How does that square with the fact that I can't find a way to get broadband for less than $50/month in a major US city?
That's the balance point between equipment cost amortized over 4 months (about $200/connection, sometimes a bit less, somtimes a bit more) and competition in the area. Once they've got payback for those 4 months, of course they keep your rate the same- after all, it's quite a hassle to change.
When I was in France I was getting equivalent service for about a third of what I'm paying now. And I'm pretty sure the French government isn't subsidizing the cable companies to provide broadband, no matter how subsidy-happy they are otherwise.
Actually, if you search Google they do, or at least did- in the last year or so EU rules have changed that severely. But in addition to that, there's that quarterly bottom line to consider- many European stock markets operate on a different cycle, so there isn't the pressure to have a project started in one quarter paying in the next quarter, which can lower costs drastically. Plus- if you went with DSL instead of cable, you'd have a guaranteed bandwidth instead of variable, and even in the US, you'd be paying under $20/month in major cities.
Here's the end result- the Quarterly Report. This makes American corporations short sighted- if they can't show a profit within 4 months, then that's a project not worth doing. With competition, margins are razor-thin on broadband unless you're the very first company into a new area with sufficient potential subscribership to pay for your equipment within 4 months, you're not going to do it. Even more urban areas rarely get broadband unless existing infrastructure can support it, and small towns in the middle of nowhere aren't sufficiently populated to pay for it.
In most other nations, government services step in at that point, but not in the United States where we are afraid of government media services.
Yeah. If you really want to promote learning and prevent communication, block POST packets at the firewall, and force the kids to learn scroogle instead of google.
Like I said- some cities have this, some don't....and some phone companies claim to have it and then use it as a cost center....myself, I went a different direction. I went ahead with normal phone service on top of my DSL. It's more expensive, but at least if the local cell tower is down I can still make a normal phone call (albeit from the bathroom if the power is out- all the other phones are wireless and if their base stations don't have power, they can't be used).
To a single number. And hope that your security system HAS a local call-in number (it should anyway). The neat thing is, old fashioned phone lines are self powered and always work; you can get a dialtone that will only work with 911, 0, and a designated number for as little as $12/month in some cities. You can get 911 and 0 for free in most phone companies in the nation, this is called "basic dialtone service".
What the majority wants isn't always a good thing. What if the majority wants to ban porn?
Good idea, I'd say. Promotes good, life giving heterosexual marriage.
Or ban Linux?
It's hard to ban something that isn't even a real product yet.
Or ban black people? Or Mexicans?
Those two are easier. If we had banned the first in 1776, we wouldn't have had the problems in 1840. If we had banned the second in 1876 (by finishing the job) we wouldn't have the problem with illegal immigrants now because they all would have been American Citizens in the biggest state in North America.
And in a democracy if your neighbors vote to take your land doesn't mean they hate you, it might just mean they are greedy.
Why would anybody bother to be greedy, if they already had all they need? Greed is just brain damage- it only affects the few, not the many.
Ever here about the eminent domain abuses?
Yes- and I also heard about the MAJORITY protests afterward- since eminent domain ABUSE suggests a minority special interest, like a single developer.
I hate to tell ya but the United States was founded on the ideals of every individual having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I see nothing about unlimited wealth and destruction of other people's rights there.
Forcing someone to "conform" is contradictory to those ideals and is also unconstitutional.
Actually, it's in those ideals. Conform to right to life- be heterosexual and anti-abortion. Conform to right to liberty- don't mess with your neighbor and don't let your greed take away his property. Conform to pursuit to happiness- happiness is in conforming.
The original setup of the Federal government was such that it was bicameral (two houses). An upper house (senate) and lower house (house of reps). The Senate was a place for the States to be represented, the house was the place for the People to be represented.
Once again, if you have a functional democracy, there's no difference between People and State. The Original Founding Fathers were a bunch of Monarchists.
Perhaps you might not be aware, but each individual state in the US is its own sovereign nation. In other words, if all of the states got together tomorrow to have another Constitutional convention they could abolish the Federal government in a matter of 24 hours if desired.
I not only was aware of that- I vote for it every time it comes up, because as I see it, we haven't had a Constitutional Republic since 1840.
And you are talking about enslaving your neighbors? What is your point? It doesn't make sense.
Wealth is FINITE, not INFINITE- therefore it's all a zero sum game. The only way to gain wealth is to impoverish your neighbor- take resources that rightly belong to him.
From the article description: 'Imagine a car that accelerates from zero to sixty in 250 feet, and then rockets to 120 miles per hour in just one more inch.
Sounds like a damn good thing too. We would never stand for the police shooting people who commit other misdemeanors - if the cops shot a shoplifter or someone with an open bottle in public, that cop would be fired right away. As long as illegal entry into the country is classified as a misdemeanor, we had better not be shooting at them. And don't give me any silliness about drugs, because the DEA has plenty of ammo.
