The box he was shipping to his client originally had a 40GB hard drive in it, which immediately makes it a couple of years old. He's probably recycling an old box he had lying around.
First, it doesn't say he was shipping a pc with a 40GB hdd to his client. There is no mention as to whether he or they bought the PCs. Secondly even now there are brand new PCs with only 40GB hdds. That is unless things have changed in the past two months, I know this because two months ago I bought a new PC with one, so I ended up buying and installing a second hdd that holds 750GB. Now, because it didn't come with a dvd drive I have to find one that is compatible with my system. However as I want a double layered rewritable drive and my OS is Linspire Linux I haven't found one yet.
I am against the mismanagement of my tax money. As I have stated before, I don't care what you do so long as you don't place an undue burden on our overtaxed healthcare resources. Get rid of the smokers, get rid of the things to smoke, or provide more hospital beds.
No, get rid of taxpayer financed healthcare. I realize it's an impracticality now but I don't support and in fact am against the federal government paying for healthcare, with few exceptions such as those in the military or are otherwise fulltime government employees.
"Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?"
As has been noted before "should" and "can" are two different concepts.
That still doesn't answer my question, you implied I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance and I said no such thing.
I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about state government. You're already on the record as voting against both taxes and bond issues. Many states had a bond on their ballots to pay for roadwork, but I know of none that had a ballot issue concerning state funding of the invasion of Iraq (likely because there is no such funding).
Right, I vote against taxes, income taxes, and some bonds that are from the federal government. As for whether states tax income, that's a matter for the residents of the state to decide. Apply it to bonds as well.
Going back to the example I just used in the very paragraph you pasted from, if you buy gas in Pennsylvania, you've paid the "user fee" to drive on Pennsylvania roads. New York doesn't see a dime of it and, using a strict "user fee" interpretation, they would do well to set up roadblocks along the PA-NY border to ensure that the fees have been collected from people driving into NY using PA gasoline.
The same applies turned around, A New Yorker fills up then drives to PA. As for more people go from PA the NY or it's the other way around I don't know but I bet it's pretty much balanced. Even if it's not there's still a federal tax on fuel and not just state taxes. And the federal tax helps pay for many roads or highways, such as Sen Ted Steven's Bridge to nowhere at a cost of $315 million.
Legal and ethical rights apply to human actions only - to the questions of "what shall the state do?" and "how shall we, as social individuals, live"?
We as individuals may take steps to avoid what may offend others, for instance while I smoke I try not to smoke in front of children, and I rarely smoke indoors, usually when I eat out and am sitting in a smoking section or when I'm over someone's house who smokes inside themself. I do this of my own free will but I don't think government should be banning smoking on private property, whether in a commercial business, in a private residence, or in a privately owned vehicle. Smoking can, and should be banned or at least a smoking section set aside in public ie government buildings but not on the roads, in parks, or in other open air public spaces.
There's no escaping the fact that college costs are rising. According to recently released reports from the College Board, most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $90 to $1,238 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college.
But there is good news. There is more financial aid available than ever before--over $134 billion. And, despite all of these college cost increases, a college education remains an affordable choice for most families.
The page continues with education costs and financial aid.
What bothers me is that nearly everyone by and large has that chance. Certain cultures in the US just don't look at education as important and then don't take advantage of the opportunities given.
Partially true but do you know how much tuition has been raised and how much financial aid has been cut? For someone who comes from a lower income background being able to pay for college can difficult if not impossible. Education is one of the things the cost of has risen more than inflation, the other being healthcare. oops, perhaps I misspoke, according to this article financial aid has gone up too. So maybe, I hope, I was wrong about the costs of getting an education. I'd look more but my pc is acting like it's about to crash so I need to send this then reboot.
Mercifully, the US is the only jurisdiction (as far as I know, at least) where the law is broken in this way.
Agreed! The mercy part at least. But in other countries the law works for big business or wealthy not for the people.
And this, fundamentally, is where we disagree. What you do as a private individual on your own private property is your business, and I agree that governments should be heavily against interfering in such matters. But when you open a business to the public, the rules change. In the catering trade, you are required to meet basic food hygiene standards, for example. You have certain health and safety obligations, certain concessions you must make to those with disabilities, restrictions on misleading advertising, and so on. These things are the price of doing business in a society that has decided the interests of the people outweight the interests of profit-makers. I fail to see why this law is any different in principle to the others, or any less justified.
