Blocking traffic isn't disturbing the peace -- it is disturbing your morning commute, which isn't protected by the constitution.
Eh, in my state it would be disorderly conduct:
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
Why is that? Because I don't see disrupting the day to day activities of people unrelated to the object of your protest (the RNC convention) as being an effective method of convincing people that your cause is just?
Do you live in the Twin Cities? Need to go there on business? How would you feel about people blockading the airport, bridges and intersections? What if it was your hometown that they were planning to disrupt?
so I can accept that a good chunk of that regulation isn't simply in the way. Certainly not all of it is beneficial, but lots of it is.
I never said otherwise. Clearly some regulation is necessary. Just don't pretend that it comes with zero cost. And beyond regulation there are lots of things in this country that stifle innovation -- software patents being the/. favorite.
You think your wish not to be disrupted should trump the right given by the constitution to peaceful assembly
Keyword: peaceful assembly. Blocking traffic is just about the textbook definition of disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct, i.e.: disturbing the rights of your neighbors to be left the hell alone. It's called the public order and it's generally one of the things that society demands from the Government.
Oh our system isn't nearly as bad as what you linked but the 20 layers isn't really a joke.
You've got your Local (village/city & county) Government(s). Odds are that you'll need some sort of permit(s) from them to do business. Then you've got your State Government. Depending on what type of business you are running you are probably reporting to at least one but likely multiple state agencies. Taxes are the obvious example but there may be regulatory agencies and licensing agencies that you also have to work with to keep doing business.
Then you get to the Federal Government. You may have some regulation on this level, depending on what type of business you are doing. You may even have regulation from multiple Federal agencies, all of which think their rules are the most important and think they are the sole agency regulating you. And what other Federal agencies can "crush the entrepreneurial instinct"? This being/., let's start with a discussion about our fucked up patent system. Or we could talk about things as absurd as childhood chemistry sets being dumbed down due to fears of terrorism.
Transportation Troubles - This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."
Nothing like annoying thousands of people who are late getting to work to convince them that your cause is just.....
completely agree that the two major parties are largely dishonest about their goals; the Libertarians are the only ones who seem to be very honest
Yeah and look how many elections the Libertarians have won recently./p>
I really think it comes down to that more than anything else with the Republicans and Democrats. I don't think most of them set out deciding that they are going to be dishonest. They set out to win elections and eventually come to believe that the ends justify the means because the other side will ruin the country.
Nobody with half a brain thinks that John McCain is going to bring us four more years of GWB. They obviously agree on several big issues but do you really see McCain as the type that is going to alienate our oldest Allies and run a permanent campaign once in office? Do you really see him as somebody who would have dropped the ball on Katrina as badly as GWB did? But "McCain equals four more years of GWB" is a good sound bite so that's what they keep repeating until our ears bleed.
Likewise, nobody with half a brain thinks that Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. Is he really more liberal than the self-described socialist? I doubt it. Yet it sounds good and scares people so that's the sound bite the Republicans use.
Here's what's equally unfair about that. Let's say I live in East BumFuck, NY which has a lower sales tax than Long Island. I move to LI for 12 months (15 months... whatever) for work (various people have short-medium term assignment based jobs), rent an apartment and bring my stuff with me. I'm now liable for the tax difference. So... I pay it. I move back once my assignemnt is over. I'm working locally for a little while (oops, no money back this tax period)... get another assignment in let's say NYC for 14 months.... oops, higher tax rate than either of the two... gotta pay again... then I move back and secure a local long term position for a while (or indefinitely). Not going to see that money back either, am I?
Actually that really isn't an issue. The document that I quoted also contained this language:
However, you are not required to pay any additional local tax on any property or service that you bring into a locality in New York State that you purchased outside that locality before you became a resident of that locality.
(There's also similar language regarding out of state purchases)
And well, the result of that are then higher tax and insurance costs and those become a problem for society.