The DEA isn't on the border- another deriliction of duty. The country that cannont control it's own border, cannot enforce the law, is not a country, to paraphrase the last President who signed an Amnesty bill- an Amnesty bill that was supposed to be followed up with SRICT border controls, including killing those who don't do it legally.
This country does no such thing. Equality by money is what rules.
That's not what our Declaration of Independance says. EVERYBODY is supposed to be equal under the law here, that's what Rule of Law means. If you can't live under rule of law, you should be exiled. And that goes for homegrown Americans too.
Other countries may be worse, but we have rich man's justice here just like anywhere else. If enforcing that fairness really was so important to the US, then the penalties would be way worse than a civil fine or misdemeanor.
Exactly. The agreement in 1986 was that this would be the LAST amnesty ever- that all illegals would be deported and the borders locked down and mined. That didn't happen. This is in violation of our Constitution, little better than an invasion. Would China put up with say, North Vietnam sending them all of their criminals? I doubt it.
Life ain't fair, if we shared a land border with the rest of the world, you can bet your bippy plenty of those legal immigrants would be trying to take advantage of the situation too.
350,000 legal immigrants come from Mexico every year following the law. What makes you more deserving than them?
If you don't have a democracy, how do you know what the majority wants?
Outright pure democracy is a bad thing. In a pure democracy your neighbors can vote to divide up your land.
If you're that hated, you shouldn't be living there anyway.
There is no rule of law in a democracy.
Actually, there IS rule of law in a democracy- the mob makes the law and individuals are ruled by the law. If you can conform to the majority, you'll be just fine. If you can't conform, maybe you'd be happier in a monarchy.
One thing that needs to happen is that the US Senators should be chosen from their respective legislators again instead of a popular vote. The States need to have more of a say in the Federal government.
The legislators are not the State. The citizens are the state.
Besides, limiting the amount of income that people can earn is unconstitutional.
Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to enslave your neighbors?
Mainly guards at the border- who aren't even issued AMMO anymore. The Congress, which over and over refuses to adequately fund ICE enough to track people on visas to begin with and deport them when their visa runs out. The 200 prisoners of ICE sitting on their buts in an Idaho Jail, because they've figured out if they never fill out the form listing Country of Origin, ICE doesn't have the resources to find out where they came from, and thus can't deport them. The poor LEGAL immigrants who wait years, decades for a visa to move here, because ICE is too busy running around with inadequate information to actually process immigrant and permanent resident visas.
And you are so special you want to act unfairly and jump ahead of them in line? What case makes YOU so selfish to get special treatment in a land that values equality under the law above all else?
You really might want to rethink that; its possible to make a good deal of money in the current system if you are willing to "roll with the punches" and accept some job insecurity. I'm probably making double jobhopping the private sector, what I would be making in a steady job in the public sector, and while I am very aware that I have less job security, the difference in income makes it worth it, even when you factor in the inevitable possibility of another downturn.
NOT when you have health problems yourself or a kid with Cerebral palsy. Then Job security becomes WAY more important than money. Plus there's the cost of gasoline to consider- arson is very expensive these days.
Like I said - 2004 wasn't better. It wasn't until 2005-2006 before the labor market got tight.
It's high time it got a whole lot tighter. Tight enough to actually pay people for PRODUCTION rather than C-level executive schmoozing. Tight enough to require people to do real work rather than just creating more paperwork to get in the way.
It's an annoying but cost-effective way to reduce the corporate tax bill, with the real executive work being done at production sites.
Why not just spin off the production sites as local corporations on a franchise model? That way, you don't need a corporate headquarters at all, and local people get the pride of buying products from a local company.
Most states charge a use tax on good imported for use. Individuals don't get audited for them, but businesses certainly do, since they keep books on all business transactions.
You'd think that'd be against the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. They certainly use it against individuals enough.
The tax cut is small for higher income brackets, big for lower income brackets, and will sunset in 2010 anyway. Read about it here. It's true, some trust fund babies living off of dividends have benefited for a short period, but it's also been a help to many middle-class retirees.
Yeah, like any corporate puppet in Congress will let that sunset in 2010.
With a maximum wage, how would you incentivize performance in the most lucrative industries? Hell, even in academia, people are making ~$500k based on performance.
You just give people smaller raises slower. Same incentive, less increment. And anybody who pays a professor $500k is somebody who needs to lose their position on the university board- what a WASTE of trustee money.
Corporations are a legal construct, and so force would engender anarchy. A recent World Bank study shows convincingly that rule of law and an educated populace are the principal factors in prosperity, for all strata. Over decades it's in the interest of the upper/chattering class to promote these values.
Who in the upper class cares about DECADES? All they seem to care about is the 4 month bottom line. And in any anarchy- like a free market, most of which are chaotic anarchies- the rich man has no problem enforcing rule of law on the peons below him. Just kill off any who don't agree with you.
Perhaps I was misunderstood. We should all be taxed at an equal rate; in other words we should be taxed proportionally.
