Speaking of incompetent but well meaning people on the jury, I used to work with a girl who sat on a jury trial over a murder where two boys (14 and 16) shot and killed some girl who was obsessed with one of them, enlisted the help of his mom and another friend (a 19 year old woman) who took the body to a barn across the county and caught it on fire.
This girl on the jury came into work after the first day of trial and told us they were going to fry if she had anything to do with it. I wrote a letter to the judge and defense attorney about this. She was left on the jury and the death penalty was taken off the table. I was also arrested and brought before the judge and told that if I threaten a juror it was a felony and so on before being release 5 miles away from my car with no way to get home but walking with no charges ever being filed. I was totally flabbergasted and had no idea what was going on. The jury was then sequestered.
Years later, someone else that used to work there told me she had told the judge that she only said those things because I kept telling her to convict the people. I never spoke to her directly, I was just there when she was bragging about how much power the jury had (and hence, how much power she had because of it) I guess I had the same last name (no relation) as one of the defendants and throwing me under the bus was her way of making sure they paid while she stayed out of trouble.
Once upon a time a "jury of your peers" really meant peers, and not just the most easily swayed people in the jury pool. I'm not saying every single person on the jury needs to be a network engineer, but you can pretty much count on the prosecutor objecting to anyone in the pool with any technical expertise relevant to the case.
The issues here isn't really technical. It can much easier be explained as in a matter of general security. Let say some people who you didn't know called you into a room at your office and demanded you give them your keys to the building. Now keep in mind, you signed an agreement stating that you would only give them to a certain person in a certain department or his replacement when if that happened. Now would you give the keys to these people without knowing who they were or would you give them to the people your security contract authorized? As a matter of reference, I can appear like I belong in a building, I can appear like I am someone's replacement, but you shouldn't just take my word for it before giving me the keys. When the Mayor (the authorized person) requested the keys (passwords), he turned them over willingly without delay.
SO this doesn't need to be a complex technical matter. It's just a matter of security. Imagine those people above was the bank holding your mortgage or landlords agent and you still had no idea who they are but they wanted the keys to your house. I know a network isn't a home but the problem is with general security and not technical in general.
Sort of. When you are talking about income taxes, it's based around an adjusted net income and not a gross income so the employee's salaries are removed from the income. But there are other taxes to be considered with employment then just income that become an expense also. Things like workers compensation and unemployment and payroll taxes are added to the total labor costs.
You have a total gross income which is all gross receipts before any expenses. Then you adjust this by deducting bona fide expenses like employee salaries and any taxes and sometimes some tax exemptions (money that is technically income but doesn't count because of a tax program like abatements and so on). This gives you a net income that can be taxed. You can then adjust your tax liability by any further exemptions you qualify for then and asses your taxable rates. You then end up with two numbers that need to be considered. Profit before taxes and profit after taxes.
This is important because if the employee pay differences does not increase the profit before taxes enough to show a benefit in the profit after taxes, the lower wages could end up costing more in the end. An example of this might be where a company makes 1000 dollars a year and pays two employees $100 a piece for the year. Lets say that with employment taxes and all, the total labor rate is 35% of the total income. Now lets say that other costs equal 15% of total income and there is a 50% profit. So lets say the taxable rate between federal and state and local is 50% (35+10+5). Now the profit before taxes is $500 and the profit after taxes is $250.
So lets say we can save 50% on employment sallary costs per employee but will need one extra employee for every two in order to get the same acceptable quality by moving to another country. This now means we will be paying three employees $50 for the year and actually save $50 in labor expenses. Now lets assume that the taxes in the new location are 10% higher and a total of 60%. Doesn't seem too bad, 50% savings with a 10% increase at the expense of one extra employee (25% real labor savings). But assuming the costs were the same except those two numbers, we see that profit before taxes is now $550 with taxes on that being $330 and profit after taxes being $220 instead of the $250 before.
I hope I have demonstrated that the entire picture needs to be taken into consideration. Lower wages will not be the only issue involved and in some cases, can make no real difference and actually cost more in the end. Lower taxes on US companies can be a way to combat the attractiveness of lower wages in other countries to some degree. The reality is that there are a lot more considerations to take into account then these but they aren't mutually exclusive either.
