I imagine if you have the means to buy a $100k electric sports car, the extra battery pack cost isn't going to be something you have to figure out how to finance.
One of the first new 3D movies I saw was Beowulf. After about 10 min of trying to figure out why the screen looked like crap, I experimented and flipped the glasses upside down, fixed everything. So, I would say that sometimes having the glasses on backwards is a good thing:-)
I'm glad you have good service in France. I cannot say the same when I lived in Germany. Their landline service was spotty at best and frightfully expensive. It's a source of amusement to me that everything Tmobile is in the US, DT wasn't in Germany.
I think they will justify it probably under the interstate commerce clause, since some of the materials to build some of the roads are brought in from out of state, they will claim the ability to regulate the taxation of the vehicles that drive on them, or something along those lines.
Really, the taxes for fuel now should be spent at the state level, and not sent to the feds so they can be withheld as ransom to force the states into passing legislature that the feds were unable to do so.
Frankly, and i don't mean to troll or start a war here either, but I really do think the federal government has reached it's own breaking point and the people will demand that it be cut back in size. It controls and legislates over way too many things that it has no valid authority to do so via loopholes in the commerce, welfare and taxation clauses.
So they found a way to make money on what would normally be overhead, I don't see a problem with that. For me, it's worth the $10 I spend on each of my lines for the family to have the option to txt the kids, or them to txt me. Even tho I account for maybe 1% of the messages each month, I don't have a problem paying for the service. I got caught paying per message fees once with my teen aged daughter, worked out a deal with the carrier to back date the unlimited plan. They were quite reasonable about it.
It seems everyone gets really upset when a company finds a way to make a profit. Companies that don't make money go out of business.
You are certainly correct in that I should have been more specific. I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, that he wasn't well educated on the subject because of the statement that consumption taxes, specifically the fair tax, are regressive. The program includes a "prebate" that covers what the tax will cost on the necessities of life. So the lowest income earners, those who spend nearly all of their income on necessities will in effect pay zero taxes. The wealthy, who spend the majority of their income on luxury items will now be paying taxes instead of finding loopholes. This also will effectively tax the gray and/or black markets which operate on a cash basis.
I know it's not a perfect tax, but I believe it's FAR better than what we have now.
And when they say "fair", they mean "provide they greatest benefit to the rich".
Consumption taxes are about as regressive as you can get.
I imagine that if you took just a little time to educate yourself on both sides of the proposal, as I have, you'll understand the benefits outweigh the cons.
I'm going to assume you mean increase income tax rates. Historically, the US has a revenue of about 19% of GDP regardless of what the marginal tax rate is. So, increasing the marginal tax rate isn't a solution for over spending. That's one of many reasons why I support the proposal called "the fair tax" which would replace all existing payroll and income taxes with a consumption tax.
Actually it is - just like federal highway administration. There are certain things that just can't be done on the small scale local government level. I am curious what you think the federal government's purpose IS if it isn't to take on national scale projects.
I'd say that's pretty well spelled out in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. It's unfortunate that the general welfare clause and regulating trade among the states clause have been so badly abused. They were never intended to give the federal government unlimited power.
You left out the reasonable people who read both sides of the argument and have yet to be convinced that global climate change is man made.
I would love to see a 10-20 year plan to phase out "clean" coal and replace it with nukes. I think it would provide jobs for the displaced coal plant workers without making the utility bills sky rocket. It would give us a nice bridge for the next 50 years when the tech behind solar, wind and tidal energy sources becomes viable in the market place.
The problem comes from people. An individual is generally reasonable and open ideas, people as a whole are not. For example, the same country that elected Obama also elected Bush. Twice.
You have an excellent point. I offer evidence of this with the movie "The Man From Earth". I don't recall this excellent movie ever being in theaters, and when the producer found it was being shared online, asked for a small donation if you downloaded it and enjoyed it. I kicked in a couple of bucks because I want to encourage this sort of marketing.
I've been in that airport and the first impression I had was the guards smoking under the "No Smoking" sign, with an ashtray there. My last impression (as we were getting ready to come home) was that they had a little old lady cleaning the men's room. Not only was it open, no one seemed bothered by it.
I can't think of a single government that has extra money. If they found that the necessities of government cost less than they collected in taxes they should give it back to the people who they got it from. I know that's crazy talk, but I'm not a socialist.