Then allow the health insurance companies to price risk accordingly. Let them charge smokers more money. Let them offer incentives for people to lose weight. Don't try and give the Government control over yet one more aspect of our life.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If my neighbor enjoys eating a big mac or smoking tobacco (or marijuana) that's no business of mine. He will have to be held accountable for those choices if he engages in those activities to such an excess that his health is threatened -- but the way to hold him accountable is through increased insurance costs. Not through Governmental mandates or taxes that try and shape behavior.
I'm just sick of the nanny state and people who try to legislate morality and behavior. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the Federal Government trying to regulate what people can put into their bodies. Do you really think that's an appropriate role for Government?
doesn't mean I've put more than a few minutes' thought into them, just that they are my own opinions, and the product of some amount of rational thought. In fact, the fact that I'm willing to admit my lack of knowledge (or desire to gain knowledge) should be an indicator to you that I am thinking for myself, and not just spouting what others tell me to think
Fair enough and I apologize for my characterization. I would encourage you to do some reading on economics -- I honestly think that the basic concept of supply and demand is the underlying cause of energy prices. I used to buy into the ideas of regulation and more Government involvement but recently I've started to swing in the other direction.
From a business standpoint regulation equals increased costs in one way or another. That's a fact -- ask any business owner from your local Mom & Pop all the way up to the CEO of a Fortune 500. Now that isn't to say that all regulation is bad -- the increased costs of environmental or safety regulation should offer a net benefit to society (Earthquake building codes as a random example). But the idea that regulation can bring down prices seems pretty far fetched.... how is a Governmental mandate going to bring prices down? I don't ask that to put you on the spot again.... just to encourage you to think it through.
I am legitimately sorry that I jumped on you like I did. I've just become disillusioned with our politics of talking points and dumbed down ideas. The Democrats attacking "big oil" show a complete lack of understanding about basic economics. Why are American oil companies to blame for the high cost of oil when most of our oil is imported and thus subject to the economic realities of the global market?
And a windfall profits tax? At least when Obama purposed that idea in his books he was talking about using it fund green energy. In that scenario one could argue that the societal benefit of reduced greenhouse emissions outweighs the cost imposed on consumers/shareholders. Now they are talking about using it to fund a "energy rebate".... basically we will tax the oil companies so we can give consumers more money (in the form of tax rebates or tax cuts) so they can afford the high cost of energy. So we are going to take money from the oil companies to give to consumers to buy oil..... WTF is wrong with that picture and why won't they just raise their prices to make up for the new taxes?
Its a problem because it does nothing to improve the human condition
Please point out the part of the US Constitution that says American citizens and the United States Government are mandated to work towards "improving the human condition"
Its a problem because it taxes the health-care system
Lots of things tax the health care system. Are we going to legislate against them too? I bet a one-child policy like China has would save us a fortune in health care costs......
it's a problem because people like you and me end up footing the bill
I'll take higher health insurance premiums over the nanny state any day of the week. Besides which, the whole point of insurance is pooled risk.... if you don't want to pay for other peoples bad health decisions then don't have health insurance.
i, for one, think things would be much better if people were actually held accountable for the things they say and do.
I don't have a problem with holding people accountable. I do have a problem with the Government trying to legislate good behavior and morality. If I want to smoke tobacco (or marijuana, but that's another debate) or eat fatty foods why the hell should Washington or Albany try to punish me for doing so?
Holding people accountable would be allowing the insurance companies to charge smokers more and/or offer incentives to those that quit smoking/lose weight. Government mandates just take away more of our freedom of choice.
Re:Boycotts and Electronic Cash
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 1
I live in Switzerland, and travel a lot. You mentioned car rentals and hotel rooms, this is a monthly expense for me. Airplane tickets, mail order anything, DVD rental, etc. It's a lot.
Eh, that complicates it. Travel without credit cards is possible but it's a royal pain in the ass. Would American Express be a viable alternative? They have some issues of their own but they've generally tried to take steps to fight the Visa/MC cartel (with varying degrees of success) and if they'd work for you it might make more sense to do business with them.
