Now, who wants to bet that a major food company who also owns a razor manufacturing plant will by the rights to this drug, pay off the government and convince them to label it an herbal food supplement, rename it something that sounds like it will cure cancer, then put small amounts into the food stuff they see.
Of course I didn't read the article. But hey, I've seen less believable conspiracies based on less facts flourish so don't blame me for trying my own 100 mile per gallon carburetor.
I just thought it was common knowledge and didn't realize that people were closing their eyes and yelling blaspheme on things this obvious.
Anyways, try reading The Race Between Education and Technology. And before you point it out as if it's an automatic disqualification because they are rabib neocon fascists republicans kill your dog and kick your baby conservative who wrote the book, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz Are actually somewhat on the more liberal side. And yes, Katz is the same Katz that was the economic adviser to Clinton before he got his ass waxed in the mid-term elections.
And yes, they claim other factors were included then just the creation of the DOE. So even if you want to put all the weight on that, the best you can say is that the DOE has done little more about furthering education then slowing the increase in drop out rate and helped stagnate test scores since 1980 while other countries caught up and surpassed the US. Hardly a shining example of an effective government program.
My point still stands. The problem with the DOE is not funding, it's how it's currently implemented.
But not for the current year's taxes because you file and pay them after the year's end. So that would have been covered by the overpaid from the previous year.
Anyways, I don't know if you were trying to be funny or serious. I would just like to point out that we were talking about paying federal taxes verses donating money to the federal government. The taxes used in the discussion were implicit to federal taxes and not the generic term of tax meaning any tax.
So I guess I should clarify the meaning of what I wrote by restating to which no one should be confused to the meaning. Donations to the federal government are tax deducible on your federal taxes where as paying federal taxes to the same government is not.
Yes, let's jump to the abstract opposite of everything so all in the middle seems to be OK.
Before I get into this further, let me ask you, which is worse, a society that doesn't take care of the people needing help, or a society which has created a subset of it's population who need help by default. And no, they arne't on in the same even though connected.
You see, I could give up and decide to not be productive. I could champion socialism and communism in theory and get you hard working tax payers to provide for my substance. I could even work under the table doing odd jobs here and there, or even manufacture and sell drugs so it looks like I'm living very well in poverty with your dime.
You see, it's not about forced sterilization (like Planned parent hood once preached before abortions became all the rage), it's about building a society that does for itself, It's about creating companies who while they see they can save a dollar by paying less in wages, need to be compelled one their own to pay a living wage because they will otherwise have no workers as apposed to the government picking up where they decided to skimp. Do you seriously think that if the government wasn't there to pick up the slack, that company's could get by with paying minimum wage? No, they couldn't. But there also wouldn't be 100k a year jobs standing in front of a press machine pushing a button every so often either.
The problem is people want to concentrate on the band aid stopping the problem from becoming worse where as others see that only as enabling the problem and want to stop the problem altogether. One of the first things you have to do to get your kid off illegal drugs is to stop giving them the money for the drugs. But there is a lot more to it then just that.
I hate to say this, but the Department of education has actually had a negative impact on education since it's creation. This is most likely because it's goal is only education on the surface, it's real goal seems to be conformity and political propaganda.
either way, we had more people doing better in school before the DOE was created in 79. Funding isn't the issue. The structure and concept of the DOE as currently implemented is.
I would suggest that if we didn't encourage people to have a bunch of kids they cannot afford with the promise of government payments, you and him wouldn't be having that conversation and you would never have the opportunity to bring up one of the few situations in which almost anyone will agree that support is necessary as some justification for everything else.
But then again, pointing out the one situation in which something is helpful always does justify all the others. I mean we can get Linux and legitimate software on bit torrent and P2P networks so all the copyright violations are justified too right? Now if we could convince the rest of the world that.
You know, every time I see someone claim we need to raise taxes, and some of them actually make the claim that they don't think they themselves are paying enough, I remind them that they can already pay more within the current system.