I think the new energy technologies are wicked cool. Geothermal, solar, wind (really solar in disguise), tidal, etc. Even nuclear and hydroelectric are cooler than "clean" coal technology. I look forward to the day when these technologies can compete with the cheap energy produced by burning coal without government subsidies. Having a hydrogen powered car will be a blast!
As we see from this quiet time in solar activity, the sun has a far greater impact on global climate than the 0.00117% of man made CO2 in the atmosphere. So, unless we're planning on regulating the sun, I'm not ready to transfer wealth via taxes and subsidies, cap and trade or any other drastic regulation that will harm our slowly recovering economy. You disagree, and that's fine. I won't ask you to believe what I do, just understand that I see the facts differently than you do.
I stand corrected that these are state mandates on insurance. I think you're backwards there on your logic. If I don't want the fed being involved in something that is broken, then it's a state's issue, right? Then how am I wanting to limit that state's rights by keeping the fed out of it? Help me see where you're coming from.
I would also add removing the mandates on insurance companies that prevents them from being sold across state lines. The more open a market is, the more the market will force the price down.
I would consider tort reform for medical malpractice in our (your) list as well. If the cost of the insurance for real medical malpractice goes down, the rates of the doctors providing the services will go down as well.
Congress had a chance to do all these things, and yet decided to go down the route that gives the most power to the federal government possible. I wonder why.
Because, if every bit of legislation passed in the last hundred years was put to a strict constitutional test and found to not be within the powers of congress to legislate the libertarians would win. Then again, maybe that's not a bad thing.
So... is there a test that can be performed in the field to see if the subject has this specific gene combo? Say something you could add to a drink (or spike the bars ice supply with) that would react and turn the drink blue to identify the trait and safe the rest of us guys a few hours of effort? I suppose you could also market the test to couples thinking of an exclusive relationship.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine if you have the means to buy a $100k electric sports car, the extra battery pack cost isn't going to be something you have to figure out how to finance.
Did you put the glasses on backwards?
One of the first new 3D movies I saw was Beowulf. After about 10 min of trying to figure out why the screen looked like crap, I experimented and flipped the glasses upside down, fixed everything. So, I would say that sometimes having the glasses on backwards is a good thing :-)
I'm glad you have good service in France. I cannot say the same when I lived in Germany. Their landline service was spotty at best and frightfully expensive. It's a source of amusement to me that everything Tmobile is in the US, DT wasn't in Germany.
I think they will justify it probably under the interstate commerce clause, since some of the materials to build some of the roads are brought in from out of state, they will claim the ability to regulate the taxation of the vehicles that drive on them, or something along those lines.
Really, the taxes for fuel now should be spent at the state level, and not sent to the feds so they can be withheld as ransom to force the states into passing legislature that the feds were unable to do so.
Frankly, and i don't mean to troll or start a war here either, but I really do think the federal government has reached it's own breaking point and the people will demand that it be cut back in size. It controls and legislates over way too many things that it has no valid authority to do so via loopholes in the commerce, welfare and taxation clauses.
So they found a way to make money on what would normally be overhead, I don't see a problem with that. For me, it's worth the $10 I spend on each of my lines for the family to have the option to txt the kids, or them to txt me. Even tho I account for maybe 1% of the messages each month, I don't have a problem paying for the service. I got caught paying per message fees once with my teen aged daughter, worked out a deal with the carrier to back date the unlimited plan. They were quite reasonable about it.
It seems everyone gets really upset when a company finds a way to make a profit. Companies that don't make money go out of business.
You are certainly correct in that I should have been more specific. I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, that he wasn't well educated on the subject because of the statement that consumption taxes, specifically the fair tax, are regressive. The program includes a "prebate" that covers what the tax will cost on the necessities of life. So the lowest income earners, those who spend nearly all of their income on necessities will in effect pay zero taxes. The wealthy, who spend the majority of their income on luxury items will now be paying taxes instead of finding loopholes. This also will effectively tax the gray and/or black markets which operate on a cash basis.
I know it's not a perfect tax, but I believe it's FAR better than what we have now.
I imagine that if you took just a little time to educate yourself on both sides of the proposal, as I have, you'll understand the benefits outweigh the cons.
