But that's significantly like the El Camino, so not without precedent. Some others had a removable partition between the cab and the storage, so you could put a cap on the back and it'd be like it was inside the cab.
That it's exeedingly rare when the gun-nuts say "rather than that unconstitutional legislation, why don't you try to change the Constitution so it would be legal?"
I think because the gun-nuts are worried that the gun haters would actually try it.
For all the lawsuits on guns, it would make sense to "clarify" the right in the Constitution. It's obviously a point that needs clarification. But I see the gun nuts backing down from that stance because they don't want the Amendment process to weaken it.
So you are saying that pushing a social agenda through legislation isn't an idea that the conservatives whine about the liberals doing constantly? (yes, deliberately worded so that "constantly" is ambiguous, it could be the conservatives constantly whining, or the liberals constantly pushing legislation that pushes a social agenda, or both)
Or are you saying that passing legislation to "encourage" an act, like saving isn't pushing a social agenda through legislation?
I only ever got "A technical problem has occurred. Please try your request again later." I'll try again later. I may have answered wrong on a question, but there are no little hints that there was a wrong answer.
But if I make $100k at 10% tax, and I save 10%, I'm left with $9k. If I'm taxed on spending, not income, then I have $1000 more at the end of the year.
The temporarily embarrassed Millionaires like to think that they'll have millions in savings return income, and so long as they don't spend it, they will make more money.
Why must you liberals always push a social agenda through law? Want to encourage savings and investment? Pass a law that has a second or third order effect to get the result you want.
If income tax was abolished, then the IRS should go with it. The IRS exists solely to administer Income tax. So abolish that, and the IRS is dead. Though the organization that replaces it may share the same name, it won't be the same.
Even if the income tax changes to PAYE, that would eliminate more than half the work of the IRS, even if an income tax still remained. The enforcement arm could be 1/100th of today with PAYE. That changes the IRS fundamentally.
The IRS doesn't need to change. The laws that generate income for the US should be changed. Of course, that would necessarily change the IRS as well.
Fuel tax is so low it doesn't pay for roads, but maybe 1/10th of roads. The most common fuel tax is an excise tax, pennies per gallon, not too bad when it started, but not linked to inflation or fuel cost. So the percent of fuel that went to taxes has steadily dropped to where it might as well be zero.
The miser is hoarding cash. Not competing to buy the goods you want doesn't make much difference. But taxing spending of the person borrowing a million to spend it, you are taxing money that isn't there from someone who can't afford it. Taxing the production is more "fair" for the average person. Taxing the spending is considered better by those who assert that they live within their means. Tax becomes optional at that point.
Top 10% of the country holds 73% of the wealth. I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but the wealth is very concentrated in the top. The bottom 60% hold less than 5% of the wealth.
Evolution has been debated for over 100 years, but only the pro-evolution views are being upvoted here. Is that because the treatment here is not fair, or the truth is not "unbiased"? Only one can be true, right?
My problem is that the prebate checks are not big enough. The tax should be 45% (or whatever necessary to balance the budget), and the prebate should be 8x what the Fair Tax people are currently proposing. It'll then be a UBI, sufficient for a person to live above the poverty line without working.
Also, I'd link the tax to last year's budget. There'd never be another deficit. The tax will go up or down 1% or whatever to make the lines always match.
Could easily use the PT Cruiser example. The rear seats fold flat so it could be sold as a "truck". Yes, the Dodge Neon Hearse is a truck, not a car. Because Chrysler was dodging CAFE.
If that were true, they'd be for programs like Head Start, where every $1 spend saves more than that in future costs the Libertarian approves of (like prisons and police). Head Start is a reasonable program for a "small government". Instead the Libertarians are spiteful racists. They want to make sure nobody else gets an opportunity by rigging the game and eliminating all help for others.
In that sense, Bush Jr. was the ultimate Libertarian. He used affirmative action to get into Yale, but would like to end Affirmative Action (he got in under "legacy" where who your daddy is counts for admissions, but wants to eliminate AA, where who your daddy is counts for admissions). That's the real ideal of Libertarian. An actual libertarian would want open borders. Less government regulation. If there's a cost to that, then charge the entrants for coming here - service based fees. But the US-Libertarians want closed borders and large government securing them. That's no libertarian. That's a new brand of conservative that's labeled neo-liberal outside the US.
Unfortunately, there's an underlying mentality in some people that if you can't support yourself, you're basically worthless, and deserve to die.
My belief is that it's an unconscious belief. They act as if they believe it, but when confronted, they say things like "if you cut taxes, people will give more." and "nobody will go without, you are making false assumptions."
Because they are unwilling to think about the reasoning that must exist for their position to be valid. Though, the prisons are becoming debtor's prisons. Deadbeat dads can't declare bankruptcy to get out of child support, but if they go to prison, they never have to pay a dime. Same with student loans, and other debts that can't be discharged. Also, health care is free in prison.