They usually come back with some argument about if everyone else is going to be greedy, they are too or something to the sorts. Anyways, that's all beside the facts because it's all arbitrary anyways. Claiming some don't pay enough is an opinion, claiming some services that the government couldn't provide is essential, is an opinion. It happens to be your opinion too. My opinion is that the government should get out of all those things in a federal level and let the states deal with it as that's where it properly lays.
And no, Social security is not self funded. It's funded by the people working at present to pay the present obligations. Social security was never since it's creation self funded. It has carried a surplus in opperation at times, but never enough to cover it's expected obligations over those years. And almost all of the surplus has been spent by these magical IOUs that the government seems to think separate the spending social security funds on non-social security related things.
You do not get back the money you pay into it, it's not a bank account. You get an allotment that the government can change at it's own whim based on how much money it can fleece off the current tax payers. And knowing this is especially important because in order for the government to pay itself it's own IOUs in the fancy accounting scheme that would land most CEO's in prison, they will have to raise taxes to do so.
FYI, That 14k a pound cocaine is actually cut and watered down by the time it's sold on the street. Sometimes, it happens many times.
But yes, coke is generally sold street level as an 8-ball which is 1/8th an ounce (3.5 grams), or some division of that.
But to show how reasonable 14k a pound really is, let's understand the concept a little. a pound is 16 ounces. An 8-ball is 1/8 of that. So eight 8-balls make an ounce and 16 ounces make a pound. That's 128 divisions of product. At $14k a pound, that's roughly $106 an 8-ball which is extremely cheap for the good crap. For the good stuff, you should be expecting to shell out $160-$200 or so per 8-ball depending on your location and connections.
What country did the UN step in and take half or more of.
I hope to hell you are not talking about Palestine as that was never a country- even. It was a territory under the control of the ottoman empire which ended up in British and french hands due to the league of nations declaration after the ottoman empire disappeared with the ending of World War One. The Balfour decree was already in place circa 1920 so there was never any expectation of Palestine becoming a country to the exclusion of the Jews.
The jews did not lay claim to the land because of WW!!, they did not lay claim to the land because of WWI, And although they do claim it's a religious thing, the ottoman empire has been selling and marketing the land of Israel to the jews since the 1100's. The situation is a lot more complex then it appears that you are willing to examine.
Israel struck first, took a bunch of their weapons they were massing on the borders claiming to be for an invasion into Israel, then used them against them.
Unfortunately, the memo usually goes out on the night of march 31st so people don't get it until April 1st when they return and think it's another April's Fools Day trick to stop them from tricking people.
Wow.. That must be why the majority of American's like to watch Fox news and all the self proclaimed intellects have such a problem with it.
Fair and Balanced, my ass.. They are outright discriminating against letters in the alphabet when arranged in certain patters to convey a specific meaning. The government should do something about Fox News doing this.. It's a slippery slope here.. First they came for my grown up words, and I said nothing, then they came for my friends who use them, and I said nothing. Now there is nothing left to say.
Your right, I do have the secrete copy of the constitution. Actually, I misread article VI (6) and neglect the fact it was talking about carrying over debts and obligations from the confederation to the Union. But then I remebered there was an amendment process and we had this amendment number 14. It says
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Your off on the Credit default swaps though. I didn't say their default was impossible, I said it would require option 2 to happen and make the repayment of debt worthless.
Option one is not really an option because of the constitutional requirement for all the US debts to be paid. Option one can only technically happen if option two is put in place and the payback in option one is worthless.
What you have essentially done is presented the illusion of a choice with very much the same consequences. The federal bonds are different from a typical municipal bond you can buy into as the political subdivisions can actually file bankruptcy. The federal government is obligated to raise taxes and pay it's debt.
It really had nothing to do with any incoming or outgoing administration. The case against Microsoft simply wasn't that "negative" on what wasn't already settled.