I completely disagree, for you're wrong about the next bit:
The United States is a constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected. The idea that the US is somehow a democracy is a misnomer.
We're not even that, and haven't been since the 1840s. We are a constitutional republic where the constitution is continually broken and the "representatives" are chosen directly by the rich for fake elections to make you think we've still got democratic elections. The vote means nothing- the politicians who have a big enough campaign chest to get elected have already been bribed and bought to the point that they are just shills for big corporations and their stockholders. THAT is why I want to limit the ability to earn- to give American citizens back the level of democracy YOU think they already have. We don't have a choice in voting- and won't until the most a person can earn is 10mw. Taxing at an equal rate really means that the person on the bottom doesn't have enough money left to survive, and the person at the top has enough money to pay bribes.
Would you PLEASE back up your claim with a citation that shows overstaying a visa is a federal FELONY as you originally claimed.
Well, I'm not real sure it is. But that's how the 1986 Amnesty deal was sold to the American citizenry- that they were going to let a bunch of people become citizens, and in return, from here on out they were going to arrest & deport every new illegal immigrant. Ok, after researching, I seem to have had it wrong. Giving an illegal alien a job was what was supposed to have become a felony (this has never been enforced). Also, committing a felony or three misdemeanors while overstaying your visa or other illegal immigration status is a felony requiring instant deportation (also never enforced).
Now you tell me- is it right to break a law merely because it is unenforced? Is it moral in your mind to enter a home and steal from it's inhabitants, while claiming "it's just a civil offense"?
I have looked it up. You are wrong. Here's one source out of thousands:
Wow, I knew the East Coast was rather relaxed by Pacific Northwest standards, but I didn't know it was THAT relaxed! It said very clearly on my last speeding ticket that it was a Class B misdemeanor- no wonder people are surprised by Oregon's trafic ticket fines (which start at $88 for minor offenses like a light out, and can easly exeed $2000 for driving 100 in a 65 zone).
One of thousands of cites that disagree with you:
A misdemeanor does not require an arrest; in Oregon it's much more likely to be a cite and release ticket with a fine and a court date (and if you're pleading guilty, you can just send in the fine before the court date, or even plead by letter). Only if you don't respond and don't make your court date are you guilty of contempt of court- necessitating an arrest.
And as for the NY Attorney General- well, he's not federal is he? NOR does he have anything to say about immigration, which is a FEDERAL offense, which in practice, is nothing more than a cite-and-realese, albeit release in country of origin.
Next time you want to prove someone wrong, you should actually check your facts by posting them in your rebuttal. Otherwise you end up wasting everyone's time.
It did turn out to be interesting though- should get you a positive mod. But the way illegal immigration is treated in this country shows an intense disrespect for rule of law in general- but what else do you expect from the Bush Administration?
It was widely invested with different Fidelity funds- a more misnamed brokerage house I can't imagine. Mine hit zero balance in 2002, after seeing more than half it's value disappear in taxes, brokerage fees, and falling stock prices throughout 2001, putting it below that magic $5000 limit below which it's worthless to invest at all.
True believers in the market are eternal optimists, no matter how many times they lose. Those of us who lost everything, simply have lost faith in market based economics, and will never allow the con artists to take advantage of us again.
The numbers are all faked anyway- there's no reality to any of it. It's all a myth, a fake just to keep the bankers and brokers in luxury producing nothing significant.
Overstaying a visa (which is how about 40% of illegal immigrants get here) is not even a criminal offense, not even a misdemeanor, just a civil offense like a speeding ticket.
A speeding ticket is a class B misdemeanor. Look it up. A "civil offense" is something you can get sued by a private individual for, a "criminal offense" is something you get a subpoena from a court officer, with bail, court appointment, fine, or jail time for. Criminal offenses are divided into midemeanors or felonies- the first you get a fine for, the second you get jail time for.
Most states don't have the jail space for illegal aliens, so in the past 30 years, even though it's officially listed as a FELONY, it's become in practice a MISDEMEANOR. But it's more like driving without a license than like a speeding ticket- if you commit another offense that is more serious, you CAN be deported for being an illegal alien (sometimes. I should point out that there is a man in Hillsboro, OR who is an illegal alien and it took 4 DUIIs with a manslaugter charge on the third to get him a deportation order- and right now he's out on bail and probably still driving without a license because he just can't take the hint).
Actually http://technocrat.net/ not only lets you submit your own story, but it has a decent amount of traffic of very smart people, but not so much that they've ever NOT published a story.
First, corporations do have to pay local and state income taxes, but the amount varies by location and business; this is why corporations shift their headquarters to places like Delaware and South Dakota, which have very low corporate income tax rates.
If you like having corporate headquarters which have a tendency to use resources and produce nothing, then yes, replacing your income tax with a sales tax is a very good idea.
Corporations certainly have to pay state sales taxes on goods purchased for use.
