You need value to have wealth. People do not bother much more than what it takes to survive without value and they are rewarded with wealth even if it is just a pittence. This is why money is around (curency). You convert your time which has value and your skills which have value into money which is either wasted or put up as wealth. Wasted is a poor choice of words but im trying to keep this simple.
So why shouldn't everything be free? Because without money, most people will not exert effort beyond their own existance which is why communism and pure socialism tend to migrate to oppressive implementations. So in short, the people and human nature say it shouldn't be free.
Look into the first red scare. You are likely going to need to find some old history books. Wikipedia seems to be sanitized of calling it a revolt but gives details of the events surounding it.
Why wikipedia is sanitized i don't know. It is no secret that the same tactics and the same people, or origins of the people revolted in russia, germany, and other countries. They actually had a member of one of the foreign orgs state to congress that they wanted to install a stalin like dictator in the us.
They would be current members of course. Do you think the end of WWII was yesterday or something? Do you think communism still has a global stigma? Do you think you could think a little about it?
It had nothing at all to do with race and everything to do with free verses nonfree . Otherwise they would have defined it by race which they did not. But i'm not really sure it matters, you specifically said it was about not counting property in orfer to inflate ingluence in congress.
Lol.. ok i feel ya know. You deleted everything in the clause excep the general welfare part and that somehow after i pointed out how utterly stupid that was, means you were talking about the power to tax all along. Its cheap, not rational from your initial comment, but if you need to change midstrean to something factually correct, i will not disagree dedpite your original statement not resembling it at all.
But, the aca will fail on the tax clause too. You see, even though the supreme court changed the law in order to make it constitutional via taxing, it is still a penalty that does not provide fifth amendment due process rights and the 9th amendment say no right the constitution givs can be construed to deny other rights and guarentees in it. This means that as soon as someone is actually penalized- if they do not recieve a fair trial and due process, the challenge to its constitutionaliy will be made. This is largely why the mandate for businesses were suspended by a year, those are the people with the cash to fight it the most effecctivly. But a challenge on those grounds cannot be made until someone is actually fined.
Do you people even read the ruling you are commenting about? The aca completely failed on the general welfare argument, portion were found unconstitutional, and the only reason the mandate was allowed is because the court changed the penalty to a tax.
FFS, if you are not going to bother knowing what happened, please don't make something up in order to maintain your ideology.
State government and federal government are not the same thing. Perhaps when you idiots understand that....
Also, the us constitution does not make the courts an arbitriator of what is constitutional. That is a power the courts just assumed. And the ppaca was only upheld as constitutional by the dupreme court changing the penalty which the administration argued was not a tax into a tax. To say something should be championed because the court changed the law in order to squeeze it into being constitutional is a bit fucking ignorant.
Not only that, the supreme cout didn't think the mandate was constitutional so they reinterpreted the penalty as a tax in order to try and make it so.
As it stands with this new unlimited power to do anything via tax penalties, the feds can effectivle ban abortions now by creating a tax penalty of 150% of a person's income if they have one. And there would be no due process involved with the tax penalty either. That is another thing in the constitution that used to matter, but the tenth and fifth ammendments magically don't matter despite the ninth amendments.
Actually, article 1 section 2 states non free people count as 3/5 a person and indians don't count for its purpose of assigning representatives and taxes.
It was put in place to stop the over representation of people not allowed to vote and the over taxation of area with these people in order to aviod to much power of representation due to owning slaves or having indian reservations/populations in the state who wouldn't be participating in the country.
Outside of indians not being taxed, it had nothing to do with race as whites were also slaves at the time too.
The existance of the comunist party or variations does not detract from from what was said, openly and known comunist switched to socialism in order to avoid the stigma of comunism.
I'm not sure why you think they all stayed with the communist parties.
Open any history book that covers those times. Your google finger aint broke.
Perhaps if people actually did the work of gaining knowlege themselves instead of expecting everything to be spoon fed to them, this world would be a better place.
I can see you didn't bother listening to your clip or even bothered to hear what was said. If you did, you never would have posted that.
She says not having gun does not neccesarily mean _it_is_ a democracy. Go ahead, listen to it again.
So you have a constitutional monarchy(Norway), that is conducting a trial in secrete, a guy from some org for the defense of democracy claiming norway is one and that the criminal exploited democracy (he dressed as a cop and shot the cops that confronted him), and the fox babe sets up a question prefacing it with cops not being armed doesn't make the country a democracy.
That is completely different than what you tried to claim.
No, i do not remember that and you do not either unless your teachers were morons.
Communist first got a bad name in the US durring the 1919 failed attemp to overthrow yhe US government. After the communist party was broken up and most foreing member were deported, the remaining members went underground or joined the socialist party. Then WWII happened and afterwards the openly communist in Europe joined the socialists due to a large stigma communism had right after the war and with the start of the vold war.