If the states would stop sending in the monies...they would weaken the Feds, and they could better use their monies on their own people
I agree. Now find a Governor and State Legislature with enough backbone to tell it's citizens to stop paying Federal income tax........
Re:Boycotts and Electronic Cash
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 1
They are entrenched, have no interest in security (because the consumer pays for insurance anyway)
Actually the merchant usually winds up paying in cases of fraud.
I've tried to buy things without Visa or MasterCard and it makes life very hard
With few exceptions (renting a car or hotel room) why is it "very hard" to avoid Visa and MasterCard? Greenbacks work just fine for 99% of your day to day activities.
in the end they do nothing to improve their condition.
And why is this a problem? Some people choose to smoke even though they know the risks of doing so. If people choose to live unhealthy lifestyles than I'm not going to get real worked up about it. I don't know about you but I'm growing weary of the war on vice.
Provide people with the information but at the end of the day it's up to them to make smart choices.
The recent telecom immunity bill should be proof enough that a significant percentage of our congress is corrupt, because only corruption and bribery could have passed that bill
I think the pressure from the White House flag waving and "national security" talk had a lot to do with it too. The fears of certain high profile democrats who were afraid of being Max Cleland'ed/swift-boated had something to do with it too.
What the fuck? Didn't I already say I honestly don't know? Why the hell are you asking me again?
Because I wanted to know if you had put any intellectual thought into your opinions or you were just repeating cookie-cutter Liberal talking points. It seems that you are repeating talking points. I'm disappointed but not surprised -- as you said this is Slashdot.
(And before I get flamed I would have called out Conservative talking points just as quickly)
Pay the difference makes more sense than how I read your original post. I read it as you'd have to repay the sales tax for the half of the matches you didn't already use. Sorry about that oversight on my part.
I found the following language in the instructions for IT-201:
Additional local tax - You may owe an additional local tax if you are a resident of a locality (county or city) at the time of purchase and you:
* bring property into that locality which you purchased in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate;
* bring property into that locality on which you had a taxable service performed in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate; or
* bring a service (such as an information service) into that locality which you purchased in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate.
I honestly never knew about this.... but it seems like a pretty stupid and unenforceable mandate. Not surprised that it would come out of Albany. Who the hell keeps track of their purchases in different counties? What about receipts that don't bother to list the % of sales tax and just list the amount? Do I have to save my receipts for the year and then go over them all with a calculator and a tax table that includes all 62 counties?
Any company with sufficient money (and oil companies certainly have that) is above the law in the US, because of how corrupt our elected traitors--sorry, I meant representatives, are.
You are making the mistake of assuming that all 535 members of Congress are motivated by the same things and cater to the same constituencies. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I don't have a hard time believing that some members of Congress are in the pockets of the oil industry. I have a very hard time believing that all of them are. What you were saying earlier about competition? It applies to politics as well. If a politician thinks he can secure votes/score political points by attacking big oil then he's going to attack big oil. If a challenger thinks he can knock off an incumbent by attacking big oil then he's going to attack big oil. That's how the game works.
I'll answer you honestly: I don't know.
I guess, but regulation or competition seem to be the most promising roads to better oil prices to me. It's an uninformed, layman's opinion, but I'm ok with that
So you don't know and all of your ideas are based on gut feelings with no real facts to back them up. Why should anybody take you seriously?
I'll ask again: Where is the "competition" that you are going to magically create going to procure it's oil from? Do you think that the Saudis/Canadians/Russians/etc will sell it cheaper to some upstart than they will sell it to Exxon? If so then why hasn't some entrepreneur started a new oil company?
And what do you want to regulate to bring prices down? I'm really curious. As previously stated I'm not opposed to all regulation. Regulation has it's place -- particularly in the arenas of safety (consumers have the right to expect that their cars won't blow up) and environmental protection. I just question the notion that more regulation will bring down prices. Most all regulation increases the cost of doing business. That's an acceptable trade-off when talking about protecting the environment or consumer safety -- but don't delude yourself into thinking that more regulation will result in lower prices.