What is known is that basic physics says that increasing CO2 levels in an atmosphere will increase the proportion of solar heat retained by the planet: that much can be proven in the lab. Anybody who rejects AGW needs to come up with some theory that explains why that magically won't happen in the real world. Instead, they're exploiting the fact that its very, very difficult to predict how that extra heat will translate into temperature and climate changes. Sadly, I suspect that there are those on both sides of the argument who don't even know that heat is not the same thing as temperature...
Not really. You do not need to show something doesn't magically happen in real life in order to show that importance is over estimated. Often things that work in the lab do not work in real world experience and often their performance is either degraded or enhanced in the real world. Also, the amount of solar heat retained isn't always a negative.
Here is a question I have had about this that no one seems to want to answer. If increases Co2 levels means increase solar heat retention, then why is the amount of heat reaching the earth a constant to begin with. It would seem that Co2 in the upper atmosphere would absorb more heat and prevent it from hitting the earth in the first place before it bounces back and gets traped by the Co2 on the way out. It's should be somewhat regulating but no one has offered a factor for this. Also, there is a maximum absorption rate for Co2 and other greenhouse gasses but I can never find what that is in the models. OF course this doesn't mean that what is happening in the lab isn't in the real world nor does it mean it's wrong. But it seriously raised some questions over the statements of the two and whether they are as accurate as claimed or even the problem claimed.
Still rising is a misnomer. The data in that graph ended in 2006 and doesn't reflect anything present or the past two years. More accurately would be the global temperatures were still rising until 2006. But again, that was before the solar cycles switched and these observations.
Don't confuse military spending with war spending. War spending is that which is over and above the normal military spending and is dedicated to a war or conflict being fought. The US does put it's military spending on budget, what it doesn't do is place war spending on budget for several reasons. One is because we don't want soldiers competing with pork in order to get bullets and body armor. Another is because we have spending limits that wars do not follow. Every time the war costs more, we would have to raise those limits. Once they are raise, it take an act of congress to lower them again. This means when the war costs less, the savings will be used (could be, but knowing our congress, it will be) to fund something else just to need to raise the spending limits again when the war requires it. You do not want a position where the military thinks it needs to be at war in order to recieve it's funding and you do not want a war being used to justify increasing spending limits.
But again, military spending is not the same as war spending. One is the act of funding a military, the other is the act of funding them in a specific engagement.
I must apologise for bringing the birther thing that I read in one of your other threads into this - I had no idea it would bring in far too much complexity especially since it is as irrelevant as speculation whether Bush went AWOL to whether the President stays in the job or not. IMHO the birther stuff is pointless whether it is true or not because it can't lead anywhere. You may have a different view but you know whatever that is so let's just leave it and get back to where you were trying to justify the serious claim of political corruption.
I will give you a quick rundown on this and we can leave it. I do not think Obama is not a natural citizen. Some arguments have been put forth making that claim which can easily be refuted by simply showing his original birth certificate which lots of money and resorces have been invested in making sure that never happens. The concern I have is that if I'm wrong, and Obama who holds the power to put the issue to rest but refuses to do so, turns out to not actually be constitutionally qualified to be president, every law he signs into effect is now subject to a constitutional challenge based around the constitutionally mandated qualifications to hold an office. Obama may pass some good laws, he may pass some laws I agree with but worse yet, it could take several administrations needed to take the time and effort to repass everyone of the laws he signed in order to set things to some resemblence or constitutional order. If we can ignore the constitution, then all of it is open to be ignored like free speech, the right to a fair trial, search and seizure, the separation of powers and term limits to say the least. IT reckless and irresponsible to be in this position but as long as there is unresolved doubt, we are there.
Your very weak argument in the middle there implies that acting in your own self interest when that interest also benefits a government is illegal
You are missing the arguemnt. Doing something in your interest that benefits the government isn't the problem. Doing it when there is an official act that's being influenced is. Despite other image sites being availible, flickr is the sole site used by the administration and this creates a conflict of interest that at minimum deserves other sites to be used in parallel. When I made the same argument about it being a biased move by someone in flickr and you attempted to turn it to the same thing (not pissing off a customer) but directly links the government as the only beneficial customer through the circumstances surrounding the actions, it then treads on violation of a law that has been around and in effect before Flickr was ever conceived of. The bottom line is that the images need to be availible directly from the government in a completely neutral site that doesn't limit other people's speech or express any political point of view through their actions or statements.