As I haven't thought of it that way, you've given me soemthing to think about. I probably won't but you may of given me info that will change my mind.
As a business owner, you have no legal rights and freedoms in most places. Get over it.
I was afraid I'd see this. After how you made the statement wherein I said you gave me something to think about, in which you used reasoning, you then come up with an antaganistic remark like "Get over it." All that does is provoke the defensive response and shuts down thinking.
Another straw man. The cost to society of banning smoking is a little inconvenience to a minority of people, who will get over it, while the benefit is a much healthier society. The cost to society of banning road transport would be staggering, and not just in financial terms. The cases aren't even remotely comparable.
Motorized vehicles are insignificant compared to secondhand smoke? Let me see if I can find statistics on the rate of death compared to vehicles versus the same rate for secondhand smoke.... Guess I didn't take long enough tyme to find actual statistics but I didn't find any that actually stated how many people die from secondhand smoke, just things like "thousands" and "more than 3000". But out of the those numbers how many deaths can actually be atributed directly to secondhand smoke versus say lung cancer from Radon gas? Now for vehicles: According to the government's National Center for Statistics and Analysis more than 43,443 people died in vehicular accidents(pdf) in 2005. I bet that's a hell of a lot more people than the number who died from secondhand smoke.
Falcon
Re:the Declaration of Independence and the Constit
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
"Ah but the Constitution of the USA doesn't not say anything about healthcare insurance."
I knew somebody who failed civics would bring this up. In case you've forgotten, you're talking about a federal constitution, while I specifically and deliberately focused on the states. While I agree that the role of the federal government getting involved in an individual's healthcare is, at best, debatable, there is nothing in the federal constitution denying the states any involvement. Go reread the Ninth Amendment.
Purhaps you missed it but I did address states being involved with healthcare. Notice how I said "Though I may not like it the states don't have the limitations put on the federal government so they may take proactive steps to offer healthcare, as long as their constitutions allow it." I think that handles it quite well.
I believe I've already made my stance clear.
Yeah, you're antismoking period and will use whatever excuse to ban it.
You are paying more for health insurance while you have it, while smoking and trans-fat consumption cause lifelong problems. Unless you are able to guarantee that you will always be insured and never fall under the aegis of state programs designed to attend to those who are otherwise unable to afford such insurance, it is (to say the least) in your own self interest to continue paying into such state programs; an insurance policy for your health insurance.
Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?
The tax footprint we live under is ridiculously low for the industrialized world, and the unseemly amounts of debt we've amassed isn't a coincidence. And it is the fiscally irresponsible voters such as yourself that maintain the status quo, refusing to fund even the state-provided resources that you yourself use.
I had nothing to do with maintaining the status quo, or of making it worse. If I had had my way we never would have had this hugh, massive, national deficit. I was against the adventure in Iraq, and cutting taxes without cutting spending as well. Bush took the US from a budget surplus to the nation's largest deficit, and I voted for him neither tyme he ran for president. Actually in 2000 instead of voting for whom I wanted to vote for I specifically voted against Bush, both Bush and Gore were bad but Gore was less bad than Bush, so as the elections was so close I thought it was more important to try to deny Bush the win than to vote for who I wanted as president.
"There are already taxes on fuel, just have the tax (a user fee) enough to pay for this."
No, that's a tax, not a user fee.
It is a user fee, if you use fuel you pay. That is unless you've got an underground connection that doesn't charge you the tax. If so I'd like to know where I can get cheaper fuel.
What about depressed communities where there are more people who want work than there are jobs? Everyone has to work in order to put food on the table. But if you live in a geographical area that has been hit hard by changing times, then your only choice might be a workat a place that is hazardous to your health.
This is true dealing with more than just smoking. There are many jobs that are more dangerous than working with smokers. And there are many work places that are dangerous to those who don't work there. You don't even have to have a dangerous activity occur in your area to be at risk. Take for instance PCBs and other POPs or persistent organic pollutants. Native peoples throughout the world, including the Inuit in northern Canada, Alaska, Iceland and parts of northern Europe in the Artic Circle have to deal with them and are suffering major health risks because of a manmade chemical they never made or used themself. Are they less worthy of any protection than a worker who can leave? These are of much greater concerns than any risk a worker has from secondhand smoke.