They can just avoid it by importing goods from Oregon.
Even if this weren't the case, how would wealthy people hide their income behind a corporation? Any "realized" gains in stocks (i.e., proceeds from sale or dividends) are subject to personal income tax as with salary, as are "fringe benefits" above a certain value that are not used solely for job functions (e.g., company car).
Not since the new Capital Gains tax cut went into effect.
You're correct that the big argument in favor of progressive income taxes w/ standard deductions is that the rich have more "discretionary income" than the poor, since food, rent, health care and education have minimum costs.
Yep, that's a big one- percentage of total income paid in taxes. Of course, if we had a truly progressive income tax with a maximum wage rate, that would not be a problem.
Finally, regarding influence peddling through campaign fundraising, I submit that the problem isn't that it takes money to buy speech, but that lawmakers have so much discretion over business regulation and taxation.
Yeah, sure, because paying for a 8000 man private army is so much cheaper than buying off 550 legislators. They're going to manipulate the regulation and taxation laws one way or the other- if not by subverting democracy, then with force.
By a severe lowering of income taxes. Government budgets are the original zero-sum game. The whole idea of sales tax is to shift the taxation burden from the extreme upper class to the poor.
Are you so sure about that? Blaming the spotted owl is easy. Most of the big logs get exported, raw. They were getting exported in the 80's (as well as running out), much like they are today
I'm sure that when Silverton's sawmill could no longer get Detroit Valley Second Growth logs, it shut down. The rest? Well, maybe it was just coincidental that the Spotted Owl lawsuits took several thousand acres out of production just at the same time, but I kind of doubt it.
Y'all should be blaming the logging companies (the very ones shutting down your mills who export lots of raw logs, not dimensional lumber while importing as much softwood lumber products from British Columbia as they can), feller-buncher and other highly automated lumber mill manufacturers instead.
That is certainly a factor KEEPING them shut down- the evolution of the industry once logging in the area was closed or turned to more "sustainable" techniques. But the lawsuits were the "straw that broke the camel's back".
At best the big-log sawmills might have lasted 5 or 10 more years longer than they eventually did.
Well, they had a set-in-place 80 year roatation that was destroyed by the lawsuits- I'd say they could have gone on for several decades yet to come if the industry hadn't been forced in a different direction. But yes, automation would have hit in there, reducing employment anyway.
Me, personally, I have no problem with Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, etc trying to take over the pulp wood market. All those quick-growing pine trees hide the states, which is a good thing in general. I'm not too concerned with my toilet paper being locally manufactured or not.
I'm concerned with all extra shipping markets, but for pulp? Those markets were untouched because they were private Eastern Oregon tree farms, not a part of the old growth forests of the Willamette and the Coast.
I have lived more or less in the Pac NW since 1980... as a kid I was amazed seeing logging trucks with one- or two-log loads. That's how big old-growth douglas fir trees could be, but later on grew to understand the need to keep the rest of them around). Logging those things is a one-timer. No one is going to let a replanted stand of trees go another 1000 years to let the trees grow that big.
I've been here since 1970- all of my life. I knew some of the really old timers just retired from the logging industry- those one or two log loads were SECOND GROWTH, thanks to the replanting done after logging in the 1890s. The very oldest tree in the state is the 270 year old Klatchy Creek Giant- now after this winter's storms it's likely the 2nd tallest Sitka Spruce in the world at 200 feet. There is NO WAY that tree would ever be logged- even today no logging truck could hold it's truck whole. When it falls (and it will fall, the same storm killed it) they're going to have to cut through it just to reopen the trail in that state park. Today, of course, logging companies in Oregon since 1972 have had to replant three trees for every tree cut- and in the Willamette Valley, that was on 2nd growth 80 year cycle rotation lands before the Spotted Owl contraversy. In fact, asside from a few heritage trees here and there, there are no trees in Oregon more than 110 years old- EVERY stand has been cut at least once.
Really, the sad thing for me was the elimination of all the "tepee burners", especially in Puget Sound, burning up cedar sawdust... And now we have MDF instead.
Yep, the plywood you have to wrap in plastic as you're building to keep the rain from disintegrating it.
The overall market may go up 10% per year, but an investor who rode out the 70s stagflation made nothing, while someone that started investing right have the 1987 crash made out like a bandit. Markets are rarely steady, and generally drift for stretches then shoot up for stretches, just the way markets work.
And that to me is the problem with markets. BTW, somebody who got a 401k in 1998 does NOT have that 401k now, either, it was as bad or worse than the 1970s. Crashes can and do wipe out any brokerage account with less than $5000 in it, all the time. I will NEVER trust the stock market again. It's better to keep your money under the mattress than trust a market that crashes every few years.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it amazing at how an ignorant troll can get an "Insightfull" for this cynical critical analysis of broadband price in the United States, yet you disagree with the obvious solution to such greed- a maximum earnings limit.