. Also the dictionary definition does matter and not your own invented one in interpretation of the law. It helps a great deal if the law quoted has something to do with the issue at hand - what you had there doesn't fit in any way at all and making up a new definition of a word that handily turns everyone into a criminal is a pretty stupid trick. That's why I'm talking about a disconnection, that law and your argument do not connect.
I posted the law, pointed to how it fit, you need to show where I was wrong instead of just insisting it's so. The law is what matters, not some dictionary reference because the law is what is legally binding. You cannot ignore it because you found an exception in some obscure dictionary somewhere.
For there to be corruption there needs to be two parties and actual communication between then - not "the advertiser won't like this" decided internally which is legal and a frequent occurence. That is not illegal. I am certain you know th
IT wasn't claiming they could have gone bankrupt, it was their (the administrations) claim they were failing. Failing banks go bankrupts. Goldman received 12 billion dollars that the US tax payer will eventually have to pay because they were failing. Remember? Or was Goldman Sachs flush with money and healthy as could be and the administration only gave them more money then an entire generation of 10 families will typically ever earn within their lifetime because of ties between the people administration officials?
Seems to me that the battle cry to give them welfare was that they were failing.
Nice how your attempting to call me biased and spinning when your entire argument results to "but he spelled something wrong" and "ignore all the claims that were being made publicly and the 12 billion dollar bailout they were begging for" Goldman turned a profit.
Your right, Obama is only spending in less then one year the debt that took Bush 2.5 years to rack up. I guess the problem was the all 8 years. OF course those numbers was before the health care and cap and tax came around which was expected to be law by now.
Wars have been traditionally off budget and considered emergency or non-discretionary spending for several reasons. First and probably the best reason is that we do no want out military attempting fight a war and win with it's hands tied behind some budget allocation that isn't sufficient. Another is because we do not want to institutionalize war- That is to make any department think that in order to recieve their previous budget alotment that we need to remain in a war somewhere. Another reason is that congress has spending limits and has to have a law passed to increase those limits above a certain amount (without regard to rejected revenue). Finally and probably one of the most important reasons is that off budget war spending will cause a debate on the war every time funding is needed which seems to be more then once per year instead of once every two years as the constitution states is military funding maximum.
The problem is, congress knows or has an idea of how much the costs are going to be and can change the budget to match this. Being off budget doesn't keep congress in the dark, it just sets the funding into another position to be less of a political tool. With the war on budget, what happens is the spending limit is raised which means that when the money is no longer spent on the war, it will take an act of congress to either lower the spending limits or congress can use the end of the wars as ways to pay for other things.
If you want what is being spent on the wars to perpetually be spent by congress, then put it on budget. If not, keep it off budget and demand congress actually look at the expected expenses when making the budget. Right now, the war is mostly deficit spending and people want to legitimatize that for other programs.
I read the link, it appears that about 33% is directly tied to Bush and about 27% directly to Obama, the rest is due to outside forces like the recessions (current and in 2001) and the congressional budget office estimating comming in wrong.
According to the article, I am wrong, the 1.1 trillion since obama took office is roughly equal to 2 and a half years under Bush. I read somewhere that it was closer to the total of all 8 years of Bush 43 but that may have included the costs of all his proposed programs.
1, because people aren't anal like you and don't think spelling mistakes invalidate a point.
2, because that was the battle cry behind the tarp packages and why they got 12 billion dollars. Read a news paper or something, I don't know, just pay attention.
Making a profit and going bankrupt are two different things that can coexist when you realize the decline in value of assets. That's what the tarp legislation was about, if it didn't happen, they would be bankrupt and fail- remember?.
Exxon's rate of 44% includes taxes (mostly) paid to foreign governments. They don't pay that in the US. Foreign governments hit them hard and they can't dodge it because of the physical need to drill.