People do some crazy things when they are down and out...prostitution,
If a person wants to sale their body, trade sex for money, then they should be able to do so legally. And it is legal in many places, in most if not all of Europe. Many European cities have redlight districts where this happens out in the open. It used to be legal in the US as well, now the only place here that I now it's still legal is Nevada. But place like New York City, New Orleans, and others have had their own redlight districts. It was mainly because of puritanic interests that prostitution was made illegal.
You can lower tax by fiat, but where are the lower medical bills coming from again?
Healthcare costs is be lower because when people have to pay for their own healthcare they will shop for lower costs. Health insurance should only be used for catastrophic coverage. And because they will pay for most normal healthcare costs out of pocket they will be more proactive with taking preventive measures to begin with.
Also, the GP was talking about homeless people. They are probably not paying much, if any, taxes right now, so this would not likely enable them to afford health insurance. (And that's also assuming that these homeless people can afford a mailbox at Mailboxes Etc to have their insurance cards and EOB forms mailed to, as well as a cell phone for talking to the insurance company's customer service representatives when something goes wrong. Perhaps this is a common thing for homeless people on whatever planet you live on.)
Let me start by saying though I've never been homeless myself I have worked with a number of homeless people. As a student between permanent jobs I worked through day labor pools and many of those working in these pools are homeless. A person shows up in the morning and signup, and when the pool gets a call for help the pool will send people who signed up as workers. Most of these people were trying to get onto their feet financially, and some like me found permanent employment when sent out to a jobsite. This is how I found the best paying job I ever had, which was in construction working for a concrete and masonry company. I worked on a concrete crew for almost three years until I was laidoff. As for taxes, when people and businesses can pay less in tax, they can and will then use the money to expand and create more jobs. Mind you, I'm not saying they all would but many will, and with more jobs more homeless can get regular and permanent employment.
And because health insurance will be cheaper they can offer employees coverage, as it is now offering health insurance is a major expense for businesses. This is why many employers are dropping health insurance for thier employees. Also if employers were allowed to they could form healthcare associations with other employers to offer low cost health insurance. Some places do this but there are barriers to do this in many places.
As for cellphones, because of a relatively free market, cellphones and cellphone service is dropping in price. The costs are such that for many a cellphone is cheaper than having a landline phone. For instance I only have a cellphone, and I pay $10 less for it than I paid for a landline, and that's not including long distance charges. With the landline I had to pay long distance but with my cellphone I don't, and I spend as much tyme on the phone long distance as I do on local calls. Either way it's not much tyme though. Also because cellphones are cheap and portable they make it easier for the unemployed to find work, ever try to find a job without having a phone? Many people in places like Brazil, China, and India are able to find work because they can afford a cellphone. If people there can do it people in the US can too.
BTW, can someone from the cutting-taxes-solves-all-problems camp tell me what they think is the appropriate level of taxation? Will there ever be a point at which you'll say, "ok, that's enough tax cuts, we've got too much work to do that gov't (including military) needs to do, and we're going too far into debt"? Or should we keep cutting taxes down to zero?
As far as earned income is concerned, a worker should never have the money s/he earns taxed. People shouldn't have to work for the government, which is what taxes on earned income is. The one place I believe where taxes should be paid on earned income is with corporations. Have only corporations, which offers their owners the stock or shareholders limited liability, pay tax on their profits. The rest of the money needed by government should be sale
Improving the availability of medicine does not involve abolishing the agency which protects the food supply just because they happen to be currently part of the same agency.
The Agriculture Department can be the agency that protects the food supply. There already is overlap as Agriculture already oversees meats and dairy. The FDA doesn't do this.
If an innocent is sent to prison for life there's still a change s/he can be cleared and set free but they can't be brought back to life once executed.
I mostly agree, but with one exception: if it's blatantly obvious the person is guilty (e.g. the person in question is Saddam Hussein, or there's video and 100 eye-witnesses that saw the guy pull the trigger, or whatever, I think the death penalty, swiftly carried out, is useful for the simple fact that it saves the taxpayers the cost of imprisonment. Either that, or the prisoners should be made to work to earn their keep, anyway...
I'd add another exception, in cases like I believe it was Gary Gilmore's who wanted to be executed. I vaguely recall Johnny Cash had tried to talk him into accepting life in prison.
