Federalism is "Washington does ONLY what the Constitution says it can, and everything else is up to the States".
Not exactly. Federalism is where the central government and the regional governments have equal power.
Note that most of the current Federal Budget consists of things that the Constitution does NOT mention as Federal Powers (Social Security and Medicare alone being most of the Federal budget...).
The welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) disagrees with you that Social Security and Medicare are not federal powers.
If you are correct, then there's nothing to fear from abolishing the IRS. With nobody able to block the Republicans until the next elections, will they have the courage to do it?
Now let's work on embracing fiscal federalism by asking Washington to send each state an itemized bill. This would effectively abolish the IRS as each state figures out how to tax its own residents to pay the bill. A weak central government is still a conservative virtue, right?
Of course this will likely bankrupt the red states other than Texas but it will save the blue states a ton of money. For liberals, that will mean two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?
That graph shows positive q-o-q change beginning Q3 2009, only 2 quarters after Obama took office. So you are correct, it did not "only started improving somewhere near the end" of the Obama years.
In yesterday's article I asked for the same proof and that person so far has not responded. Maybe you will either provide the requested information or have the courage to admit you're wrong?
The first table (gun deaths) also includes suicides. This has an extremely high correlation with gun ownership (+0.69). So no, gun violence is usually LOWER in areas with high gun ownership rates according to your own source.
You are correct, if you consider a gun suicide to be a non-violent act.
How does that cause net neutrality rules in one state to affect another state in a way that's different than California emissions rules affecting other states?
If California is being run so poorly, then we should let the state sink or swim on its own merits by requiring that California be self-sufficient financially in tax revenue versus federal spending. Let California go bankrupt!
It's too late, they already initiated the withdrawal. It happens now regardless.
Really? The citizens of the UK can vote to start the process but they cannot vote to stop it? That seems rather undemocratic. Who wrote that rule, the UK or the EU?
Yes, you have to make it possible for the poor to access the same information that the rich have access to. Posting flyers in affluent, non-gated communities is allowed; restricting ads to wealthy people on Facebook is not.
I guess you're not aware that the governor of Arizona is a Republican?
I see what you're saying. The governor knew pedestrians and bicyclists are more difficult to detect and avoid hitting, and because they are more likely to be liberal, he allowed self-driving cars to be tested in his state with few protections. Crafty!
Could you explain how a carbon tax, even one that isn't revenue-neutral, would make everyone poor? What do you expect the people YOU elected would do with the money, burn it? If so, you need to be a little more careful how you vote!
Or maybe you're saying that we would be be poor because we wouldn't be digging up as much oil out of the ground and enriching ourselves at the expense of our children and grandchildren. This reasoning I could agree with.
Carbon taxes are crap it's just a tax and a regressive one at that.
Revenue-neutral carbon taxes where the revenue is returned equally to everyone is highly progressive. If for example the tax were $1 per gallon of gasoline and the average person buys 500 gallons of it per year, everyone would receive a $500 check every year whether they purchased any gasoline that year or not. $500 may not seem like much to you and I but to a poor person that's a lot of money!
If you are truly opposed to regressive taxes, would you support eliminating sales taxes that are used to build freeways such as Los Angeles' Measure M, and replace them with non-regressive tolls? Or are sales taxes suddenly not regressive (or they are but it's not such a bad thing anymore) whenever they benefit you personally?
A human driver would assume that driving at the posted limit was safe for all but the most severe conditions (dense fog, or heavy snow, icy road, and night).
If China lowered their tariffs, who of you thinks the USA would do likewise and not just keep the money as politicians love to do? I want a show of hands.
Nothing is resolvable in them which is why the appearance time is so short. This is a serious problem for all systems as the dynamic range of most cameras is very limited
It's a software problem if it doesn't regard a saturated pixel as "unknown data". The car should have known that because it could not see any detail in the area out of view of the headlights that the area might not be empty, and so it should have slowed down accordingly.
Yes, a camera with better dynamic range would have prevented this collision, but software without such a glaring bug would have prevented it also.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly. Federalism is where the central government and the regional governments have equal power.
The welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) disagrees with you that Social Security and Medicare are not federal powers.
If you are correct, then there's nothing to fear from abolishing the IRS. With nobody able to block the Republicans until the next elections, will they have the courage to do it?
Now let's work on embracing fiscal federalism by asking Washington to send each state an itemized bill. This would effectively abolish the IRS as each state figures out how to tax its own residents to pay the bill. A weak central government is still a conservative virtue, right?
Of course this will likely bankrupt the red states other than Texas but it will save the blue states a ton of money. For liberals, that will mean two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?
Let's do this!
How would we know all that without science?
That graph shows positive q-o-q change beginning Q3 2009, only 2 quarters after Obama took office. So you are correct, it did not "only started improving somewhere near the end" of the Obama years.
Including breaking up monopolies, prosecuting false advertising, and requiring companies to clean up their messes? Are these all "socialism things"?
[Citation Needed] because Chicago says New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco have stricter gun laws on the books.
In yesterday's article I asked for the same proof and that person so far has not responded. Maybe you will either provide the requested information or have the courage to admit you're wrong?
In the USA, civil forfeiture is a good argument for a cashless society.
You are correct, if you consider a gun suicide to be a non-violent act.
Interestingly, the data shows gun murders fall slightly but total gun deaths rise sharply according to gun ownership rates.
We'll find out what cities Op had in mind when he cites his source. Maybe cities like Naperville and Oak Park?
[Citation Needed] because Chicago claims New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco have stricter gun laws on the books.
How does that cause net neutrality rules in one state to affect another state in a way that's different than California emissions rules affecting other states?
I like your optimism that the EPA will behave differently than the FCC.
If California is being run so poorly, then we should let the state sink or swim on its own merits by requiring that California be self-sufficient financially in tax revenue versus federal spending. Let California go bankrupt!
Oh wait, that would bankrupt the red states (excluding Texas) who depend on welfare from the blue states. Never mind.
Really? The citizens of the UK can vote to start the process but they cannot vote to stop it? That seems rather undemocratic. Who wrote that rule, the UK or the EU?
Yes, you have to make it possible for the poor to access the same information that the rich have access to. Posting flyers in affluent, non-gated communities is allowed; restricting ads to wealthy people on Facebook is not.
I see what you're saying. The governor knew pedestrians and bicyclists are more difficult to detect and avoid hitting, and because they are more likely to be liberal, he allowed self-driving cars to be tested in his state with few protections. Crafty!
Could you explain how a carbon tax, even one that isn't revenue-neutral, would make everyone poor? What do you expect the people YOU elected would do with the money, burn it? If so, you need to be a little more careful how you vote!
Or maybe you're saying that we would be be poor because we wouldn't be digging up as much oil out of the ground and enriching ourselves at the expense of our children and grandchildren. This reasoning I could agree with.
Revenue-neutral carbon taxes where the revenue is returned equally to everyone is highly progressive. If for example the tax were $1 per gallon of gasoline and the average person buys 500 gallons of it per year, everyone would receive a $500 check every year whether they purchased any gasoline that year or not. $500 may not seem like much to you and I but to a poor person that's a lot of money!
If you are truly opposed to regressive taxes, would you support eliminating sales taxes that are used to build freeways such as Los Angeles' Measure M, and replace them with non-regressive tolls? Or are sales taxes suddenly not regressive (or they are but it's not such a bad thing anymore) whenever they benefit you personally?
That driver would be incorrect:
This is evidence that driver education in the USA is inadequate.
So this is about revenge, not about showing leadership toward reducing trade barriers. Got it.
Would it not leave everyone blind?
If China lowered their tariffs, who of you thinks the USA would do likewise and not just keep the money as politicians love to do? I want a show of hands.
It's a software problem if it doesn't regard a saturated pixel as "unknown data". The car should have known that because it could not see any detail in the area out of view of the headlights that the area might not be empty, and so it should have slowed down accordingly.
Yes, a camera with better dynamic range would have prevented this collision, but software without such a glaring bug would have prevented it also.
Is overdriving your headlights considered "due care"?