Your partially correct, at least if I reading what your saying right. You are right in that the 44% includes foreign taxes but that is not "mostly"paid to foreign governments because the tax rates were so much higher. It was because foreign income was just much higher. If we look at their 2009 10-k filing for the 2007 income (44% numbers). we will see that pre-tax US income was 13.700 billion dollars where foreign income was 56.744 billion dollars. We also see that income taxes for the US (which does include taxes foreign profits and state taxes), as 5.120 billion dollars. Now if we subtract 263 million from that which is the US tax on foreign profits we get 4.850 billion. That comes out to a 35% tax rate. But wait, they are listing other US taxes too, an extra 2.048 billion. That brings us up to 6.898 billion which comes out to 50% effective tax without the US tax paid on foreign income. This is significant because when you start messing around with foreign taxes which include the same things, you drop that effective rates to 44% or 6% of profits lower.
Please tell me what your point is. I cannot derive it from your single sentence sarcasm-esq statement.
Someone doing something doesn't really matter, the amount spent does. More has been spent in the last 8 months in deficit spending then there was the entire 8 years Bush was in office.
I took the neighbors lawnmower last week and mowed my yard with it. He was at work and I figured he wouldn't care. I left it in my garage after I hit a metal stake in some tall grass, I was replacing the blades. He discovered it missing and called the cops while I was on my way to get the new blade for it. Of course once he figured out what happened, it was all good.
It's obvious that without the government setting the rules, property is reduced to whoever is in possession of it and how they are willing to keep possession of it. Governments prescribe rules and regulations that define property and ownership and provides penalties as well as conflict resolution in a reasonable manor. This is effective enough that the vast majority of people will obey the laws and know their boundaries. without that, it's just you holding onto it as long as you can.
I'm sure people would be glad to if the produces were affordable and cost effective and of the same or better quality. As it is now, the costs are at least twice as much as the imports or hybrid imports before you start seeing a noticeable difference in quality and with some products, you still will not see it. I'm not going broke paying more for the same things I could get for less. And as people have shown prompting your plea, I'm not alone in this thinking.
A few great American leaders, some praised by the left, some by the right, and some by all, once said:
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere
And the other was
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks."
And
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
And finally, one of my favorites
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
They were from different times, can you guess who they were? They all back your view and go a little further. I have more quotes if your interested too.
Everyone's actual effective tax rate is lower then the applicable rate. That's by design and because we have a progressive tax system. If you are in the 25% bracket, you are not paying 25% on all your earning, you are paying 25% on the amounts over the threshold that brings you to that bracket.
I do not know what you point is unless it's that you are ignorant of the tax system and want to claim having a 34% effective rate while being in a 45% bracket is somehow taking advantage of loopholes.
You're quoting KPMG and right wing propaganda machines as authoritative sources on corporate tax rates? Edwin Feulner runs the Heritage Foundation, one of the groups helping organize the "Tea-Birthers". One of his own favorite quotes:
Jesus fucking christ, are you telling me that if no left wing published their findings, they disappear? Damn, either find fault with the numbers or shut the hell up. And no, guilt by association does not adequately refute anything mentioned. Either counter it or get lost.
I mean this attitude is old and falacious at best. Oh, here is a valid set of numbers but because no one with a different opinion did the same stiudy and they are plitically biased, we will completely ignore them. What the fuck, when has guilt by association refuted anything and why is your feble little mind attempting to make the asertation? There are tons of other damn sites on the internet that say the same fucking thing. It would really be different is they were saying something no one else was but it seems that the only thing shattered here is your world view. Grow the fuck up.
BTW, You seem like someone who just heard something from your favorite sources and thought it was the gods honest truth. Your doing exactly what fox viewers do and I bet you have no fucking clue to why you think you can use Fox News as some insult. Go be a damn tool somewhere else.
Exxon, They paid about 44% in 2007 and 47% in 2008. BTW, that comes to around 35 billion per year in taxes they paid.
The rate isn't there to be actually paid. The government provided deductions and exemptions in order to steer businesses into certain directions and to get certain things accomplished that wouldn't have normally happened. The rate, just like you do no pay your actual rate, is 1: graduated progressively so it will never be the entire amount, and 2: it's there only for people and companies who do not follow the direction the government wants them to.
He most likely would have let GM fail and rightly so. Probably not the banks because we would still be on the hook for the majority of the money.
Anyways, no, there is too damn much unnecessary spending going on to claim it was about reducing the effects of Bush. It's about increasing spending. That's why they want to put the war on budget, once it's on, then when the war is over, instead of them not spending that money anymore, it's fair game as if they cut any other program, they will spend it like it's their right. That's the only reason to put war financing in with the budget.
