It *was* illegal to securitize mortgages, but then Barnie Frank and his friends in congress repealed the Glass-Stegal act and failed to monitor the implications of allowing the US banking system more degrees of freedom.
It was Phil Gram (R-Senate) and Jim Leach (R-House) that sponsored the bill that repealed Glass-Stegal. The Republican majority passed the bill with a veto-proof majority. Don't place the blame on Barney Frank - put it on the anti-regulation republicans where it belongs.
I'd say that your phrase "...simply a tax that transfers money from the young to the old," is a much bigger political football. While some money may move "uphill," it is certainly not "mostly" that direction and it most certainly not the intent. The young still have earning potential, while the old often do not - they are worn down to the nub from years of working. SS was created so that the elderly don't have to live under bridges. Suggesting some other system to replace SS is breaking the social contract with those who paid in for the previous generation. A federally-managed 401(k) would just enrich stock speculators as a huge new pot of money showed up in the market to inflate valuations.
I have been hitting the cap for years and I have no qualms about eliminating the cap. It hasn't been done because the ultra-rich just see it as another way to (a) have the poor paying the larger percentage, (b) starve SS so they can eliminate it altogether.
Much better solution: eliminate the earnings cap on social security taxes. If the rich had to pay SS taxes on ALL their income (instead of only the first $112K, or whatever it currently is), SS would be flush with cash.
That may be true of the on-shore income, but not of their off-shore income. You know, the billions of dollars they want to "re-patriate" but are begging for a tax holiday first?
Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history.
Maybe the nominal tax rate is low (and it's been lower - try any time pre-1931) but that's just part of the story. The wealthiest 1% pay a near-record share of income taxes. And the top 5% are paying nearly 60% of all income taxes. Compare that to the time pre-Bush tax cuts - it's considerably higher. Just about record levels over the last 30 years, in fact.
Facts trump rhetoric every time...
The wealthy are paying more dollars in taxes because they are making more dollars than ever. OP meant "today, the wealthy pay the lowest tax RATES than at any time in US History." Tax rates is what is relevant, not tax dollars. Yes, the top 5% pay nearly 60% of income taxes. They are also making nearly 95% of all income.
It could be that it uses location-based leaderboards. I noticed that Flight Control shows your high score in comparison to people near you. I'm not advocating such a strange feature, just noticing it.
You most certainly did. Re-read your posts. Here are the quotes:
So no, I don't buy that a flash mob of first time users just showed up when the 4S came out...
It's not the hardware itself (I need a cell phone for my job) but the wasteful culture of dumping your product every few months for a slightly better one, that's the real problem. And the worst offenders are Apple fanbois. Tell me this isn't true.
My wife is a provider and sees firsthand every day how patients whine until the providers give in. Drug company subsidies have little to do with it. Responsible clinics ban those anyway. It's patients unwilling to suffer even a day of illness insisting on antibiotics that won't work anyway.
I get a regularly recurring bronchitis. I don't run to the doctor in a couple of days. If it isn't better in about a month and I'm feeling chest congestion, then I'll go see the doctor.
Generally, I do use that strategy. However, since the time I had pnemonia with a fever that could be forced DOWN to 103 only with a gram of tylenol every four hours, I tweaked my strategy a bit.
When they give me amoxicillin, I always know I'll be back for a round of something else (augmentin seems to work for most of what I get).
Well guess what? Augmentin is amoxicillin. It just includes another drug that can inhibit the bacteria's resistance to the amoxicillin. So if you really feel like amoxicillin doesn't work for you, just tell your doctor what you told us here. He might not believe you, but he might comply with your wish to get the augmentin, because it's the same drug anyway.
I know it's the same drug - I do read labels. It's my experience that the Augmentin works better. I did once have a Nurse Practitioner change the script when I told her I thought it worked better.
I have argued here and elsewhere that there is a high costs to our legal system. Sadly, just about every liberal screams that it only costs 3%. But the issue is that due to quick ability to sue, docs have adopted protective medicine. Not protection for the patient, but protection against lawsuits. As such, they give a number of antibiotics that we would not do..
And sadly, just about every conservative screams that it costs 300% and wants to gut our ability to sue for LEGITIMATE reasons.
People who think our ingestion of antibiotics from animals is a factor in antibiotic resistance are crackpots who don't pay attention to the fact that we've been eating trace amounts of penicillin for tens of thousands of years.
Trace amounts are not the concern. Cows are fed much more than "trace amounts" of bacteria. Therein lies the problem.
I meant "cows are fed more than trace amounts of antibiotics." Too fast on the submit button.
People who think our ingestion of antibiotics from animals is a factor in antibiotic resistance are crackpots who don't pay attention to the fact that we've been eating trace amounts of penicillin for tens of thousands of years.
Trace amounts are not the concern. Cows are fed much more than "trace amounts" of bacteria. Therein lies the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretending problems are the domain of a specific party when laying blame, is pure idiocy.
You are now the Wikipedia example of the logical fallacy "poisoning the well."
It *was* illegal to securitize mortgages, but then Barnie Frank and his friends in congress repealed the Glass-Stegal act and failed to monitor the implications of allowing the US banking system more degrees of freedom.
It was Phil Gram (R-Senate) and Jim Leach (R-House) that sponsored the bill that repealed Glass-Stegal. The Republican majority passed the bill with a veto-proof majority. Don't place the blame on Barney Frank - put it on the anti-regulation republicans where it belongs.