I'm going to assume you mean increase income tax rates. Historically, the US has a revenue of about 19% of GDP regardless of what the marginal tax rate is. So, increasing the marginal tax rate isn't a solution for over spending. That's one of many reasons why I support the proposal called "the fair tax" which would replace all existing payroll and income taxes with a consumption tax.
Actually it is - just like federal highway administration. There are certain things that just can't be done on the small scale local government level. I am curious what you think the federal government's purpose IS if it isn't to take on national scale projects.
I'd say that's pretty well spelled out in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. It's unfortunate that the general welfare clause and regulating trade among the states clause have been so badly abused. They were never intended to give the federal government unlimited power.
You left out the reasonable people who read both sides of the argument and have yet to be convinced that global climate change is man made.
I would love to see a 10-20 year plan to phase out "clean" coal and replace it with nukes. I think it would provide jobs for the displaced coal plant workers without making the utility bills sky rocket. It would give us a nice bridge for the next 50 years when the tech behind solar, wind and tidal energy sources becomes viable in the market place.
The problem comes from people. An individual is generally reasonable and open ideas, people as a whole are not. For example, the same country that elected Obama also elected Bush. Twice.
You have an excellent point. I offer evidence of this with the movie "The Man From Earth". I don't recall this excellent movie ever being in theaters, and when the producer found it was being shared online, asked for a small donation if you downloaded it and enjoyed it. I kicked in a couple of bucks because I want to encourage this sort of marketing.
I've been in that airport and the first impression I had was the guards smoking under the "No Smoking" sign, with an ashtray there. My last impression (as we were getting ready to come home) was that they had a little old lady cleaning the men's room. Not only was it open, no one seemed bothered by it.
I can't think of a single government that has extra money. If they found that the necessities of government cost less than they collected in taxes they should give it back to the people who they got it from. I know that's crazy talk, but I'm not a socialist.
Wait... what? There are articles?
I think the new energy technologies are wicked cool. Geothermal, solar, wind (really solar in disguise), tidal, etc. Even nuclear and hydroelectric are cooler than "clean" coal technology. I look forward to the day when these technologies can compete with the cheap energy produced by burning coal without government subsidies. Having a hydrogen powered car will be a blast!
As we see from this quiet time in solar activity, the sun has a far greater impact on global climate than the 0.00117% of man made CO2 in the atmosphere. So, unless we're planning on regulating the sun, I'm not ready to transfer wealth via taxes and subsidies, cap and trade or any other drastic regulation that will harm our slowly recovering economy. You disagree, and that's fine. I won't ask you to believe what I do, just understand that I see the facts differently than you do.
Good link, even better that I used to live in Ft. Collins :-)
Do you trust someone with a profit motive to screw with your connection, or someone with a political motive?
profit, as it has the market forces to help keep it in check. What keeps politicians in check? More politicians.
I stand corrected that these are state mandates on insurance. I think you're backwards there on your logic. If I don't want the fed being involved in something that is broken, then it's a state's issue, right? Then how am I wanting to limit that state's rights by keeping the fed out of it? Help me see where you're coming from.
I'm pretty sure stating an opinion or point of view that you like doesn't magically turn it from FUD into fact. Sorry.
I would also add removing the mandates on insurance companies that prevents them from being sold across state lines. The more open a market is, the more the market will force the price down.
I would consider tort reform for medical malpractice in our (your) list as well. If the cost of the insurance for real medical malpractice goes down, the rates of the doctors providing the services will go down as well.
Congress had a chance to do all these things, and yet decided to go down the route that gives the most power to the federal government possible. I wonder why.
Because, if every bit of legislation passed in the last hundred years was put to a strict constitutional test and found to not be within the powers of congress to legislate the libertarians would win. Then again, maybe that's not a bad thing.
What does that say about your sister? And can I get her number?
So... is there a test that can be performed in the field to see if the subject has this specific gene combo? Say something you could add to a drink (or spike the bars ice supply with) that would react and turn the drink blue to identify the trait and safe the rest of us guys a few hours of effort? I suppose you could also market the test to couples thinking of an exclusive relationship.
Just thinking out loud, ignore me.
If that's what you get from what I said then any reasonable argument I might offer is lost on you.
and here I thought she resigned because the avalanche of baseless lawsuits was impacting her ability to do her job.