In 2007, Exxon reported paying a 44% effective tax rate in their sec filings.
Goldman sax went bankrupt in 2008 didn't they? Remember the bank bailouts? Besides, they paid a 34% effective tax the previous year and attributed the lowered tax rate to the increase in permanent benefits as a percentage of lower earnings and changes in geographic earnings mix. This means that the their profits were paid out and the tax money didn't disapear, it will be paid by those people.
You entire 0% rate is fictional to any company that is solvent. It isn't because of loopholes and it isn't because the rates set down don't have any meaning. The rates have an effective disposition because they are higher then what they should be and the government lowers them for companies who do certain things they want them to do. It's like the mortgage interest deduction, if your making over a certain amount of money, you should be owning instead of renting in order to lower your tax burden. That's by design and accurately reflects the intended rates. What doesn't accurately reflect the intended rates, is you misunderstanding of the tax system and those who participate.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of incompetent but well meaning people on the jury, I used to work with a girl who sat on a jury trial over a murder where two boys (14 and 16) shot and killed some girl who was obsessed with one of them, enlisted the help of his mom and another friend (a 19 year old woman) who took the body to a barn across the county and caught it on fire.
This girl on the jury came into work after the first day of trial and told us they were going to fry if she had anything to do with it. I wrote a letter to the judge and defense attorney about this. She was left on the jury and the death penalty was taken off the table. I was also arrested and brought before the judge and told that if I threaten a juror it was a felony and so on before being release 5 miles away from my car with no way to get home but walking with no charges ever being filed. I was totally flabbergasted and had no idea what was going on. The jury was then sequestered.
Years later, someone else that used to work there told me she had told the judge that she only said those things because I kept telling her to convict the people. I never spoke to her directly, I was just there when she was bragging about how much power the jury had (and hence, how much power she had because of it) I guess I had the same last name (no relation) as one of the defendants and throwing me under the bus was her way of making sure they paid while she stayed out of trouble.
The issues here isn't really technical. It can much easier be explained as in a matter of general security. Let say some people who you didn't know called you into a room at your office and demanded you give them your keys to the building. Now keep in mind, you signed an agreement stating that you would only give them to a certain person in a certain department or his replacement when if that happened. Now would you give the keys to these people without knowing who they were or would you give them to the people your security contract authorized? As a matter of reference, I can appear like I belong in a building, I can appear like I am someone's replacement, but you shouldn't just take my word for it before giving me the keys. When the Mayor (the authorized person) requested the keys (passwords), he turned them over willingly without delay.
SO this doesn't need to be a complex technical matter. It's just a matter of security. Imagine those people above was the bank holding your mortgage or landlords agent and you still had no idea who they are but they wanted the keys to your house. I know a network isn't a home but the problem is with general security and not technical in general.
Sort of. When you are talking about income taxes, it's based around an adjusted net income and not a gross income so the employee's salaries are removed from the income. But there are other taxes to be considered with employment then just income that become an expense also. Things like workers compensation and unemployment and payroll taxes are added to the total labor costs.
You have a total gross income which is all gross receipts before any expenses. Then you adjust this by deducting bona fide expenses like employee salaries and any taxes and sometimes some tax exemptions (money that is technically income but doesn't count because of a tax program like abatements and so on). This gives you a net income that can be taxed. You can then adjust your tax liability by any further exemptions you qualify for then and asses your taxable rates. You then end up with two numbers that need to be considered. Profit before taxes and profit after taxes.
This is important because if the employee pay differences does not increase the profit before taxes enough to show a benefit in the profit after taxes, the lower wages could end up costing more in the end. An example of this might be where a company makes 1000 dollars a year and pays two employees $100 a piece for the year. Lets say that with employment taxes and all, the total labor rate is 35% of the total income. Now lets say that other costs equal 15% of total income and there is a 50% profit. So lets say the taxable rate between federal and state and local is 50% (35+10+5). Now the profit before taxes is $500 and the profit after taxes is $250.
So lets say we can save 50% on employment sallary costs per employee but will need one extra employee for every two in order to get the same acceptable quality by moving to another country. This now means we will be paying three employees $50 for the year and actually save $50 in labor expenses. Now lets assume that the taxes in the new location are 10% higher and a total of 60%. Doesn't seem too bad, 50% savings with a 10% increase at the expense of one extra employee (25% real labor savings). But assuming the costs were the same except those two numbers, we see that profit before taxes is now $550 with taxes on that being $330 and profit after taxes being $220 instead of the $250 before.