I'd say that your phrase "...simply a tax that transfers money from the young to the old," is a much bigger political football. While some money may move "uphill," it is certainly not "mostly" that direction and it most certainly not the intent. The young still have earning potential, while the old often do not - they are worn down to the nub from years of working. SS was created so that the elderly don't have to live under bridges. Suggesting some other system to replace SS is breaking the social contract with those who paid in for the previous generation. A federally-managed 401(k) would just enrich stock speculators as a huge new pot of money showed up in the market to inflate valuations.
So fucking what? It is designed so that those who are able to work support those at end-of-life. That is exactly what it was designed to do.
I have been hitting the cap for years and I have no qualms about eliminating the cap. It hasn't been done because the ultra-rich just see it as another way to (a) have the poor paying the larger percentage, (b) starve SS so they can eliminate it altogether.
Much better solution: eliminate the earnings cap on social security taxes. If the rich had to pay SS taxes on ALL their income (instead of only the first $112K, or whatever it currently is), SS would be flush with cash.
That may be true of the on-shore income, but not of their off-shore income. You know, the billions of dollars they want to "re-patriate" but are begging for a tax holiday first?
It IS a revenue problem if your deadbeat uncle is only working two months of the year. He could be working more hours or get a real job!
Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history.
Maybe the nominal tax rate is low (and it's been lower - try any time pre-1931) but that's just part of the story. The wealthiest 1% pay a near-record share of income taxes. And the top 5% are paying nearly 60% of all income taxes. Compare that to the time pre-Bush tax cuts - it's considerably higher. Just about record levels over the last 30 years, in fact.
Facts trump rhetoric every time...
The wealthy are paying more dollars in taxes because they are making more dollars than ever. OP meant "today, the wealthy pay the lowest tax RATES than at any time in US History." Tax rates is what is relevant, not tax dollars. Yes, the top 5% pay nearly 60% of income taxes. They are also making nearly 95% of all income.
8 hours work for 8 hours pay.
Don't work for free, people. After all, you're just an employee to them, not a BFF.
I agree. Except more like 4 hours work for 8 hours pay.
It wasn't moderated yet when I replied.
It could be that it uses location-based leaderboards. I noticed that Flight Control shows your high score in comparison to people near you. I'm not advocating such a strange feature, just noticing it.
Pulled that one out of your ass, now didn't you? Apps do not have access to system-level settings like that. Yes, I know that. I am an iOS developer.
Your first generation iPod touch is not a phone, and hence would not have CarrierIQ.
Yes, but it's Apple. They be bad.
I agree. However, you were off topic and trolling.
Mod Troll Down!
Sure they can - just inspect them regularly and switch vendors if they get out of line.
That assumes that there is a capable vendor that is not doing the exact same thing.
So no, I don't buy that a flash mob of first time users just showed up when the 4S came out...
It's not the hardware itself (I need a cell phone for my job) but the wasteful culture of dumping your product every few months for a slightly better one, that's the real problem. And the worst offenders are Apple fanbois. Tell me this isn't true.
Or you could just let the disease run its course.
My wife is a provider and sees firsthand every day how patients whine until the providers give in. Drug company subsidies have little to do with it. Responsible clinics ban those anyway. It's patients unwilling to suffer even a day of illness insisting on antibiotics that won't work anyway.
I get a regularly recurring bronchitis. I don't run to the doctor in a couple of days. If it isn't better in about a month and I'm feeling chest congestion, then I'll go see the doctor.
Generally, I do use that strategy. However, since the time I had pnemonia with a fever that could be forced DOWN to 103 only with a gram of tylenol every four hours, I tweaked my strategy a bit.
When they give me amoxicillin, I always know I'll be back for a round of something else (augmentin seems to work for most of what I get).
Well guess what? Augmentin is amoxicillin. It just includes another drug that can inhibit the bacteria's resistance to the amoxicillin. So if you really feel like amoxicillin doesn't work for you, just tell your doctor what you told us here. He might not believe you, but he might comply with your wish to get the augmentin, because it's the same drug anyway.
I know it's the same drug - I do read labels. It's my experience that the Augmentin works better. I did once have a Nurse Practitioner change the script when I told her I thought it worked better.
Exactly my point, hence the concerns I outlined.
Oh, I re-read your post:
People who think our ingestion of antibiotics from animals is a factor in antibiotic resistance are crackpots who don't pay attention to the fact...
I thought you were referring to animal ingestion. Carry on, we are in agreement.
I have argued here and elsewhere that there is a high costs to our legal system. Sadly, just about every liberal screams that it only costs 3%. But the issue is that due to quick ability to sue, docs have adopted protective medicine. Not protection for the patient, but protection against lawsuits. As such, they give a number of antibiotics that we would not do. .
And sadly, just about every conservative screams that it costs 300% and wants to gut our ability to sue for LEGITIMATE reasons.
People who think our ingestion of antibiotics from animals is a factor in antibiotic resistance are crackpots who don't pay attention to the fact that we've been eating trace amounts of penicillin for tens of thousands of years.
Trace amounts are not the concern. Cows are fed much more than "trace amounts" of bacteria. Therein lies the problem.
I meant "cows are fed more than trace amounts of antibiotics." Too fast on the submit button.
People who think our ingestion of antibiotics from animals is a factor in antibiotic resistance are crackpots who don't pay attention to the fact that we've been eating trace amounts of penicillin for tens of thousands of years.
Trace amounts are not the concern. Cows are fed much more than "trace amounts" of bacteria. Therein lies the problem.