If you actually had a teacher mentioning something about Russian jails, it was most likely about how lots of people were jailed for speaking thier minds(free speech) which a lot fifferent then you think you heard.
They certainly can deliver envelopes. You msy not call it mail but that is only because congress forbids it. Congress can also allow them to carry mail, congress can also start calling all packages mail as that is primarily what they were before all these curior services became popular. The constitution gives congress the authority to sct on it, it doesn'T require them to host it or keep it public
If consumer rates need to be so high, they aren't paying enough. Seriously, a penny or two raise in commercial rates could cause a 20 cent drop in postage for consumers and perhaps then, people might actually use the post office.
Actually, it is a bit more complicated then that but taxes are built into the mix to.
You see, it isn't just what the market will bear, it is what the market will bear while being the most profitable. Microsoft could simply increase the costd of windows to compensate for lost users or they could drop prices in order to grab more sales. Imagine the worlds bedt candy bar. Now imagine that if you sold it at 20 buck a piece for a 19 dollar profit and sold 100 of them. But if you sold them for 2 bucks a piece with 1 dollar profit and sold 10 million. So lets say you sold them at 2 bucks and every one else was too. Now all the sudden the gove raises taxes and every candy bar maker has to pay an aditional 30%. So all but the novelty mom and pop shops making their own crap will eith raise their price which everyone who wants a candy bar will pay or they take a 30 cent per piece loss in profits. So they raise their price because there aren't many mom and pop shops around and by the time they have the same market penetration, they will pay the tax too.
All costs are passed to the consumer. When you tax a company, you tax their competitors as well. Few competitors will drop profit when their competitors are not.
I'm not sure why you brought up the constittution. It says the feds have the ability not that only the feds can do it. Hell, if that wasn't the case, fed ex and ups couldn't exist.
That being said, the feds can just as easily allow the usps to be private and considering recent events with the ACA, they would be more constitutionally sound in requiring everyone to only use the USPS or face a fine without due process of law.
The last mile is cut in many instances with the USPS. I have lived in many rural places where if i wanted to recieve mail, i had to purchase a p.o. box. They wouldn't even deliver packages to the door and you had to show up to sign for them durring bankers hours. And yes, fed ex would come right to the door too.
This isn't unusual in the least. There are areas more rural then the suburbs. Cost cutting at the post office has taken the last mile from many places. Perhaps this would be different if big businesses didn't get steep discounts for first class mail. But the facts are, we as citizens pay more than double what large companies pay and i doubt a private postal service would be able to do that if they were losing money on it.
Which might be why they were discontinued? OF COURSE FORD later had problems with their pinto lines which caused a lawsuit that changed how these things are looked at.
I'm at a loss as to when all that terrorism was happening and known to the world when they were getting their nukes. It is as if you think everytjing that happened after that instance was completely known before they became nucular capable and thus making not only my comment innacurate, but somehow comparable to Iran because you want it to be.
The fact of the matter is that we treat countries with nuked differently thrn countries without then. At the time the countries mentioned got their nukes, we didn''T have their leaders claiming to want to wipe nations off the map or openly sponsoring terrorism. And no, an act you think is terrorism is not openly sponsoring it if you understand the definition of openly.
Comprehension isn't one of your dtrong points is it? Read again what wad said. When the got nuke capabilities, india and pakistan were not fighting, israel , was seen as pure defensive when they got theirs. None of the countries were seen as hhostile to other countries when they got their nukes. Everything you said happened after they got their nukes and they were seen to br defensive and not a world threat. In fact, even what you mentioning happening, none of the nukes have been used offensivly making my point.
Your revisionist history also neglevts the recent UN sanctions that are completely legal that all other countries have decided to honor as compared to the US only sanctions you mentioned.
Come on, this isn't top secret or anything. Stop pushing your ideology over facts.
This makes you wonder what the original purpose of the Iranian embargo was? I know the "official" stated reason is punishment for their nuclear program. I don't remember an economic embargo on Israel, Pakistan, or India when they developed nuclear programs though.
I don't remember Israel, Pakistan, or India threatening their neighbors or openly supporting terrorist groups. There is a little more reason to be concerned with Iran then there was with other countries when they got the nukes.
Perhaps the real reason for the embargo was to artificially raise the price of oil so the major oil companies could profitably develop the fracking infrastructure in the U.S.
If you think the real reason was to raise the price of oil, then you might want to explain why we haven't seen federal permits and royalties being created. You might want to consider who long the US knew they would need this in advance as it has been on the table with less support since the middle of Bush. It just seems that the US government would be cashing in on it more if that was the reason. But it appears they are not as most of the fracking is happening on private lands where no royalties are being paid to the feds who actually could use a large cash infusion about right now.