I hope I have demonstrated that the entire picture needs to be taken into consideration. Lower wages will not be the only issue involved and in some cases, can make no real difference and actually cost more in the end. Lower taxes on US companies can be a way to combat the attractiveness of lower wages in other countries to some degree. The reality is that there are a lot more considerations to take into account then these but they aren't mutually exclusive either.
Not really. You do not need to show something doesn't magically happen in real life in order to show that importance is over estimated. Often things that work in the lab do not work in real world experience and often their performance is either degraded or enhanced in the real world. Also, the amount of solar heat retained isn't always a negative.
Here is a question I have had about this that no one seems to want to answer. If increases Co2 levels means increase solar heat retention, then why is the amount of heat reaching the earth a constant to begin with. It would seem that Co2 in the upper atmosphere would absorb more heat and prevent it from hitting the earth in the first place before it bounces back and gets traped by the Co2 on the way out. It's should be somewhat regulating but no one has offered a factor for this. Also, there is a maximum absorption rate for Co2 and other greenhouse gasses but I can never find what that is in the models. OF course this doesn't mean that what is happening in the lab isn't in the real world nor does it mean it's wrong. But it seriously raised some questions over the statements of the two and whether they are as accurate as claimed or even the problem claimed.
Still rising is a misnomer. The data in that graph ended in 2006 and doesn't reflect anything present or the past two years. More accurately would be the global temperatures were still rising until 2006. But again, that was before the solar cycles switched and these observations.
No one expects anything of you. That should be obvious by now.
But the point wasn't neither how much they paid not how much they made. It was that they didn't pay nothing like the parent was attempting to claim.
Don't confuse military spending with war spending. War spending is that which is over and above the normal military spending and is dedicated to a war or conflict being fought. The US does put it's military spending on budget, what it doesn't do is place war spending on budget for several reasons. One is because we don't want soldiers competing with pork in order to get bullets and body armor. Another is because we have spending limits that wars do not follow. Every time the war costs more, we would have to raise those limits. Once they are raise, it take an act of congress to lower them again. This means when the war costs less, the savings will be used (could be, but knowing our congress, it will be) to fund something else just to need to raise the spending limits again when the war requires it. You do not want a position where the military thinks it needs to be at war in order to recieve it's funding and you do not want a war being used to justify increasing spending limits.
But again, military spending is not the same as war spending. One is the act of funding a military, the other is the act of funding them in a specific engagement.
I will give you a quick rundown on this and we can leave it. I do not think Obama is not a natural citizen. Some arguments have been put forth making that claim which can easily be refuted by simply showing his original birth certificate which lots of money and resorces have been invested in making sure that never happens. The concern I have is that if I'm wrong, and Obama who holds the power to put the issue to rest but refuses to do so, turns out to not actually be constitutionally qualified to be president, every law he signs into effect is now subject to a constitutional challenge based around the constitutionally mandated qualifications to hold an office. Obama may pass some good laws, he may pass some laws I agree with but worse yet, it could take several administrations needed to take the time and effort to repass everyone of the laws he signed in order to set things to some resemblence or constitutional order. If we can ignore the constitution, then all of it is open to be ignored like free speech, the right to a fair trial, search and seizure, the separation of powers and term limits to say the least. IT reckless and irresponsible to be in this position but as long as there is unresolved doubt, we are there.
You are missing the arguemnt. Doing something in your interest that benefits the government isn't the problem. Doing it when there is an official act that's being influenced is. Despite other image sites being availible, flickr is the sole site used by the administration and this creates a conflict of interest that at minimum deserves other sites to be used in parallel. When I made the same argument about it being a biased move by someone in flickr and you attempted to turn it to the same thing (not pissing off a customer) but directly links the government as the only beneficial customer through the circumstances surrounding the actions, it then treads on violation of a law that has been around and in effect before Flickr was ever conceived of. The bottom line is that the images need to be availible directly from the government in a completely neutral site that doesn't limit other people's speech or express any political point of view through their actions or statements.