FFS. I covered this. Gas is something that most people need. Not want, need. There are few enough oil companies that they can keep prices high and not worry about being out-priced by a competitor, and people will pay for it because they have to.
You have a point if you were looking at the United States in a vacuum. Globally however there are a bit more than a "few" oil companies and pump prices (with the exception of states that subsidize the costs for their citizens) are going up across the World. This isn't a uniquely American problem.
China is putting millions of new vehicles on the road each year. Ditto for India. Meanwhile oil production is falling pretty much everywhere. Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp that oil is a global commodity that is currently facing increased demand at a time when production is leveling off/dropping? This is economics 101 -- you don't have to be Adam Smith to understand it.
If they couldn't just charge what they wanted, the prices wouldn't be even as high as they are now, let alone what they were a couple of months ago
What are you basing this on other than your gut feeling? Congress has investigated the oil companies multiple times for price gouging. They've come up empty every single time. Do you really think that there isn't some ambitious politician that would love to make an issue out of this if he/she could prove they were fixing prices?
Where do you think Exxon gets their oil from? Do you think it's free to obtain? They have a pay the Saudis/Canadians/Mexicans/Venezuelans/Russians/etc market rates to obtain that crude. If they refuse to pay market rates then the producers will just sell it to someone who will -- the Europeans, Chinese or Indians. Even American crude operates under this same basic principle -- why would Exxon sell crude oil under it's direct control below market rates?
The only real solution to this problem is to change the energy paradigm or produce more oil. I prefer the former option given the environmental impact of carbon based fuel but even I'm enough of a realist to know that the switchover isn't going to happen overnight. Do you think the existing transportation infrastructure was built overnight? Tens of thousands of service stations? Hundreds of millions of cars? The mechanics that work on those cars? The dealers that sell them?
What should be done is either some regulation
What do you want to regulate? Honestly.... what would you regulate that would bring prices down? I'm not opposed to all regulation but in this instance I really don't think it's going to help us much. Moreover I'm not convinced that the current price of oil is a bad thing, given that it's finally resulting in people changing their consumption habits.
or trying to get some competition going
Where is that competition going to obtain it's oil from? Do you think there is some surplus of available oil on the market that American oil companies aren't taking advantage of?
And comparing oil companies to telecom doesn't help your argument at all
I wasn't comparing them. Just pointing out the absurdity of targeting the oil industry for it's "excessive" profits.
and there is no meaningful competition, so they can charge whatever the hell they want
Which clearly explains why prices have been coming down for the last few weeks.....
This isn't a scenario where the benefits of a free market are apparent.
Why not? Prices are going up and people are finally paying attention and changing their consumption habits. Seems like the market is working just fine to me.
I'm a lifelong Democrat but I'm getting tired of hearing people make "big oil" into the problem. Windfall profits tax? WTF is that? Since when did America punish people merely for being successful? And I gotta say that I love all of this talk about their "excessive" profits. The profit margin of the oil industry pales in comparison to the telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries. Why aren't we taxing them more?
I don't have a problem expecting everybody to pay their fair share (we SHOULD end the tax subsidies that they get) but the last few years of griping about "big oil" have started to grate on me. Could it just be that market realities (increasing demand from China and India combined with falling production) are the reason for the high cost of oil? And why are we beating up on an industry that large numbers of Americans own stock in? Do you have a 401(k)/403(b)? Mutual funds? If the answer to either of those is yes then I have some bad news for you..... you own stock in "big oil" and have benefited from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Blocking traffic isn't disturbing the peace -- it is disturbing your morning commute, which isn't protected by the constitution.
Eh, in my state it would be disorderly conduct:
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
You're an archetypal Fox viewer.
Why is that? Because I don't see disrupting the day to day activities of people unrelated to the object of your protest (the RNC convention) as being an effective method of convincing people that your cause is just?