Slashdot Mirror
You need value to have wealth. People do not bother much more than what it takes to survive without value and they are rewarded with wealth even if it is just a pittence. This is why money is around (curency). You convert your time which has value and your skills which have value into money which is either wasted or put up as wealth. Wasted is a poor choice of words but im trying to keep this simple.
So why shouldn't everything be free? Because without money, most people will not exert effort beyond their own existance which is why communism and pure socialism tend to migrate to oppressive implementations. So in short, the people and human nature say it shouldn't be free.
Look into the first red scare. You are likely going to need to find some old history books. Wikipedia seems to be sanitized of calling it a revolt but gives details of the events surounding it.
Why wikipedia is sanitized i don't know. It is no secret that the same tactics and the same people, or origins of the people revolted in russia, germany, and other countries. They actually had a member of one of the foreign orgs state to congress that they wanted to install a stalin like dictator in the us.
They would be current members of course. Do you think the end of WWII was yesterday or something? Do you think communism still has a global stigma? Do you think you could think a little about it?
It had nothing at all to do with race and everything to do with free verses nonfree . Otherwise they would have defined it by race which they did not. But i'm not really sure it matters, you specifically said it was about not counting property in orfer to inflate ingluence in congress.
Lol.. ok i feel ya know. You deleted everything in the clause excep the general welfare part and that somehow after i pointed out how utterly stupid that was, means you were talking about the power to tax all along. Its cheap, not rational from your initial comment, but if you need to change midstrean to something factually correct, i will not disagree dedpite your original statement not resembling it at all.
But, the aca will fail on the tax clause too. You see, even though the supreme court changed the law in order to make it constitutional via taxing, it is still a penalty that does not provide fifth amendment due process rights and the 9th amendment say no right the constitution givs can be construed to deny other rights and guarentees in it. This means that as soon as someone is actually penalized- if they do not recieve a fair trial and due process, the challenge to its constitutionaliy will be made. This is largely why the mandate for businesses were suspended by a year, those are the people with the cash to fight it the most effecctivly. But a challenge on those grounds cannot be made until someone is actually fined.
Do you people even read the ruling you are commenting about? The aca completely failed on the general welfare argument, portion were found unconstitutional, and the only reason the mandate was allowed is because the court changed the penalty to a tax.
FFS, if you are not going to bother knowing what happened, please don't make something up in order to maintain your ideology.
State government and federal government are not the same thing. Perhaps when you idiots understand that....
Also, the us constitution does not make the courts an arbitriator of what is constitutional. That is a power the courts just assumed. And the ppaca was only upheld as constitutional by the dupreme court changing the penalty which the administration argued was not a tax into a tax. To say something should be championed because the court changed the law in order to squeeze it into being constitutional is a bit fucking ignorant.
Not only that, the supreme cout didn't think the mandate was constitutional so they reinterpreted the penalty as a tax in order to try and make it so.
As it stands with this new unlimited power to do anything via tax penalties, the feds can effectivle ban abortions now by creating a tax penalty of 150% of a person's income if they have one. And there would be no due process involved with the tax penalty either. That is another thing in the constitution that used to matter, but the tenth and fifth ammendments magically don't matter despite the ninth amendments.
Actually, article 1 section 2 states non free people count as 3/5 a person and indians don't count for its purpose of assigning representatives and taxes.
It was put in place to stop the over representation of people not allowed to vote and the over taxation of area with these people in order to aviod to much power of representation due to owning slaves or having indian reservations/populations in the state who wouldn't be participating in the country.
Outside of indians not being taxed, it had nothing to do with race as whites were also slaves at the time too.
Hmm.. let me get my robe and wizard hat.
The existance of the comunist party or variations does not detract from from what was said, openly and known comunist switched to socialism in order to avoid the stigma of comunism.
I'm not sure why you think they all stayed with the communist parties.
Open any history book that covers those times. Your google finger aint broke.
Perhaps if people actually did the work of gaining knowlege themselves instead of expecting everything to be spoon fed to them, this world would be a better place.
I can see you didn't bother listening to your clip or even bothered to hear what was said. If you did, you never would have posted that.
She says not having gun does not neccesarily mean _it_is_ a democracy. Go ahead, listen to it again.
So you have a constitutional monarchy(Norway), that is conducting a trial in secrete, a guy from some org for the defense of democracy claiming norway is one and that the criminal exploited democracy (he dressed as a cop and shot the cops that confronted him), and the fox babe sets up a question prefacing it with cops not being armed doesn't make the country a democracy.
That is completely different than what you tried to claim.
I also want to know why so many people have a problem with rap music artists.
No, i do not remember that and you do not either unless your teachers were morons.