I posted the law, pointed to how it fit, you need to show where I was wrong instead of just insisting it's so. The law is what matters, not some dictionary reference because the law is what is legally binding. You cannot ignore it because you found an exception in some obscure dictionary somewhere.
IT wasn't claiming they could have gone bankrupt, it was their (the administrations) claim they were failing. Failing banks go bankrupts. Goldman received 12 billion dollars that the US tax payer will eventually have to pay because they were failing. Remember? Or was Goldman Sachs flush with money and healthy as could be and the administration only gave them more money then an entire generation of 10 families will typically ever earn within their lifetime because of ties between the people administration officials?
Seems to me that the battle cry to give them welfare was that they were failing.
Nice how your attempting to call me biased and spinning when your entire argument results to "but he spelled something wrong" and "ignore all the claims that were being made publicly and the 12 billion dollar bailout they were begging for" Goldman turned a profit.
Your right, Obama is only spending in less then one year the debt that took Bush 2.5 years to rack up. I guess the problem was the all 8 years. OF course those numbers was before the health care and cap and tax came around which was expected to be law by now.
Wars have been traditionally off budget and considered emergency or non-discretionary spending for several reasons. First and probably the best reason is that we do no want out military attempting fight a war and win with it's hands tied behind some budget allocation that isn't sufficient. Another is because we do not want to institutionalize war- That is to make any department think that in order to recieve their previous budget alotment that we need to remain in a war somewhere. Another reason is that congress has spending limits and has to have a law passed to increase those limits above a certain amount (without regard to rejected revenue). Finally and probably one of the most important reasons is that off budget war spending will cause a debate on the war every time funding is needed which seems to be more then once per year instead of once every two years as the constitution states is military funding maximum.
The problem is, congress knows or has an idea of how much the costs are going to be and can change the budget to match this. Being off budget doesn't keep congress in the dark, it just sets the funding into another position to be less of a political tool. With the war on budget, what happens is the spending limit is raised which means that when the money is no longer spent on the war, it will take an act of congress to either lower the spending limits or congress can use the end of the wars as ways to pay for other things.
If you want what is being spent on the wars to perpetually be spent by congress, then put it on budget. If not, keep it off budget and demand congress actually look at the expected expenses when making the budget. Right now, the war is mostly deficit spending and people want to legitimatize that for other programs.
I read the link, it appears that about 33% is directly tied to Bush and about 27% directly to Obama, the rest is due to outside forces like the recessions (current and in 2001) and the congressional budget office estimating comming in wrong.
According to the article, I am wrong, the 1.1 trillion since obama took office is roughly equal to 2 and a half years under Bush. I read somewhere that it was closer to the total of all 8 years of Bush 43 but that may have included the costs of all his proposed programs.
1, because people aren't anal like you and don't think spelling mistakes invalidate a point.
2, because that was the battle cry behind the tarp packages and why they got 12 billion dollars. Read a news paper or something, I don't know, just pay attention.
Making a profit and going bankrupt are two different things that can coexist when you realize the decline in value of assets. That's what the tarp legislation was about, if it didn't happen, they would be bankrupt and fail- remember?.
Your partially correct, at least if I reading what your saying right. You are right in that the 44% includes foreign taxes but that is not "mostly"paid to foreign governments because the tax rates were so much higher. It was because foreign income was just much higher. If we look at their 2009 10-k filing for the 2007 income (44% numbers). we will see that pre-tax US income was 13.700 billion dollars where foreign income was 56.744 billion dollars. We also see that income taxes for the US (which does include taxes foreign profits and state taxes), as 5.120 billion dollars. Now if we subtract 263 million from that which is the US tax on foreign profits we get 4.850 billion. That comes out to a 35% tax rate. But wait, they are listing other US taxes too, an extra 2.048 billion. That brings us up to 6.898 billion which comes out to 50% effective tax without the US tax paid on foreign income. This is significant because when you start messing around with foreign taxes which include the same things, you drop that effective rates to 44% or 6% of profits lower.
Please tell me what your point is. I cannot derive it from your single sentence sarcasm-esq statement.
Someone doing something doesn't really matter, the amount spent does. More has been spent in the last 8 months in deficit spending then there was the entire 8 years Bush was in office.