How does that square with the fact that I can't find a way to get broadband for less than $50/month in a major US city?
That's the balance point between equipment cost amortized over 4 months (about $200/connection, sometimes a bit less, somtimes a bit more) and competition in the area. Once they've got payback for those 4 months, of course they keep your rate the same- after all, it's quite a hassle to change.
When I was in France I was getting equivalent service for about a third of what I'm paying now. And I'm pretty sure the French government isn't subsidizing the cable companies to provide broadband, no matter how subsidy-happy they are otherwise.
Actually, if you search Google they do, or at least did- in the last year or so EU rules have changed that severely. But in addition to that, there's that quarterly bottom line to consider- many European stock markets operate on a different cycle, so there isn't the pressure to have a project started in one quarter paying in the next quarter, which can lower costs drastically. Plus- if you went with DSL instead of cable, you'd have a guaranteed bandwidth instead of variable, and even in the US, you'd be paying under $20/month in major cities.
Here's the end result- the Quarterly Report. This makes American corporations short sighted- if they can't show a profit within 4 months, then that's a project not worth doing. With competition, margins are razor-thin on broadband unless you're the very first company into a new area with sufficient potential subscribership to pay for your equipment within 4 months, you're not going to do it. Even more urban areas rarely get broadband unless existing infrastructure can support it, and small towns in the middle of nowhere aren't sufficiently populated to pay for it.
In most other nations, government services step in at that point, but not in the United States where we are afraid of government media services.
Yeah. If you really want to promote learning and prevent communication, block POST packets at the firewall, and force the kids to learn scroogle instead of google.
Like I said- some cities have this, some don't....and some phone companies claim to have it and then use it as a cost center....myself, I went a different direction. I went ahead with normal phone service on top of my DSL. It's more expensive, but at least if the local cell tower is down I can still make a normal phone call (albeit from the bathroom if the power is out- all the other phones are wireless and if their base stations don't have power, they can't be used).
To a single number. And hope that your security system HAS a local call-in number (it should anyway). The neat thing is, old fashioned phone lines are self powered and always work; you can get a dialtone that will only work with 911, 0, and a designated number for as little as $12/month in some cities. You can get 911 and 0 for free in most phone companies in the nation, this is called "basic dialtone service".
What the majority wants isn't always a good thing. What if the majority wants to ban porn?
Good idea, I'd say. Promotes good, life giving heterosexual marriage.
Or ban Linux?
It's hard to ban something that isn't even a real product yet.
Or ban black people? Or Mexicans?
Those two are easier. If we had banned the first in 1776, we wouldn't have had the problems in 1840. If we had banned the second in 1876 (by finishing the job) we wouldn't have the problem with illegal immigrants now because they all would have been American Citizens in the biggest state in North America.
And in a democracy if your neighbors vote to take your land doesn't mean they hate you, it might just mean they are greedy.
Why would anybody bother to be greedy, if they already had all they need? Greed is just brain damage- it only affects the few, not the many.
Ever here about the eminent domain abuses?
Yes- and I also heard about the MAJORITY protests afterward- since eminent domain ABUSE suggests a minority special interest, like a single developer.
I hate to tell ya but the United States was founded on the ideals of every individual having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I see nothing about unlimited wealth and destruction of other people's rights there.
Forcing someone to "conform" is contradictory to those ideals and is also unconstitutional.
Actually, it's in those ideals. Conform to right to life- be heterosexual and anti-abortion. Conform to right to liberty- don't mess with your neighbor and don't let your greed take away his property. Conform to pursuit to happiness- happiness is in conforming.
The original setup of the Federal government was such that it was bicameral (two houses). An upper house (senate) and lower house (house of reps). The Senate was a place for the States to be represented, the house was the place for the People to be represented.
Once again, if you have a functional democracy, there's no difference between People and State. The Original Founding Fathers were a bunch of Monarchists.
Perhaps you might not be aware, but each individual state in the US is its own sovereign nation. In other words, if all of the states got together tomorrow to have another Constitutional convention they could abolish the Federal government in a matter of 24 hours if desired.
I not only was aware of that- I vote for it every time it comes up, because as I see it, we haven't had a Constitutional Republic since 1840.
And you are talking about enslaving your neighbors? What is your point? It doesn't make sense.
Wealth is FINITE, not INFINITE- therefore it's all a zero sum game. The only way to gain wealth is to impoverish your neighbor- take resources that rightly belong to him.
From the article description: 'Imagine a car that accelerates from zero to sixty in 250 feet, and then rockets to 120 miles per hour in just one more inch.
Say hellow to jello bones.
Sounds like a damn good thing too. We would never stand for the police shooting people who commit other misdemeanors - if the cops shot a shoplifter or someone with an open bottle in public, that cop would be fired right away. As long as illegal entry into the country is classified as a misdemeanor, we had better not be shooting at them. And don't give me any silliness about drugs, because the DEA has plenty of ammo.