Communist first got a bad name in the US durring the 1919 failed attemp to overthrow yhe US government. After the communist party was broken up and most foreing member were deported, the remaining members went underground or joined the socialist party. Then WWII happened and afterwards the openly communist in Europe joined the socialists due to a large stigma communism had right after the war and with the start of the vold war.
If you actually had a teacher mentioning something about Russian jails, it was most likely about how lots of people were jailed for speaking thier minds(free speech) which a lot fifferent then you think you heard.
They certainly can deliver envelopes. You msy not call it mail but that is only because congress forbids it. Congress can also allow them to carry mail, congress can also start calling all packages mail as that is primarily what they were before all these curior services became popular. The constitution gives congress the authority to sct on it, it doesn'T require them to host it or keep it public
If consumer rates need to be so high, they aren't paying enough. Seriously, a penny or two raise in commercial rates could cause a 20 cent drop in postage for consumers and perhaps then, people might actually use the post office.
Actually, it is a bit more complicated then that but taxes are built into the mix to.
You see, it isn't just what the market will bear, it is what the market will bear while being the most profitable. Microsoft could simply increase the costd of windows to compensate for lost users or they could drop prices in order to grab more sales. Imagine the worlds bedt candy bar. Now imagine that if you sold it at 20 buck a piece for a 19 dollar profit and sold 100 of them. But if you sold them for 2 bucks a piece with 1 dollar profit and sold 10 million. So lets say you sold them at 2 bucks and every one else was too. Now all the sudden the gove raises taxes and every candy bar maker has to pay an aditional 30%. So all but the novelty mom and pop shops making their own crap will eith raise their price which everyone who wants a candy bar will pay or they take a 30 cent per piece loss in profits. So they raise their price because there aren't many mom and pop shops around and by the time they have the same market penetration, they will pay the tax too.
All costs are passed to the consumer. When you tax a company, you tax their competitors as well. Few competitors will drop profit when their competitors are not.
I'm not sure why you brought up the constittution. It says the feds have the ability not that only the feds can do it. Hell, if that wasn't the case, fed ex and ups couldn't exist.
That being said, the feds can just as easily allow the usps to be private and considering recent events with the ACA, they would be more constitutionally sound in requiring everyone to only use the USPS or face a fine without due process of law.
The last mile is cut in many instances with the USPS. I have lived in many rural places where if i wanted to recieve mail, i had to purchase a p.o. box. They wouldn't even deliver packages to the door and you had to show up to sign for them durring bankers hours. And yes, fed ex would come right to the door too.
This isn't unusual in the least. There are areas more rural then the suburbs. Cost cutting at the post office has taken the last mile from many places. Perhaps this would be different if big businesses didn't get steep discounts for first class mail. But the facts are, we as citizens pay more than double what large companies pay and i doubt a private postal service would be able to do that if they were losing money on it.
How exactly does a semi truck molest someone nonethe less, an alterboy?
Which might be why they were discontinued? OF COURSE FORD later had problems with their pinto lines which caused a lawsuit that changed how these things are looked at.
I'm at a loss as to when all that terrorism was happening and known to the world when they were getting their nukes. It is as if you think everytjing that happened after that instance was completely known before they became nucular capable and thus making not only my comment innacurate, but somehow comparable to Iran because you want it to be.
The fact of the matter is that we treat countries with nuked differently thrn countries without then. At the time the countries mentioned got their nukes, we didn''T have their leaders claiming to want to wipe nations off the map or openly sponsoring terrorism. And no, an act you think is terrorism is not openly sponsoring it if you understand the definition of openly.
Comprehension isn't one of your dtrong points is it? Read again what wad said. When the got nuke capabilities, india and pakistan were not fighting, israel , was seen as pure defensive when they got theirs. None of the countries were seen as hhostile to other countries when they got their nukes. Everything you said happened after they got their nukes and they were seen to br defensive and not a world threat. In fact, even what you mentioning happening, none of the nukes have been used offensivly making my point.
Your revisionist history also neglevts the recent UN sanctions that are completely legal that all other countries have decided to honor as compared to the US only sanctions you mentioned.
Come on, this isn't top secret or anything. Stop pushing your ideology over facts.
I don't remember Israel, Pakistan, or India threatening their neighbors or openly supporting terrorist groups. There is a little more reason to be concerned with Iran then there was with other countries when they got the nukes.
If you think the real reason was to raise the price of oil, then you might want to explain why we haven't seen federal permits and royalties being created. You might want to consider who long the US knew they would need this in advance as it has been on the table with less support since the middle of Bush. It just seems that the US government would be cashing in on it more if that was the reason. But it appears they are not as most of the fracking is happening on private lands where no royalties are being paid to the feds who actually could use a large cash infusion about right now.