People aren't sent there for being in debt, but they end up making choices that land them there because of debt. Interesting that the Libertarian is against spending $0.50 of preventative care to stop $10 in enforcement costs. That's why I think Libertarians are as much big-government as the two main parties, it's just all military and police. If they were actually small government, they'd be for Head Start and other programs that increase tax revenue and reduce prison and enforcement costs. But they aren't. Don't ask them why, or they get angry. Just like the people you question who want poor people to die to decrease the surplus population.
It's never an issue. Those for gun control don't think they need to change the Constitution, and those against never offer it up as a gauge of public opinion on the matter.
No I haven't. That's my question. Can you give me an example where you think Republicans aren't conservative enough?
The two I already gave are enough. They are fiscally "liberal" because they don't match spending to income.
They are "liberal" in that they want to change laws to restrict freedom.
Is there an issue where you agree with conservatives over Democrats?
Yeah. Gun control. If you want gun control, the first step should be to change the Constitution, not passing laws that are "bad" and fighting in court to justify them.
Have you not seen my constant complaints that the Republicans aren't conservative enough? They want to pass lots of laws that restrict freedoms, and increase spending while cutting taxes. All of them too "liberal" for me.
Take Social Security for example. Rather than do something minimal like removing the income cap for taxation, or raising the tax by 2% to cover the long term demographic driven shortfall, they want to burn the whole thing down. We would be better off lower the retirement age than raising it, but the debate has already been pulled so far to the right you can't even talk about improving social security, you can only argue about how big the cuts *MUST* be to save the program.
Of course, you can shut them up with a "what do you do about the old person targeted by scammers who steal all her savings, so she's left penniless at 80, with no means of income or self support? She'll lose her home, and die starving on the streets if nothing is done. What would you have done? Yes, but what if the donations don't cover that? Is there any safety net at all?
That usually gets them on a 6 hour rant about personal responsibility, and some blaming the victim and such. But never an answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Because people are still refining the theories, that means it's "just a theory", and not proven yet. Much like gravity is just a theory.
The only pickup I can think of that would be close is the VW Rabbit Pickup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
But that's significantly like the El Camino, so not without precedent. Some others had a removable partition between the cab and the storage, so you could put a cap on the back and it'd be like it was inside the cab.
I'm not sure what the bolded part means.
That it's exeedingly rare when the gun-nuts say "rather than that unconstitutional legislation, why don't you try to change the Constitution so it would be legal?"
I think because the gun-nuts are worried that the gun haters would actually try it.
For all the lawsuits on guns, it would make sense to "clarify" the right in the Constitution. It's obviously a point that needs clarification. But I see the gun nuts backing down from that stance because they don't want the Amendment process to weaken it.
So you are saying that pushing a social agenda through legislation isn't an idea that the conservatives whine about the liberals doing constantly? (yes, deliberately worded so that "constantly" is ambiguous, it could be the conservatives constantly whining, or the liberals constantly pushing legislation that pushes a social agenda, or both)
Or are you saying that passing legislation to "encourage" an act, like saving isn't pushing a social agenda through legislation?
I only ever got "A technical problem has occurred. Please try your request again later." I'll try again later. I may have answered wrong on a question, but there are no little hints that there was a wrong answer.
But if I make $100k at 10% tax, and I save 10%, I'm left with $9k. If I'm taxed on spending, not income, then I have $1000 more at the end of the year.
The temporarily embarrassed Millionaires like to think that they'll have millions in savings return income, and so long as they don't spend it, they will make more money.
Why must you liberals always push a social agenda through law? Want to encourage savings and investment? Pass a law that has a second or third order effect to get the result you want.
If income tax was abolished, then the IRS should go with it. The IRS exists solely to administer Income tax. So abolish that, and the IRS is dead. Though the organization that replaces it may share the same name, it won't be the same.
Even if the income tax changes to PAYE, that would eliminate more than half the work of the IRS, even if an income tax still remained. The enforcement arm could be 1/100th of today with PAYE. That changes the IRS fundamentally.
The IRS doesn't need to change. The laws that generate income for the US should be changed. Of course, that would necessarily change the IRS as well.
But the "value" of the expendature doesn't benefit equally.
Fuel tax is so low it doesn't pay for roads, but maybe 1/10th of roads. The most common fuel tax is an excise tax, pennies per gallon, not too bad when it started, but not linked to inflation or fuel cost. So the percent of fuel that went to taxes has steadily dropped to where it might as well be zero.
The miser is hoarding cash. Not competing to buy the goods you want doesn't make much difference. But taxing spending of the person borrowing a million to spend it, you are taxing money that isn't there from someone who can't afford it. Taxing the production is more "fair" for the average person. Taxing the spending is considered better by those who assert that they live within their means. Tax becomes optional at that point.