The DEA isn't on the border- another deriliction of duty. The country that cannont control it's own border, cannot enforce the law, is not a country, to paraphrase the last President who signed an Amnesty bill- an Amnesty bill that was supposed to be followed up with SRICT border controls, including killing those who don't do it legally.
This country does no such thing. Equality by money is what rules.
That's not what our Declaration of Independance says. EVERYBODY is supposed to be equal under the law here, that's what Rule of Law means. If you can't live under rule of law, you should be exiled. And that goes for homegrown Americans too.
Other countries may be worse, but we have rich man's justice here just like anywhere else. If enforcing that fairness really was so important to the US, then the penalties would be way worse than a civil fine or misdemeanor.
Exactly. The agreement in 1986 was that this would be the LAST amnesty ever- that all illegals would be deported and the borders locked down and mined. That didn't happen. This is in violation of our Constitution, little better than an invasion. Would China put up with say, North Vietnam sending them all of their criminals? I doubt it.
Life ain't fair, if we shared a land border with the rest of the world, you can bet your bippy plenty of those legal immigrants would be trying to take advantage of the situation too.
350,000 legal immigrants come from Mexico every year following the law. What makes you more deserving than them?
We (as a People) shouldn't want democracy.
If you don't have a democracy, how do you know what the majority wants?
Outright pure democracy is a bad thing. In a pure democracy your neighbors can vote to divide up your land.
If you're that hated, you shouldn't be living there anyway.
There is no rule of law in a democracy.
Actually, there IS rule of law in a democracy- the mob makes the law and individuals are ruled by the law. If you can conform to the majority, you'll be just fine. If you can't conform, maybe you'd be happier in a monarchy.
One thing that needs to happen is that the US Senators should be chosen from their respective legislators again instead of a popular vote. The States need to have more of a say in the Federal government.
The legislators are not the State. The citizens are the state.
Besides, limiting the amount of income that people can earn is unconstitutional.
Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to enslave your neighbors?
Hello? Who said it is unenforced?
Mainly guards at the border- who aren't even issued AMMO anymore. The Congress, which over and over refuses to adequately fund ICE enough to track people on visas to begin with and deport them when their visa runs out. The 200 prisoners of ICE sitting on their buts in an Idaho Jail, because they've figured out if they never fill out the form listing Country of Origin, ICE doesn't have the resources to find out where they came from, and thus can't deport them. The poor LEGAL immigrants who wait years, decades for a visa to move here, because ICE is too busy running around with inadequate information to actually process immigrant and permanent resident visas.
And you are so special you want to act unfairly and jump ahead of them in line? What case makes YOU so selfish to get special treatment in a land that values equality under the law above all else?
You really might want to rethink that; its possible to make a good deal of money in the current system if you are willing to "roll with the punches" and accept some job insecurity. I'm probably making double jobhopping the private sector, what I would be making in a steady job in the public sector, and while I am very aware that I have less job security, the difference in income makes it worth it, even when you factor in the inevitable possibility of another downturn.
NOT when you have health problems yourself or a kid with Cerebral palsy. Then Job security becomes WAY more important than money. Plus there's the cost of gasoline to consider- arson is very expensive these days.
Like I said - 2004 wasn't better. It wasn't until 2005-2006 before the labor market got tight.
It's high time it got a whole lot tighter. Tight enough to actually pay people for PRODUCTION rather than C-level executive schmoozing. Tight enough to require people to do real work rather than just creating more paperwork to get in the way.
It's an annoying but cost-effective way to reduce the corporate tax bill, with the real executive work being done at production sites.
Why not just spin off the production sites as local corporations on a franchise model? That way, you don't need a corporate headquarters at all, and local people get the pride of buying products from a local company.
Most states charge a use tax on good imported for use. Individuals don't get audited for them, but businesses certainly do, since they keep books on all business transactions.
You'd think that'd be against the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. They certainly use it against individuals enough.
The tax cut is small for higher income brackets, big for lower income brackets, and will sunset in 2010 anyway. Read about it here. It's true, some trust fund babies living off of dividends have benefited for a short period, but it's also been a help to many middle-class retirees.
Yeah, like any corporate puppet in Congress will let that sunset in 2010.
With a maximum wage, how would you incentivize performance in the most lucrative industries? Hell, even in academia, people are making ~$500k based on performance.
You just give people smaller raises slower. Same incentive, less increment. And anybody who pays a professor $500k is somebody who needs to lose their position on the university board- what a WASTE of trustee money.
Corporations are a legal construct, and so force would engender anarchy. A recent World Bank study shows convincingly that rule of law and an educated populace are the principal factors in prosperity, for all strata. Over decades it's in the interest of the upper/chattering class to promote these values.
Who in the upper class cares about DECADES? All they seem to care about is the 4 month bottom line. And in any anarchy- like a free market, most of which are chaotic anarchies- the rich man has no problem enforcing rule of law on the peons below him. Just kill off any who don't agree with you.