Ah but notice they earned $25,000 in 2004 and owe no income tax. They only got $2,138. They also qualify for an EIC of $2,209, bringing their total refund to $4,347!. Even adding your $8664/year in food stamps in Texas, that only comes to $12,111 in government welfare, which is nowhere near the $35,000. It's not even half that, half being $17,500. To reach it they'd have to have another 2 children. You can only reach $40k by including their earnings, which is the vast majority of their income, more than 2/3. And that's if they live in Texas and get foodstamps. However it doesn't say they live in Texas or get foodstamps. But it does say they work, that is they earned $25,000.
Now I'm not saying it's going to be easy to raise a family on this amount of money, but by setting things up this way we as a society are giving the wrong message (have more kids, we'll give you more assistance). I also don't want kids starving in the streets, but at some point we are going to have to make people responsible when they bring new lives into this world.
Ooh I agree. But the way the system is setup makes it difficult if not impossible to leave the system. Instead people need to be encouraged to only have the children they can afford for one thing. They also should have the chance to get more education, be it finishing high school and going to a trade or vocational school, or going to college. And if needed they should be able to get any counselling they need to stay in school and get a job and keep it. I don't have any answers for those who just won't, not can't but won't, try to improve their lot. But I will say that a big reason the USA got the big middleclass it has is because of the educational assistance vets received after WWII. This enabled them to get college degrees and well paying jobs once they graduated. By far from the only reason, but that was one of the reasons I went into the army. Actually you could almost say my family was a military family, my dad retired from the air force and my older sister went into the army, then when she left the regular army she went into the reserves.
You can find some more fascinating videos on the Net about this and of course other topics to read. YouTube/Google has videos of Michael Badnarik discussing the subject, and www.cato.org probably has some basic primers on classical liberalism, libertarianism, and self-determination.
Yea, Michael Badnarik got my vote in 2004. If I lived in the district he's running to represent in Texas he'd get my vote again. Ron Paul would also get my vote. Actually if you go through his, Badnarik's website, he has some good stuff on the subject as well. One I like is about a speech Davy Crocket gave in the House of Representatives when they were debating a bill, "Not Yours to Give". Other good sources on classical liberalism are ThomasPaine, his Common Sense being pretty intro. Alexis de Tocqueville is another pretty good source on classical liberalism as is Adam Smith.
The death penalty is a punishment, not a deterrent. It's "Crime and Punishment", not "Crime and Deterrent"
I agree that that's how it should be but many who are pro capital punishment say they support it because it's a deterrent.
Jefferson was wrong.
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Given a chance between protecting myself from a vicious killer or being falsely punished for a crime I didn't do I'd much rather try to protect myself even if unsuccessful. I don't want to have to depend on any nanny state.
Falcon
the Declaration of Independence and the Constituti
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
Insofar that medical treatment extends one's life, American republicanism expressly states that it is a valid aim (indeed, a raison d'etre) of the state to ensure that all citizens can obtain it. This is from a document ratified by delegates of the duly elected legislature of the state in which you wish to establish your "Free State." Whether a particular people wish to grant their republican government that particular power is ultimately up to them, but to imply that the act of establishing any level of state-sponsored healthcare is inherently wrong and illiberal is, to put it bluntly, unAmerican. The language of the Declaration of Independence is far less ambiguous about the validity of a government acting to secure life for its citizens than it is about a government paving roads.
Ah but the Constitution of the USA doesn't not say anything about healthcare insurance. And it specifically states what powers the government has, it is a limit on what government can do not what it should do. If the Constitution says nothing about something then the government, the feds, can't do anything. Of course it violates the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution daily
The route taken by the State of Washington and agents of the State of New York involves the government stepping in to ensure that the people make good healthcare choices; it happens to be the choice that abandons the fewest citizens while still fulfilling the states' responsibilities to secure life for them.
Though I may not like it the states don't have the limitations put on the federal government so they may take proactive steps to offer healthcare, as long as their constitutions allow it. However just because they do it doesn't mean they should bar smoking, every or alomost every state has a tax of tobacco and if this tax isn't there to pay for higher healthcare costs for smokers then it's not my fault. Any and all taxes on tobacco should go to healthcare the state pays for as well as other tobacco expenses. Also when people get health insurance they pay more for the coverage. Fact is is that smokers do pay more for health insurance.
