in some states, others exclude yachts from sales tax, while many tax milk and bread. So someone who spends 50% of their hourly take home on food gets taxed on 50% of their income, but someone else who only spends 0.05% on food only gets taxed on that 0.05% of their income as many luxury items are excluded from consumption taxes.
Oh fer crying out loud. What do you want, Obama personally doing body cavity searches at the border? If he did that people like you (or others) would be screaming about an "irresponsible Administration" destroying businesses or trampling on your rights or whatever.
You CAN'T quarantine this. Those people are coming through Amsterdam or Frankfurt or Paris or London. Are you going to close all the borders?
Or bump the voltage in the cable up. If you charge at 4KV instead of 400V, you keep the current the same. Then you step down the voltage in the charger. It keeps the size of the cable the same.
It can be done. It's done every day, with 120VAC chargers being used to charge 12VDC batteries, just on a much, much bigger scale.
Slashdot Mirror
That's called trickle down, and it has never, ever worked. Not once. If it did, we would be swimming in jobs. Heck, we'd be drowning in jobs.
Canada has much higher taxes than the US, and they also have a wealthier middle class, much more vacation time, better benefits, public health care, a year's parental leave, all those things that are supposed to crush the economy.
Guess what - the Canadian middle class is better off than the American middle class. But keep dreaming that you can cut and starve your way to health.
I think by using phrases like "fuzzy-warm feel-good liberal nitwits" you pretty much sideline yourself. Politics is all about compromise and finding a common solution, something that is obviously missing from your world view. No wonder you feel that your efforts have come to naught. No one wants to be called a nitwit.
Statistically the US is far safer today than when you were growing up. And a kid has about a 20x greater chance of being abused by a cop than by a sex offender. And some 200x greater chance of being abused by mom than by a random stranger.
If you listen to the airlines, they have been losing money each and every year since 1947 or thereabouts. Yet they're still around, and their CEOs are making millions in bonuses and salaries. Something tells me that the airlines aren't quite telling the whole truth.
The bad airlines have died and rightfully so. But many of the others are making money, just whining about how hard it is to make money and provide decent service.
I bought and paid for a journey. In the business world, schedules change a lot. I change my itinerary a lot. I fly with airlines that understand that; Alaska and American are good work with in this regard. United is not. If an airline tried to charge me more for providing me less - I paid for 3 flights and I used 2 - how does that work out? What price would they use for the surchage? The price on the day I bought the ticket? The current price? Some other totally made up price?
The problem is that airline pricing is not based on cost, it's based on time of day, marketing, and apparently pixie dust. The airline can't go back and retroactively charge me some arbitrary cost since they can't explain how they arrive at that cost.
You might have a point with "conditions of carriage" but it would be marketing suicide for an airline to try to attempt this.
Much better that they just provide a sane marketing model.
As a frequent traveler, if an airline attempted to do this they would be sued, not just by me but by the millions of business people out there. I buy the ticket for a price. They can't come back and renegotiate the price after the fact.
Especially since the prices change on a day-to-day basis, and bear little to no relationship to actual cost.
Because air line ticket pricing makes no sense. Literally. I fly a lot (as in somewhere around 100K miles a year) and ticket pricing is pretty absurd. A one-way ticket can sometimes cost 3x what a round trip does to the same destination. Flying from my home airport (a small regional destination) can sometimes lower the price of the ticket, even though I fly one extra leg and 100 miles to a major airport.
United is by far the worst of the price abusers; one reason I no longer fly United. The last time I needed to make a route change, they wanted to charge me $250 for the change, and $1200 for the "additional fare". I bought a one-way on American for $350. Of course, walking away from the second leg is "against ticket policy" so as a good drone I was supposed to cough up $1450 to United.
In my experience no other airline gouges its customers as badly as United when it comes to these sorts of policies, so it does not surprise me that they are on this lawsuit. They are also on the bottom of nearly every customer satisfaction survey; maybe the two are related? Anyone at United listening? Hello?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Took long enough. So long that "winning" no longer matters.
I think you have cause and effect backwards. "Liberals" run the schools in the ghettoes because the "conservatives" have all but abandonded the poor. The conservative attitude more and more is "If you're poor, you deserve to die, and don't expect me to lift a finger or spend a penny to help you."