Do you live in the Twin Cities? Need to go there on business? How would you feel about people blockading the airport, bridges and intersections? What if it was your hometown that they were planning to disrupt?
You're right - porn.slashdot.org is definitely not responding.
That's a subscribers only section.... try logging into your account ;)
so I can accept that a good chunk of that regulation isn't simply in the way. Certainly not all of it is beneficial, but lots of it is.
I never said otherwise. Clearly some regulation is necessary. Just don't pretend that it comes with zero cost. And beyond regulation there are lots of things in this country that stifle innovation -- software patents being the /. favorite.
You think your wish not to be disrupted should trump the right given by the constitution to peaceful assembly
Keyword: peaceful assembly. Blocking traffic is just about the textbook definition of disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct, i.e.: disturbing the rights of your neighbors to be left the hell alone. It's called the public order and it's generally one of the things that society demands from the Government.
Oh our system isn't nearly as bad as what you linked but the 20 layers isn't really a joke.
You've got your Local (village/city & county) Government(s). Odds are that you'll need some sort of permit(s) from them to do business. Then you've got your State Government. Depending on what type of business you are running you are probably reporting to at least one but likely multiple state agencies. Taxes are the obvious example but there may be regulatory agencies and licensing agencies that you also have to work with to keep doing business.
Then you get to the Federal Government. You may have some regulation on this level, depending on what type of business you are doing. You may even have regulation from multiple Federal agencies, all of which think their rules are the most important and think they are the sole agency regulating you. And what other Federal agencies can "crush the entrepreneurial instinct"? This being /., let's start with a discussion about our fucked up patent system. Or we could talk about things as absurd as childhood chemistry sets being dumbed down due to fears of terrorism.
Transportation Troubles - This includes blockades downtown (at key intersections), on bridges (10 bridges over the Mississippi River in the metro area), and other sporadic and strategic targets (busses, hotel and airport shuttles etc)."
Nothing like annoying thousands of people who are late getting to work to convince them that your cause is just.....
70+ years of suppression wasn't enough to crush the entrepreneurial instinct
No, it takes a Western style bureaucracy and twenty different layers of Government to do that ;)
For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this
If you think that will actually happen, can I have some of what you are smoking?
completely agree that the two major parties are largely dishonest about their goals; the Libertarians are the only ones who seem to be very honest
Yeah and look how many elections the Libertarians have won recently./p>
I really think it comes down to that more than anything else with the Republicans and Democrats. I don't think most of them set out deciding that they are going to be dishonest. They set out to win elections and eventually come to believe that the ends justify the means because the other side will ruin the country.
Nobody with half a brain thinks that John McCain is going to bring us four more years of GWB. They obviously agree on several big issues but do you really see McCain as the type that is going to alienate our oldest Allies and run a permanent campaign once in office? Do you really see him as somebody who would have dropped the ball on Katrina as badly as GWB did? But "McCain equals four more years of GWB" is a good sound bite so that's what they keep repeating until our ears bleed.
Likewise, nobody with half a brain thinks that Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. Is he really more liberal than the self-described socialist? I doubt it. Yet it sounds good and scares people so that's the sound bite the Republicans use.
Kinda sucks, doesn't it?
Here's what's equally unfair about that. Let's say I live in East BumFuck, NY which has a lower sales tax than Long Island. I move to LI for 12 months (15 months... whatever) for work (various people have short-medium term assignment based jobs), rent an apartment and bring my stuff with me. I'm now liable for the tax difference. So... I pay it. I move back once my assignemnt is over. I'm working locally for a little while (oops, no money back this tax period)... get another assignment in let's say NYC for 14 months.... oops, higher tax rate than either of the two... gotta pay again... then I move back and secure a local long term position for a while (or indefinitely). Not going to see that money back either, am I?
Actually that really isn't an issue. The document that I quoted also contained this language:
However, you are not required to pay any additional local tax on any property or service that you bring into a locality in New York State that you purchased outside that locality before you became a resident of that locality.