This past November, voting taxpayers across the 50 states of the Union approved a record volume of bonds rather than increase taxes, ignoring the fact that bonds come with interest payments.
I didn't approve of any bonds. I vote for liberty and small government, which most of the tyme would mean a balanced budget. If all of the federal agencies et alia that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution of the USA were abolished then taxes wouldn't need to be as high as they are. This would mean the economy would be more robust and people would be able to spend or save and invest more of the money they earn. More employers could offer health insurance and people could then afford the insurance.
And this is in addition to the already strong focus of instituting user fees rather than taxes, which ignores both the higher overhead needed to collect and manage those user fees as well as the way such fees dissuade users who might otherwise avail themselves of the services offered (how far out of your way have you gone to avoid driving on a toll road?).
I am all for user fees. If I don't use something why should I pay for it? Take roads and the highway system, the money to build and maintain them should come from those who use them, and this can be done easily without much overhead. There are already taxes on fuel, just have the tax (a user fee) enough to pay for this. Speaking of toll roads, where I used to live the government decided to build an expressway and have tolls to pay for it. Once the road was paid for the tolls were supposed to be removed. What did the government do? It decided it didn't want to give up the money so the tolls were never taken out. Instead they kept adding more and more toll roads. Like all typical bureaucracies, they didn't want to give up their power. And I knew some people who had had thier homes taken from them through eminent domain, they didn't want to sale so the government took their homes.
If they would simply give up the use (and we could legislate this away very easily) of gypsum phosphate based fertilizers on tobacco crops we could cut cancer from smoking by more than 80% (some say 90%).
Do you have a single published study in a peer-reviewed medical journal that backs up this assertion?
This bill authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to abate imminent hazards from phosphogypsum stack systems through the use of funds from the Nonmandatory Land Reclamation Trust Fund (NLRTF). The bill provides registration fees and financial responsibility requirements. It also provides for a right of action and lien to seek reimbursement of expended funds and provides for the closure of abandoned stack systems. It also repeals provisions exempting certain small mines from review as developments of regional impact.
Perhaps there's some other difference between a Big Mac and a sauteed piece of fish that accounts for the difference in health outcomes among those eating it than that the former is made with partially hydrogenated oils and the latter with olive oil? We just don't know yet.
There is a big difference, some fish are high in Omega 3 fatty acids which are heart healthy. Big Macs don't have any. Unfortunately I don't like fish therefore I don't, or only rarely, eat fish. It's funny I say I love seafood but not fish, I love shellfish such as crabs, clams, lobster, mussels, and oysters.
Falcon
I always love the "small government" arguement.
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
Everyone bitches about a smaller government, but the fact is, they only want it downsized in certain areas.
That's about the size of it. Conservatives talk about shrinking social programs while today's liberals or neoliberals or whatever want to shrink military and corporate welfare. And please notice I said "today's liberal", they are a different breed than Classical Liberals, who are more like today's Libertarians. There are a few though that want to shrink all of them, take the Constitution of the USA; a list of federal agencies, bureaus, departments, and what not; and a pair of scissors then go through the list and check it against the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the agency, et alia, cut it out, throw it away, and get rip of it. Doing that will lead back to a Constitutionally authorized government and reduce the tax burden. Then income taxes can be seriously reduced if not eliminated.
Black bears are scavengers, so acting dead is just playing right into their hand. In fact, they've been behind most of the play dead propaganda in the hopes of easier meals...
Grizzlies too will take the easy food. Those living around Yellowstone have found they need bear proof trash cans and need to empty them daily. More and more grizzlies are leaving the park and going into national forests along with onto private property. The magazine On Earth has an article on this, The Rancher and the Grizzly: A Love Story.
Talk about violating civil liberties! (And, natch, in every single case the ACLU was behind it 100%.)
I keep on seeing others say the ACLU was all for these bans but I have yet to see any evidence the ACLU in fact did support them. Searching ACLU's website I found this:
Isn't this creating a right to smoke?
No. The A.C.L.U. does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke.We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home.
Further down on the page is this:
The city of North Miami, however, recently adopted an ordinance barring smokers from any municipal employment. The Florida A.C.L.U. has challenged this policy in court, 8 and the result will shed much light upon the extent to which public employees are already protected.