The "conservatives" are all about preserving their own wealth and screwing everyone else.
The reality, however, is that the poor are often conservative white rural folks, who get equally screwed. And there are more rural white poor than urban ghetto poor.
So I stand by my earlier assessment; you have learned shockingly little about how society works.
This way lies feudalism. The rich have the good schools, the poor are uneducated, and the gap will never close, in fact it will only grow. Eventually you have a Dickensian world where the rich live in splendor, and the poor die in the streets, uneducated, unable to rise above their station, because it takes money to run a decent school system.
If you're really "nearing 60 years old" then you have learned shockingly little of how a society works.
Most of your rant aside. Texas is the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to school textbooks. Texas basically dictates the content of most school books, since Texas buys more school books than any other state, and thus imposes its will on the textbook publishers.
And last I checked, with the exception of Austin, most of Texas is definitely not "liberal". You have to wonder when "conservatives" find textbooks whose content is driven by one of the most conservative states too "liberal".
Unfortunately most modern "conservatism" boils down to "I don't like it, it must be liberal, and we all know that liberal is a bad thing."
Seeing as the state has laws that limit the teaching of contraception, do you really think they have a "human sexual health" class in public schools? Unless it's taught at church on Sunday.
OK, so show me one schoolboard that ripped pages out of a book because it didn't conform to a liberal agenda, whatever that is.
The law says:
"... childbirth and adoption as preferred options to elective abortion".
So according to the schoolboard, contraception == abortion.
But GT signed up for this. When I had my small business, we turned down big contracts regularly. You can't have a single client be 90% of your business, because if anything glitches,you're out of business. We would never take on a job that was more than half of our annual revenues, and we only took on one job like that at a time, filling the rest of the calendar with smaller jobs.
And by today's standards he would be a RINO, a carpetbagger, and probably a few other choice words. Let's not forget he raised taxes, let illegals stay, and a whole bunch of other things that are anathema to the current rightwing nutjob movement.
OOPS, 1968. Fat fingers strike again.
And you must not be thinking of the Russians famously defecating in the hallways of the Czechoslovak National Museum after ransacking it and destroying what they could not steal in 1967.
Tell me about reverence by the Russians for anything other than vodka.
But weren't CP laws enacted to protect victims? and to punish those that abuse said victims?
Since there are no victims, doesn't seem to me to even meet the common-sense definition of a crime.
Not really. These are backwoods weapons that see little to no maintenance. They don't get depot cleaning and parts aren't available. (Check out where and how the rangers operate).
I shoot bolt action rifles and after a while you need to strip the bolts and clean them. The Lee Enfields may not see that for years if ever, and they still have to shoot, since the Ranger's life probably depends on it.
So it's not "almost any brand" since few brands have that kind of reliability and track record.
it's going to be a hard decision.
"Progressive" is newspeak for "regressive". There's no practical way to pull off a "progressive tax" on consumption, unless you charge everyone the highest tax rate and then refund it at the end of tax year. Still, the wealthiest would find ways to exempt themselves from the biggest hit; buy that yacht in Ireland instead of New England. Hey, overseas purchases are excluded, right?
Except that consumption tax is usually designed to hit the poorest the hardest, and have little to no impact on the wealthiest. For example, sales tax is capped on cars in some states, others exclude yachts from sales tax, while many tax milk and bread. So someone who spends 50% of their hourly take home on food gets taxed on 50% of their income, but someone else who only spends 0.05% on food only gets taxed on that 0.05% of their income as many luxury items are excluded from consumption taxes.
I carry 2 passports. I use one to enter the US and one to enter the EU. How will you stop me?
Oh fer crying out loud. What do you want, Obama personally doing body cavity searches at the border? If he did that people like you (or others) would be screaming about an "irresponsible Administration" destroying businesses or trampling on your rights or whatever.
You CAN'T quarantine this. Those people are coming through Amsterdam or Frankfurt or Paris or London. Are you going to close all the borders?
Or bump the voltage in the cable up. If you charge at 4KV instead of 400V, you keep the current the same. Then you step down the voltage in the charger. It keeps the size of the cable the same.
It can be done. It's done every day, with 120VAC chargers being used to charge 12VDC batteries, just on a much, much bigger scale.