Being a monopoly in and of itself isn't illegal or bad. It just requires extra regulation to monitor the the company for what is considered bad. There was a hard time showing that the actual consumers were hurt by MS being a monopoly or using it's monopoly position. Even today, that hurt is largely theoretical speculation of damages. That's what happened. The case was strong that MS was a monopoly and used that position to it's benefit. The case was weak that the consumers were harmed significantly in that process.
watts does equal amps times volts. 12.5*120=1500 watts.
Or were you thinking DC and using 12 volts instead of 120 (include a 50c power supply). In that case, you are looking at 150 watts or 2 regular 75 watt incandescent bulbs) and a sufficiently longer time scale plus the inefficiency of converting AC to DC.
Either way, we are about back to where we started from or worse off.
Shouldn't be a newsflash, but plumbing comes to mind. Az already has more pipes carrying water in, through, and out of it then it would take to string one 5 foot diameter pipe from the Atlantic to the pacific.
Hell, most Major cities have enough pluming within them to come close.
Who makes the laws? congressmen do. How to they communicate with their constituents? By getting on the Sunday morning talk shows, town hall meetings, and so on. If a congressman says on a Sunday morning talk show, he is trying to do X, then he is reporting what he is trying to do in congress whether anything comes from it or not.
You are trying to claim a Grey hair isn't Grey because if you split it enough, the root color shows through. The rest of us simply do not close our eyes to keep what we want to believe from being wrong.
I never said ALL information should be made public! But in a country where democracy exists and the government is democratically elected all information regarding the governments affairs and affairs of the governments, oh let's call them, agencies should be open!
No they should not.. For much the same reason why your bank account information and other things shouldn't be open. The government runs those affairs, not you. In the course of running them, certain things need to be kept quiet in order for the fruits of those actions to materialize.
How are the voters able to make up their mind about who should run the White House when they don't know all their dark secrets???
The same way they do now and have for more then 200 years.
As I'm writing this I realize that this is not an issue as 96%(not an accurate number) of people in America, and in fact Iceland, vote for the same political party no matter what they have done!
That's because 90% or better of the American public, know that you take some good with the bad. Nothing in the leaks exposed anything I would consider as bad. But to the people they are working with, they would consider them as bad. I don't care that we spied on the UN. The UN can't be trusted anyways. I don't care that some middle east country asked us to engage in a war and we didn't oblige. It's not that important to me as a citizen.. But it is important to the citizens of Iran or turkfuckistan or where ever else. Those things should be secrete during the relevant years.
But if this information is so dangerous in the wild, than why the hell does it exist?
You have a smaller then average sexual organ and your genetic markers indicate you are predispositions for diseases that makes you pretty much uninsure-able if you had them.
There is no problem with the information existing, the problem is with the wrong people knowing about it. If people knew about your short pecker, you couldn't get laid except by paying for it. If certain people knew about your predisposition to some diseases, your medical coverage would disappear.
And no, I don't know that any of that is true or not for you specifically, it certainly is for someone out there. There is no reason why that information needs to "not exist", but several good reasons for why it shouldn't be in the open for all to see.
To pretend that if information exists, it should all be in the open is a little stupid. If you think otherwise, post your address and banking information to prove it. Let's not trip over the obvious to make a point that doesn't exist.
The interesting thing it that even while you were pointing out that 35% is only part of the picture, it's still only focusing on part of the picture. there is employment taxes that need to be paid based on the salaries of every employee to cover FICA, Unemployment and so on. There are local taxes, permits of operation, property taxes and so much more that need to be dealt with to get the complete picture.
Personally, I think all corporate income taxes should be done away with as all corporate money either ends up going to salaries, expanding and maintaining operations which increase salaries/jobs, or is distributed to the share holders who in turn have to pay taxes based on income. There is no real need for double taxation here, either let it grow business or go to people who pay taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, who wants to bet that a major food company who also owns a razor manufacturing plant will by the rights to this drug, pay off the government and convince them to label it an herbal food supplement, rename it something that sounds like it will cure cancer, then put small amounts into the food stuff they see.