Texas. At least back in 2001, when I last lived there. Some items were exempt. Some aren't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Top 10% of the country holds 73% of the wealth. I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but the wealth is very concentrated in the top. The bottom 60% hold less than 5% of the wealth.
Evolution has been debated for over 100 years, but only the pro-evolution views are being upvoted here. Is that because the treatment here is not fair, or the truth is not "unbiased"? Only one can be true, right?
My problem is that the prebate checks are not big enough. The tax should be 45% (or whatever necessary to balance the budget), and the prebate should be 8x what the Fair Tax people are currently proposing. It'll then be a UBI, sufficient for a person to live above the poverty line without working.
Also, I'd link the tax to last year's budget. There'd never be another deficit. The tax will go up or down 1% or whatever to make the lines always match.
Could easily use the PT Cruiser example. The rear seats fold flat so it could be sold as a "truck". Yes, the Dodge Neon Hearse is a truck, not a car. Because Chrysler was dodging CAFE.
Wait, wouldn't getting paid millions for failing itself be a success? You've never been offered such a contract.
Libertarians want minimal government,
If that were true, they'd be for programs like Head Start, where every $1 spend saves more than that in future costs the Libertarian approves of (like prisons and police). Head Start is a reasonable program for a "small government". Instead the Libertarians are spiteful racists. They want to make sure nobody else gets an opportunity by rigging the game and eliminating all help for others.
In that sense, Bush Jr. was the ultimate Libertarian. He used affirmative action to get into Yale, but would like to end Affirmative Action (he got in under "legacy" where who your daddy is counts for admissions, but wants to eliminate AA, where who your daddy is counts for admissions). That's the real ideal of Libertarian. An actual libertarian would want open borders. Less government regulation. If there's a cost to that, then charge the entrants for coming here - service based fees. But the US-Libertarians want closed borders and large government securing them. That's no libertarian. That's a new brand of conservative that's labeled neo-liberal outside the US.
Unfortunately, there's an underlying mentality in some people that if you can't support yourself, you're basically worthless, and deserve to die.
My belief is that it's an unconscious belief. They act as if they believe it, but when confronted, they say things like "if you cut taxes, people will give more." and "nobody will go without, you are making false assumptions."
Because they are unwilling to think about the reasoning that must exist for their position to be valid. Though, the prisons are becoming debtor's prisons. Deadbeat dads can't declare bankruptcy to get out of child support, but if they go to prison, they never have to pay a dime. Same with student loans, and other debts that can't be discharged. Also, health care is free in prison.
People aren't sent there for being in debt, but they end up making choices that land them there because of debt. Interesting that the Libertarian is against spending $0.50 of preventative care to stop $10 in enforcement costs. That's why I think Libertarians are as much big-government as the two main parties, it's just all military and police. If they were actually small government, they'd be for Head Start and other programs that increase tax revenue and reduce prison and enforcement costs. But they aren't. Don't ask them why, or they get angry. Just like the people you question who want poor people to die to decrease the surplus population.
It's never an issue. Those for gun control don't think they need to change the Constitution, and those against never offer it up as a gauge of public opinion on the matter.
No I haven't. That's my question. Can you give me an example where you think Republicans aren't conservative enough?
The two I already gave are enough. They are fiscally "liberal" because they don't match spending to income.
They are "liberal" in that they want to change laws to restrict freedom.
Is there an issue where you agree with conservatives over Democrats?
Yeah. Gun control. If you want gun control, the first step should be to change the Constitution, not passing laws that are "bad" and fighting in court to justify them.
I left out one. If you think the government has rights, you are fascist.
Have you not seen my constant complaints that the Republicans aren't conservative enough? They want to pass lots of laws that restrict freedoms, and increase spending while cutting taxes. All of them too "liberal" for me.
. And you aren't thinking clearly, you are defending a politician.
You are lying again. Attacking people emotionally attacking politicians is not "defending" the politician.
Who cares if it was illegal?
All the Hillary haters, evidently. They keep calling it "illegal" not "wrong" or "bad"
keeping a private email server [is] against the law
Apparently you care about the legality. Then lie about it a few posts later, like we can't see what you just wrote.
Take Social Security for example. Rather than do something minimal like removing the income cap for taxation, or raising the tax by 2% to cover the long term demographic driven shortfall, they want to burn the whole thing down. We would be better off lower the retirement age than raising it, but the debate has already been pulled so far to the right you can't even talk about improving social security, you can only argue about how big the cuts *MUST* be to save the program.
Of course, you can shut them up with a "what do you do about the old person targeted by scammers who steal all her savings, so she's left penniless at 80, with no means of income or self support? She'll lose her home, and die starving on the streets if nothing is done. What would you have done? Yes, but what if the donations don't cover that? Is there any safety net at all?
That usually gets them on a 6 hour rant about personal responsibility, and some blaming the victim and such. But never an answer.