(There's also similar language regarding out of state purchases)
And well, the result of that are then higher tax and insurance costs and those become a problem for society.
Then allow the health insurance companies to price risk accordingly. Let them charge smokers more money. Let them offer incentives for people to lose weight. Don't try and give the Government control over yet one more aspect of our life.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If my neighbor enjoys eating a big mac or smoking tobacco (or marijuana) that's no business of mine. He will have to be held accountable for those choices if he engages in those activities to such an excess that his health is threatened -- but the way to hold him accountable is through increased insurance costs. Not through Governmental mandates or taxes that try and shape behavior.
I'm just sick of the nanny state and people who try to legislate morality and behavior. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the Federal Government trying to regulate what people can put into their bodies. Do you really think that's an appropriate role for Government?
doesn't mean I've put more than a few minutes' thought into them, just that they are my own opinions, and the product of some amount of rational thought. In fact, the fact that I'm willing to admit my lack of knowledge (or desire to gain knowledge) should be an indicator to you that I am thinking for myself, and not just spouting what others tell me to think
Fair enough and I apologize for my characterization. I would encourage you to do some reading on economics -- I honestly think that the basic concept of supply and demand is the underlying cause of energy prices. I used to buy into the ideas of regulation and more Government involvement but recently I've started to swing in the other direction.
From a business standpoint regulation equals increased costs in one way or another. That's a fact -- ask any business owner from your local Mom & Pop all the way up to the CEO of a Fortune 500. Now that isn't to say that all regulation is bad -- the increased costs of environmental or safety regulation should offer a net benefit to society (Earthquake building codes as a random example). But the idea that regulation can bring down prices seems pretty far fetched.... how is a Governmental mandate going to bring prices down? I don't ask that to put you on the spot again.... just to encourage you to think it through.
I am legitimately sorry that I jumped on you like I did. I've just become disillusioned with our politics of talking points and dumbed down ideas. The Democrats attacking "big oil" show a complete lack of understanding about basic economics. Why are American oil companies to blame for the high cost of oil when most of our oil is imported and thus subject to the economic realities of the global market?
And a windfall profits tax? At least when Obama purposed that idea in his books he was talking about using it fund green energy. In that scenario one could argue that the societal benefit of reduced greenhouse emissions outweighs the cost imposed on consumers/shareholders. Now they are talking about using it to fund a "energy rebate".... basically we will tax the oil companies so we can give consumers more money (in the form of tax rebates or tax cuts) so they can afford the high cost of energy. So we are going to take money from the oil companies to give to consumers to buy oil..... WTF is wrong with that picture and why won't they just raise their prices to make up for the new taxes?
Its a problem because it does nothing to improve the human condition
Please point out the part of the US Constitution that says American citizens and the United States Government are mandated to work towards "improving the human condition"
Its a problem because it taxes the health-care system
Lots of things tax the health care system. Are we going to legislate against them too? I bet a one-child policy like China has would save us a fortune in health care costs......
it's a problem because people like you and me end up footing the bill
I'll take higher health insurance premiums over the nanny state any day of the week. Besides which, the whole point of insurance is pooled risk.... if you don't want to pay for other peoples bad health decisions then don't have health insurance.
i, for one, think things would be much better if people were actually held accountable for the things they say and do.
I don't have a problem with holding people accountable. I do have a problem with the Government trying to legislate good behavior and morality. If I want to smoke tobacco (or marijuana, but that's another debate) or eat fatty foods why the hell should Washington or Albany try to punish me for doing so?
Holding people accountable would be allowing the insurance companies to charge smokers more and/or offer incentives to those that quit smoking/lose weight. Government mandates just take away more of our freedom of choice.
I live in Switzerland, and travel a lot. You mentioned car rentals and hotel rooms, this is a monthly expense for me. Airplane tickets, mail order anything, DVD rental, etc. It's a lot.