Of course I didn't read the article. But hey, I've seen less believable conspiracies based on less facts flourish so don't blame me for trying my own 100 mile per gallon carburetor.
I just thought it was common knowledge and didn't realize that people were closing their eyes and yelling blaspheme on things this obvious.
Anyways, try reading The Race Between Education and Technology. And before you point it out as if it's an automatic disqualification because they are rabib neocon fascists republicans kill your dog and kick your baby conservative who wrote the book, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz Are actually somewhat on the more liberal side. And yes, Katz is the same Katz that was the economic adviser to Clinton before he got his ass waxed in the mid-term elections.
And yes, they claim other factors were included then just the creation of the DOE. So even if you want to put all the weight on that, the best you can say is that the DOE has done little more about furthering education then slowing the increase in drop out rate and helped stagnate test scores since 1980 while other countries caught up and surpassed the US. Hardly a shining example of an effective government program.
My point still stands. The problem with the DOE is not funding, it's how it's currently implemented.
But not for the current year's taxes because you file and pay them after the year's end. So that would have been covered by the overpaid from the previous year.
Anyways, I don't know if you were trying to be funny or serious. I would just like to point out that we were talking about paying federal taxes verses donating money to the federal government. The taxes used in the discussion were implicit to federal taxes and not the generic term of tax meaning any tax.
So I guess I should clarify the meaning of what I wrote by restating to which no one should be confused to the meaning. Donations to the federal government are tax deducible on your federal taxes where as paying federal taxes to the same government is not.
Yes, let's jump to the abstract opposite of everything so all in the middle seems to be OK.
Before I get into this further, let me ask you, which is worse, a society that doesn't take care of the people needing help, or a society which has created a subset of it's population who need help by default. And no, they arne't on in the same even though connected.
You see, I could give up and decide to not be productive. I could champion socialism and communism in theory and get you hard working tax payers to provide for my substance. I could even work under the table doing odd jobs here and there, or even manufacture and sell drugs so it looks like I'm living very well in poverty with your dime.
You see, it's not about forced sterilization (like Planned parent hood once preached before abortions became all the rage), it's about building a society that does for itself, It's about creating companies who while they see they can save a dollar by paying less in wages, need to be compelled one their own to pay a living wage because they will otherwise have no workers as apposed to the government picking up where they decided to skimp. Do you seriously think that if the government wasn't there to pick up the slack, that company's could get by with paying minimum wage? No, they couldn't. But there also wouldn't be 100k a year jobs standing in front of a press machine pushing a button every so often either.
The problem is people want to concentrate on the band aid stopping the problem from becoming worse where as others see that only as enabling the problem and want to stop the problem altogether. One of the first things you have to do to get your kid off illegal drugs is to stop giving them the money for the drugs. But there is a lot more to it then just that.
Yawn.. I get tired of idiots claiming this but never showing any evidence worth more then a rabid conspiracy theory gone bad.
Do you think your clever? Or just smart?
But paying taxes isn't tax deductible unless you overpaid the previous year. Donating it deductible.
I hate to say this, but the Department of education has actually had a negative impact on education since it's creation. This is most likely because it's goal is only education on the surface, it's real goal seems to be conformity and political propaganda.
either way, we had more people doing better in school before the DOE was created in 79. Funding isn't the issue. The structure and concept of the DOE as currently implemented is.
I would suggest that if we didn't encourage people to have a bunch of kids they cannot afford with the promise of government payments, you and him wouldn't be having that conversation and you would never have the opportunity to bring up one of the few situations in which almost anyone will agree that support is necessary as some justification for everything else.
But then again, pointing out the one situation in which something is helpful always does justify all the others. I mean we can get Linux and legitimate software on bit torrent and P2P networks so all the copyright violations are justified too right? Now if we could convince the rest of the world that.