Perhaps I was misunderstood. We should all be taxed at an equal rate; in other words we should be taxed proportionally.
I completely disagree, for you're wrong about the next bit:
The United States is a constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected. The idea that the US is somehow a democracy is a misnomer.
We're not even that, and haven't been since the 1840s. We are a constitutional republic where the constitution is continually broken and the "representatives" are chosen directly by the rich for fake elections to make you think we've still got democratic elections. The vote means nothing- the politicians who have a big enough campaign chest to get elected have already been bribed and bought to the point that they are just shills for big corporations and their stockholders. THAT is why I want to limit the ability to earn- to give American citizens back the level of democracy YOU think they already have. We don't have a choice in voting- and won't until the most a person can earn is 10mw. Taxing at an equal rate really means that the person on the bottom doesn't have enough money left to survive, and the person at the top has enough money to pay bribes.
Would you PLEASE back up your claim with a citation that shows overstaying a visa is a federal FELONY as you originally claimed.
Well, I'm not real sure it is. But that's how the 1986 Amnesty deal was sold to the American citizenry- that they were going to let a bunch of people become citizens, and in return, from here on out they were going to arrest & deport every new illegal immigrant. Ok, after researching, I seem to have had it wrong. Giving an illegal alien a job was what was supposed to have become a felony (this has never been enforced). Also, committing a felony or three misdemeanors while overstaying your visa or other illegal immigration status is a felony requiring instant deportation (also never enforced).
Now you tell me- is it right to break a law merely because it is unenforced? Is it moral in your mind to enter a home and steal from it's inhabitants, while claiming "it's just a civil offense"?
I have looked it up. You are wrong. Here's one source out of thousands:
Wow, I knew the East Coast was rather relaxed by Pacific Northwest standards, but I didn't know it was THAT relaxed! It said very clearly on my last speeding ticket that it was a Class B misdemeanor- no wonder people are surprised by Oregon's trafic ticket fines (which start at $88 for minor offenses like a light out, and can easly exeed $2000 for driving 100 in a 65 zone).
One of thousands of cites that disagree with you:
A misdemeanor does not require an arrest; in Oregon it's much more likely to be a cite and release ticket with a fine and a court date (and if you're pleading guilty, you can just send in the fine before the court date, or even plead by letter). Only if you don't respond and don't make your court date are you guilty of contempt of court- necessitating an arrest.
And as for the NY Attorney General- well, he's not federal is he? NOR does he have anything to say about immigration, which is a FEDERAL offense, which in practice, is nothing more than a cite-and-realese, albeit release in country of origin.
Next time you want to prove someone wrong, you should actually check your facts by posting them in your rebuttal. Otherwise you end up wasting everyone's time.
It did turn out to be interesting though- should get you a positive mod. But the way illegal immigration is treated in this country shows an intense disrespect for rule of law in general- but what else do you expect from the Bush Administration?
It was widely invested with different Fidelity funds- a more misnamed brokerage house I can't imagine. Mine hit zero balance in 2002, after seeing more than half it's value disappear in taxes, brokerage fees, and falling stock prices throughout 2001, putting it below that magic $5000 limit below which it's worthless to invest at all.
True believers in the market are eternal optimists, no matter how many times they lose. Those of us who lost everything, simply have lost faith in market based economics, and will never allow the con artists to take advantage of us again.
The numbers are all faked anyway- there's no reality to any of it. It's all a myth, a fake just to keep the bankers and brokers in luxury producing nothing significant.
Overstaying a visa (which is how about 40% of illegal immigrants get here) is not even a criminal offense, not even a misdemeanor, just a civil offense like a speeding ticket.
A speeding ticket is a class B misdemeanor. Look it up. A "civil offense" is something you can get sued by a private individual for, a "criminal offense" is something you get a subpoena from a court officer, with bail, court appointment, fine, or jail time for. Criminal offenses are divided into midemeanors or felonies- the first you get a fine for, the second you get jail time for.
Most states don't have the jail space for illegal aliens, so in the past 30 years, even though it's officially listed as a FELONY, it's become in practice a MISDEMEANOR. But it's more like driving without a license than like a speeding ticket- if you commit another offense that is more serious, you CAN be deported for being an illegal alien (sometimes. I should point out that there is a man in Hillsboro, OR who is an illegal alien and it took 4 DUIIs with a manslaugter charge on the third to get him a deportation order- and right now he's out on bail and probably still driving without a license because he just can't take the hint).
Actually http://technocrat.net/ not only lets you submit your own story, but it has a decent amount of traffic of very smart people, but not so much that they've ever NOT published a story.
For good reason! But yes, I agree on the Corporate Kicker. It's even worse when most corporations that do business in Oregon aren't owned by 'Gonies.
First, corporations do have to pay local and state income taxes, but the amount varies by location and business; this is why corporations shift their headquarters to places like Delaware and South Dakota, which have very low corporate income tax rates.