Eh, that complicates it. Travel without credit cards is possible but it's a royal pain in the ass. Would American Express be a viable alternative? They have some issues of their own but they've generally tried to take steps to fight the Visa/MC cartel (with varying degrees of success) and if they'd work for you it might make more sense to do business with them.
If the states would stop sending in the monies...they would weaken the Feds, and they could better use their monies on their own people
I agree. Now find a Governor and State Legislature with enough backbone to tell it's citizens to stop paying Federal income tax........
They are entrenched, have no interest in security (because the consumer pays for insurance anyway)
Actually the merchant usually winds up paying in cases of fraud.
I've tried to buy things without Visa or MasterCard and it makes life very hard
With few exceptions (renting a car or hotel room) why is it "very hard" to avoid Visa and MasterCard? Greenbacks work just fine for 99% of your day to day activities.
in the end they do nothing to improve their condition.
And why is this a problem? Some people choose to smoke even though they know the risks of doing so. If people choose to live unhealthy lifestyles than I'm not going to get real worked up about it. I don't know about you but I'm growing weary of the war on vice.
Provide people with the information but at the end of the day it's up to them to make smart choices.
The internet and web have indeed revolutionized society, and there is hardly an industry that has not been positively affected by the net
Were they positively affected? ;)
The recent telecom immunity bill should be proof enough that a significant percentage of our congress is corrupt, because only corruption and bribery could have passed that bill
I think the pressure from the White House flag waving and "national security" talk had a lot to do with it too. The fears of certain high profile democrats who were afraid of being Max Cleland'ed/swift-boated had something to do with it too.
What the fuck? Didn't I already say I honestly don't know? Why the hell are you asking me again?
Because I wanted to know if you had put any intellectual thought into your opinions or you were just repeating cookie-cutter Liberal talking points. It seems that you are repeating talking points. I'm disappointed but not surprised -- as you said this is Slashdot.
(And before I get flamed I would have called out Conservative talking points just as quickly)
you have to pay the sales tax difference
Pay the difference makes more sense than how I read your original post. I read it as you'd have to repay the sales tax for the half of the matches you didn't already use. Sorry about that oversight on my part.
I found the following language in the instructions for IT-201:
Additional local tax - You may owe an additional local tax if you are a resident of a locality (county or city) at the time of purchase and you:
* bring property into that locality which you purchased in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate;
* bring property into that locality on which you had a taxable service performed in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate; or
* bring a service (such as an information service) into that locality which you purchased in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate.
I honestly never knew about this.... but it seems like a pretty stupid and unenforceable mandate. Not surprised that it would come out of Albany. Who the hell keeps track of their purchases in different counties? What about receipts that don't bother to list the % of sales tax and just list the amount? Do I have to save my receipts for the year and then go over them all with a calculator and a tax table that includes all 62 counties?
Any company with sufficient money (and oil companies certainly have that) is above the law in the US, because of how corrupt our elected traitors--sorry, I meant representatives, are.
You are making the mistake of assuming that all 535 members of Congress are motivated by the same things and cater to the same constituencies. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I don't have a hard time believing that some members of Congress are in the pockets of the oil industry. I have a very hard time believing that all of them are. What you were saying earlier about competition? It applies to politics as well. If a politician thinks he can secure votes/score political points by attacking big oil then he's going to attack big oil. If a challenger thinks he can knock off an incumbent by attacking big oil then he's going to attack big oil. That's how the game works.
I'll answer you honestly: I don't know.
I guess, but regulation or competition seem to be the most promising roads to better oil prices to me. It's an uninformed, layman's opinion, but I'm ok with that
So you don't know and all of your ideas are based on gut feelings with no real facts to back them up. Why should anybody take you seriously?
I'll ask again: Where is the "competition" that you are going to magically create going to procure it's oil from? Do you think that the Saudis/Canadians/Russians/etc will sell it cheaper to some upstart than they will sell it to Exxon? If so then why hasn't some entrepreneur started a new oil company?