You know, every time I see someone claim we need to raise taxes, and some of them actually make the claim that they don't think they themselves are paying enough, I remind them that they can already pay more within the current system.
They usually come back with some argument about if everyone else is going to be greedy, they are too or something to the sorts. Anyways, that's all beside the facts because it's all arbitrary anyways. Claiming some don't pay enough is an opinion, claiming some services that the government couldn't provide is essential, is an opinion. It happens to be your opinion too. My opinion is that the government should get out of all those things in a federal level and let the states deal with it as that's where it properly lays.
And no, Social security is not self funded. It's funded by the people working at present to pay the present obligations. Social security was never since it's creation self funded. It has carried a surplus in opperation at times, but never enough to cover it's expected obligations over those years. And almost all of the surplus has been spent by these magical IOUs that the government seems to think separate the spending social security funds on non-social security related things.
You do not get back the money you pay into it, it's not a bank account. You get an allotment that the government can change at it's own whim based on how much money it can fleece off the current tax payers. And knowing this is especially important because in order for the government to pay itself it's own IOUs in the fancy accounting scheme that would land most CEO's in prison, they will have to raise taxes to do so.
FYI, That 14k a pound cocaine is actually cut and watered down by the time it's sold on the street. Sometimes, it happens many times.
But yes, coke is generally sold street level as an 8-ball which is 1/8th an ounce (3.5 grams), or some division of that.
But to show how reasonable 14k a pound really is, let's understand the concept a little. a pound is 16 ounces. An 8-ball is 1/8 of that. So eight 8-balls make an ounce and 16 ounces make a pound. That's 128 divisions of product. At $14k a pound, that's roughly $106 an 8-ball which is extremely cheap for the good crap. For the good stuff, you should be expecting to shell out $160-$200 or so per 8-ball depending on your location and connections.
What country did the UN step in and take half or more of.
I hope to hell you are not talking about Palestine as that was never a country- even. It was a territory under the control of the ottoman empire which ended up in British and french hands due to the league of nations declaration after the ottoman empire disappeared with the ending of World War One. The Balfour decree was already in place circa 1920 so there was never any expectation of Palestine becoming a country to the exclusion of the Jews.
The jews did not lay claim to the land because of WW!!, they did not lay claim to the land because of WWI, And although they do claim it's a religious thing, the ottoman empire has been selling and marketing the land of Israel to the jews since the 1100's. The situation is a lot more complex then it appears that you are willing to examine.
FYI, only under thread of it in the first place.
Israel struck first, took a bunch of their weapons they were massing on the borders claiming to be for an invasion into Israel, then used them against them.
Generally, it ends on April second.
Unfortunately, the memo usually goes out on the night of march 31st so people don't get it until April 1st when they return and think it's another April's Fools Day trick to stop them from tricking people.
Wow.. That must be why the majority of American's like to watch Fox news and all the self proclaimed intellects have such a problem with it.
Fair and Balanced, my ass.. They are outright discriminating against letters in the alphabet when arranged in certain patters to convey a specific meaning. The government should do something about Fox News doing this.. It's a slippery slope here.. First they came for my grown up words, and I said nothing, then they came for my friends who use them, and I said nothing. Now there is nothing left to say.
Your right, I do have the secrete copy of the constitution. Actually, I misread article VI (6) and neglect the fact it was talking about carrying over debts and obligations from the confederation to the Union. But then I remebered there was an amendment process and we had this amendment number 14. It says
Your off on the Credit default swaps though. I didn't say their default was impossible, I said it would require option 2 to happen and make the repayment of debt worthless.
Option one is not really an option because of the constitutional requirement for all the US debts to be paid. Option one can only technically happen if option two is put in place and the payback in option one is worthless.
What you have essentially done is presented the illusion of a choice with very much the same consequences. The federal bonds are different from a typical municipal bond you can buy into as the political subdivisions can actually file bankruptcy. The federal government is obligated to raise taxes and pay it's debt.