If you like having corporate headquarters which have a tendency to use resources and produce nothing, then yes, replacing your income tax with a sales tax is a very good idea.
Corporations certainly have to pay state sales taxes on goods purchased for use.
They can just avoid it by importing goods from Oregon.
Even if this weren't the case, how would wealthy people hide their income behind a corporation? Any "realized" gains in stocks (i.e., proceeds from sale or dividends) are subject to personal income tax as with salary, as are "fringe benefits" above a certain value that are not used solely for job functions (e.g., company car).
Not since the new Capital Gains tax cut went into effect.
You're correct that the big argument in favor of progressive income taxes w/ standard deductions is that the rich have more "discretionary income" than the poor, since food, rent, health care and education have minimum costs.
Yep, that's a big one- percentage of total income paid in taxes. Of course, if we had a truly progressive income tax with a maximum wage rate, that would not be a problem.
Finally, regarding influence peddling through campaign fundraising, I submit that the problem isn't that it takes money to buy speech, but that lawmakers have so much discretion over business regulation and taxation.
Yeah, sure, because paying for a 8000 man private army is so much cheaper than buying off 550 legislators. They're going to manipulate the regulation and taxation laws one way or the other- if not by subverting democracy, then with force.
By a severe lowering of income taxes. Government budgets are the original zero-sum game. The whole idea of sales tax is to shift the taxation burden from the extreme upper class to the poor.
Are you so sure about that? Blaming the spotted owl is easy. Most of the big logs get exported, raw. They were getting exported in the 80's (as well as running out), much like they are today
I'm sure that when Silverton's sawmill could no longer get Detroit Valley Second Growth logs, it shut down. The rest? Well, maybe it was just coincidental that the Spotted Owl lawsuits took several thousand acres out of production just at the same time, but I kind of doubt it.
Y'all should be blaming the logging companies (the very ones shutting down your mills who export lots of raw logs, not dimensional lumber while importing as much softwood lumber products from British Columbia as they can), feller-buncher and other highly automated lumber mill manufacturers instead.
That is certainly a factor KEEPING them shut down- the evolution of the industry once logging in the area was closed or turned to more "sustainable" techniques. But the lawsuits were the "straw that broke the camel's back".
At best the big-log sawmills might have lasted 5 or 10 more years longer than they eventually did.
Well, they had a set-in-place 80 year roatation that was destroyed by the lawsuits- I'd say they could have gone on for several decades yet to come if the industry hadn't been forced in a different direction. But yes, automation would have hit in there, reducing employment anyway.
Me, personally, I have no problem with Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, etc trying to take over the pulp wood market. All those quick-growing pine trees hide the states, which is a good thing in general. I'm not too concerned with my toilet paper being locally manufactured or not.
I'm concerned with all extra shipping markets, but for pulp? Those markets were untouched because they were private Eastern Oregon tree farms, not a part of the old growth forests of the Willamette and the Coast.
I have lived more or less in the Pac NW since 1980... as a kid I was amazed seeing logging trucks with one- or two-log loads. That's how big old-growth douglas fir trees could be, but later on grew to understand the need to keep the rest of them around). Logging those things is a one-timer. No one is going to let a replanted stand of trees go another 1000 years to let the trees grow that big.
I've been here since 1970- all of my life. I knew some of the really old timers just retired from the logging industry- those one or two log loads were SECOND GROWTH, thanks to the replanting done after logging in the 1890s. The very oldest tree in the state is the 270 year old Klatchy Creek Giant- now after this winter's storms it's likely the 2nd tallest Sitka Spruce in the world at 200 feet. There is NO WAY that tree would ever be logged- even today no logging truck could hold it's truck whole. When it falls (and it will fall, the same storm killed it) they're going to have to cut through it just to reopen the trail in that state park. Today, of course, logging companies in Oregon since 1972 have had to replant three trees for every tree cut- and in the Willamette Valley, that was on 2nd growth 80 year cycle rotation lands before the Spotted Owl contraversy. In fact, asside from a few heritage trees here and there, there are no trees in Oregon more than 110 years old- EVERY stand has been cut at least once.
Really, the sad thing for me was the elimination of all the "tepee burners", especially in Puget Sound, burning up cedar sawdust... And now we have MDF instead.
Yep, the plywood you have to wrap in plastic as you're building to keep the rain from disintegrating it.
The overall market may go up 10% per year, but an investor who rode out the 70s stagflation made nothing, while someone that started investing right have the 1987 crash made out like a bandit. Markets are rarely steady, and generally drift for stretches then shoot up for stretches, just the way markets work.
And that to me is the problem with markets. BTW, somebody who got a 401k in 1998 does NOT have that 401k now, either, it was as bad or worse than the 1970s. Crashes can and do wipe out any brokerage account with less than $5000 in it, all the time. I will NEVER trust the stock market again. It's better to keep your money under the mattress than trust a market that crashes every few years.