And what do you want to regulate to bring prices down? I'm really curious. As previously stated I'm not opposed to all regulation. Regulation has it's place -- particularly in the arenas of safety (consumers have the right to expect that their cars won't blow up) and environmental protection. I just question the notion that more regulation will bring down prices. Most all regulation increases the cost of doing business. That's an acceptable trade-off when talking about protecting the environment or consumer safety -- but don't delude yourself into thinking that more regulation will result in lower prices.
FFS. I covered this. Gas is something that most people need. Not want, need. There are few enough oil companies that they can keep prices high and not worry about being out-priced by a competitor, and people will pay for it because they have to.
You have a point if you were looking at the United States in a vacuum. Globally however there are a bit more than a "few" oil companies and pump prices (with the exception of states that subsidize the costs for their citizens) are going up across the World. This isn't a uniquely American problem.
China is putting millions of new vehicles on the road each year. Ditto for India. Meanwhile oil production is falling pretty much everywhere. Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp that oil is a global commodity that is currently facing increased demand at a time when production is leveling off/dropping? This is economics 101 -- you don't have to be Adam Smith to understand it.
If they couldn't just charge what they wanted, the prices wouldn't be even as high as they are now, let alone what they were a couple of months ago
What are you basing this on other than your gut feeling? Congress has investigated the oil companies multiple times for price gouging. They've come up empty every single time. Do you really think that there isn't some ambitious politician that would love to make an issue out of this if he/she could prove they were fixing prices?
Where do you think Exxon gets their oil from? Do you think it's free to obtain? They have a pay the Saudis/Canadians/Mexicans/Venezuelans/Russians/etc market rates to obtain that crude. If they refuse to pay market rates then the producers will just sell it to someone who will -- the Europeans, Chinese or Indians. Even American crude operates under this same basic principle -- why would Exxon sell crude oil under it's direct control below market rates?
The only real solution to this problem is to change the energy paradigm or produce more oil. I prefer the former option given the environmental impact of carbon based fuel but even I'm enough of a realist to know that the switchover isn't going to happen overnight. Do you think the existing transportation infrastructure was built overnight? Tens of thousands of service stations? Hundreds of millions of cars? The mechanics that work on those cars? The dealers that sell them?
What should be done is either some regulation
What do you want to regulate? Honestly.... what would you regulate that would bring prices down? I'm not opposed to all regulation but in this instance I really don't think it's going to help us much. Moreover I'm not convinced that the current price of oil is a bad thing, given that it's finally resulting in people changing their consumption habits.
or trying to get some competition going
Where is that competition going to obtain it's oil from? Do you think there is some surplus of available oil on the market that American oil companies aren't taking advantage of?
And comparing oil companies to telecom doesn't help your argument at all
I wasn't comparing them. Just pointing out the absurdity of targeting the oil industry for it's "excessive" profits.
and there is no meaningful competition, so they can charge whatever the hell they want
Which clearly explains why prices have been coming down for the last few weeks.....
This isn't a scenario where the benefits of a free market are apparent.
Why not? Prices are going up and people are finally paying attention and changing their consumption habits. Seems like the market is working just fine to me.
I'm a lifelong Democrat but I'm getting tired of hearing people make "big oil" into the problem. Windfall profits tax? WTF is that? Since when did America punish people merely for being successful? And I gotta say that I love all of this talk about their "excessive" profits. The profit margin of the oil industry pales in comparison to the telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries. Why aren't we taxing them more?
I don't have a problem expecting everybody to pay their fair share (we SHOULD end the tax subsidies that they get) but the last few years of griping about "big oil" have started to grate on me. Could it just be that market realities (increasing demand from China and India combined with falling production) are the reason for the high cost of oil? And why are we beating up on an industry that large numbers of Americans own stock in? Do you have a 401(k)/403(b)? Mutual funds? If the answer to either of those is yes then I have some bad news for you..... you own stock in "big oil" and have benefited from it.