What is the math on this then? Where are you getting 10 watts outside of a guess?
BTW, a shaving mirror is not the same as a vanity mirror. So again, 15 minutes a day is about the same.
It really had nothing to do with any incoming or outgoing administration. The case against Microsoft simply wasn't that "negative" on what wasn't already settled.
Being a monopoly in and of itself isn't illegal or bad. It just requires extra regulation to monitor the the company for what is considered bad. There was a hard time showing that the actual consumers were hurt by MS being a monopoly or using it's monopoly position. Even today, that hurt is largely theoretical speculation of damages. That's what happened. The case was strong that MS was a monopoly and used that position to it's benefit. The case was weak that the consumers were harmed significantly in that process.
watts does equal amps times volts. 12.5*120=1500 watts.
Or were you thinking DC and using 12 volts instead of 120 (include a 50c power supply). In that case, you are looking at 150 watts or 2 regular 75 watt incandescent bulbs) and a sufficiently longer time scale plus the inefficiency of converting AC to DC.
Either way, we are about back to where we started from or worse off.
Sure, nothing like using 1500 watts extra to fix the problems created when going from 300 watts being used to 60 watts instead.
We can completely overlook the concept of more energy then originally being used in order to make us feel good about doing something..
Shouldn't be a newsflash, but plumbing comes to mind. Az already has more pipes carrying water in, through, and out of it then it would take to string one 5 foot diameter pipe from the Atlantic to the pacific.
Hell, most Major cities have enough pluming within them to come close.
Who makes the laws? congressmen do. How to they communicate with their constituents? By getting on the Sunday morning talk shows, town hall meetings, and so on. If a congressman says on a Sunday morning talk show, he is trying to do X, then he is reporting what he is trying to do in congress whether anything comes from it or not.
You are trying to claim a Grey hair isn't Grey because if you split it enough, the root color shows through. The rest of us simply do not close our eyes to keep what we want to believe from being wrong.
No they should not.. For much the same reason why your bank account information and other things shouldn't be open. The government runs those affairs, not you. In the course of running them, certain things need to be kept quiet in order for the fruits of those actions to materialize.
The same way they do now and have for more then 200 years.
That's because 90% or better of the American public, know that you take some good with the bad. Nothing in the leaks exposed anything I would consider as bad. But to the people they are working with, they would consider them as bad. I don't care that we spied on the UN. The UN can't be trusted anyways. I don't care that some middle east country asked us to engage in a war and we didn't oblige. It's not that important to me as a citizen.. But it is important to the citizens of Iran or turkfuckistan or where ever else. Those things should be secrete during the relevant years.
You have a smaller then average sexual organ and your genetic markers indicate you are predispositions for diseases that makes you pretty much uninsure-able if you had them.
There is no problem with the information existing, the problem is with the wrong people knowing about it. If people knew about your short pecker, you couldn't get laid except by paying for it. If certain people knew about your predisposition to some diseases, your medical coverage would disappear.
And no, I don't know that any of that is true or not for you specifically, it certainly is for someone out there. There is no reason why that information needs to "not exist", but several good reasons for why it shouldn't be in the open for all to see.
To pretend that if information exists, it should all be in the open is a little stupid. If you think otherwise, post your address and banking information to prove it. Let's not trip over the obvious to make a point that doesn't exist.
The interesting thing it that even while you were pointing out that 35% is only part of the picture, it's still only focusing on part of the picture. there is employment taxes that need to be paid based on the salaries of every employee to cover FICA, Unemployment and so on. There are local taxes, permits of operation, property taxes and so much more that need to be dealt with to get the complete picture.
Personally, I think all corporate income taxes should be done away with as all corporate money either ends up going to salaries, expanding and maintaining operations which increase salaries/jobs, or is distributed to the share holders who in turn have to pay taxes based on income. There is no real need for double taxation here, either let it grow business or go to people who pay taxes.