I took the neighbors lawnmower last week and mowed my yard with it. He was at work and I figured he wouldn't care. I left it in my garage after I hit a metal stake in some tall grass, I was replacing the blades. He discovered it missing and called the cops while I was on my way to get the new blade for it. Of course once he figured out what happened, it was all good.
It's obvious that without the government setting the rules, property is reduced to whoever is in possession of it and how they are willing to keep possession of it. Governments prescribe rules and regulations that define property and ownership and provides penalties as well as conflict resolution in a reasonable manor. This is effective enough that the vast majority of people will obey the laws and know their boundaries. without that, it's just you holding onto it as long as you can.
I'm sure people would be glad to if the produces were affordable and cost effective and of the same or better quality. As it is now, the costs are at least twice as much as the imports or hybrid imports before you start seeing a noticeable difference in quality and with some products, you still will not see it. I'm not going broke paying more for the same things I could get for less. And as people have shown prompting your plea, I'm not alone in this thinking.
A few great American leaders, some praised by the left, some by the right, and some by all, once said:
And the other was
And
And finally, one of my favorites
They were from different times, can you guess who they were? They all back your view and go a little further. I have more quotes if your interested too.
Everyone's actual effective tax rate is lower then the applicable rate. That's by design and because we have a progressive tax system. If you are in the 25% bracket, you are not paying 25% on all your earning, you are paying 25% on the amounts over the threshold that brings you to that bracket.
I do not know what you point is unless it's that you are ignorant of the tax system and want to claim having a 34% effective rate while being in a 45% bracket is somehow taking advantage of loopholes.
Jesus fucking christ, are you telling me that if no left wing published their findings, they disappear? Damn, either find fault with the numbers or shut the hell up. And no, guilt by association does not adequately refute anything mentioned. Either counter it or get lost.
I mean this attitude is old and falacious at best. Oh, here is a valid set of numbers but because no one with a different opinion did the same stiudy and they are plitically biased, we will completely ignore them. What the fuck, when has guilt by association refuted anything and why is your feble little mind attempting to make the asertation? There are tons of other damn sites on the internet that say the same fucking thing. It would really be different is they were saying something no one else was but it seems that the only thing shattered here is your world view. Grow the fuck up.
BTW, You seem like someone who just heard something from your favorite sources and thought it was the gods honest truth. Your doing exactly what fox viewers do and I bet you have no fucking clue to why you think you can use Fox News as some insult. Go be a damn tool somewhere else.
Exxon, They paid about 44% in 2007 and 47% in 2008. BTW, that comes to around 35 billion per year in taxes they paid.
The rate isn't there to be actually paid. The government provided deductions and exemptions in order to steer businesses into certain directions and to get certain things accomplished that wouldn't have normally happened. The rate, just like you do no pay your actual rate, is 1: graduated progressively so it will never be the entire amount, and 2: it's there only for people and companies who do not follow the direction the government wants them to.
He most likely would have let GM fail and rightly so. Probably not the banks because we would still be on the hook for the majority of the money.
Anyways, no, there is too damn much unnecessary spending going on to claim it was about reducing the effects of Bush. It's about increasing spending. That's why they want to put the war on budget, once it's on, then when the war is over, instead of them not spending that money anymore, it's fair game as if they cut any other program, they will spend it like it's their right. That's the only reason to put war financing in with the budget.
In 2007, Exxon reported paying a 44% effective tax rate in their sec filings.
Goldman sax went bankrupt in 2008 didn't they? Remember the bank bailouts? Besides, they paid a 34% effective tax the previous year and attributed the lowered tax rate to the increase in permanent benefits as a percentage of lower earnings and changes in geographic earnings mix. This means that the their profits were paid out and the tax money didn't disapear, it will be paid by those people.
You entire 0% rate is fictional to any company that is solvent. It isn't because of loopholes and it isn't because the rates set down don't have any meaning. The rates have an effective disposition because they are higher then what they should be and the government lowers them for companies who do certain things they want them to do. It's like the mortgage interest deduction, if your making over a certain amount of money, you should be owning instead of renting in order to lower your tax burden. That's by design and accurately reflects the intended rates. What doesn't accurately reflect the intended rates, is you misunderstanding of the tax system and those who participate.
Obama has already spent more money then Bush has in his entire 8 years in office. Don't forget Bush, but do not give Obama a pass because of him.