Here the Florida ACLU fought against a smoking ban. Again on the same page:
1. Prohibit Discrimination Based on Off-Duty Smoking
This is the most limited form of protection. While it protects one of the largest groups of victims, it leaves many unprotected. It also lends credence to the charge that the legislation is about smoking rather than autonomy and privacy. Its only real benefit is that its impact is limited and clearly defined. This can reduce, or even eliminate, opposition from organized business.
It continues on with more on smoking and with one exception they are about protecting smokers with nothing about the ACLU supporting smoking bans, the one exception is where it says "The A.C.L.U. does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke.We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home." The only conclusion I can come to is that either are against smoking bans as well as against the ACLU or they're blowing smoke out of their ass. I hope I'm wrong and someone will correct me.
Sex isn't the only cause of pregnancy. Which I had the reference but in some medical documents there was a case of a female getting pregnant during the US Civil War without having sexual intercourse. What happened was that a male got shot, the round passed through his testes then hit the female and she ended up pregnant. I know it may be unusual but the point is is that it does not require sex to become pregnant. Heck even "Mary" didn't have sex when she became pregnant.
What is so sad is that only "liberals" would care if you were set to be executed for a murder you didn't commit. I'm a conservative when it comes to the budget, but when it comes to issues like this, I would be ashamed to stand on the same side of the room as conservatives. This is also why their "right to life" movement rings so hollow. It isn't life they cherish. They just don't want women escaping the consequences of sex.
Amen! Or whatever. It seems most antichoice, anti-abortion, people support the death penalty. And most of them are Christian as well. I ask them where their "pro life" stance went when it comes to the death penalty, as well as what happened to "turn the other cheek"? The rest of your post sounds like you're fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's like a Libertarian. I'm that way myself. Socially I've against victimless crimes and for liberty, such that I support ending the "War on Drugs", I'm for allowing "homosexuals" to marry (though I have a real big problem with assigning homosexuality because it ignores those who are neither male nor female or are both, intersexuals), and I am very much pro small government.
Washington's smoking ban appies to public places and workplaces. You are still quite free to breath toxic radioactive smoke in private, but your right to pollute the air ends where my respiratory tract begins.
Does that right not to breath radioactive smoke apply to any right to not breath the radioactive gas radon?
You have no right to harm me that way. If anything the Seattle ban should go farther- it should ban any smoking in any public place, including outdoors.
I wonder if you're willing to far enough to ban vehicles as well. I'd bet they are more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Years ago I used to ride my bike 100+ miles a week, and I had to breath in all that exhaust from vehicles. That all ended when I was hit by a moving van while riding my bike. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it'd be a miracle if I lived. NOT!!! My live has been like living in hell since.
Banning smoking from places where innocent people can be harmed by the second-hand smoke is a decision in favor of, not against, civil liberties.
No it isn't, it would be a violation of civil liberties if all places were required to allow smoking. The violation in this case is in not allowing owners to decide for themself if they want to allow or ban smoking on thier property.
Slashdot Mirror
The box he was shipping to his client originally had a 40GB hard drive in it, which immediately makes it a couple of years old. He's probably recycling an old box he had lying around.
First, it doesn't say he was shipping a pc with a 40GB hdd to his client. There is no mention as to whether he or they bought the PCs. Secondly even now there are brand new PCs with only 40GB hdds. That is unless things have changed in the past two months, I know this because two months ago I bought a new PC with one, so I ended up buying and installing a second hdd that holds 750GB. Now, because it didn't come with a dvd drive I have to find one that is compatible with my system. However as I want a double layered rewritable drive and my OS is Linspire Linux I haven't found one yet.
FalconI am against the mismanagement of my tax money. As I have stated before, I don't care what you do so long as you don't place an undue burden on our overtaxed healthcare resources. Get rid of the smokers, get rid of the things to smoke, or provide more hospital beds.
No, get rid of taxpayer financed healthcare. I realize it's an impracticality now but I don't support and in fact am against the federal government paying for healthcare, with few exceptions such as those in the military or are otherwise fulltime government employees.
"Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?"
As has been noted before "should" and "can" are two different concepts.That still doesn't answer my question, you implied I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance and I said no such thing.
I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about state government. You're already on the record as voting against both taxes and bond issues. Many states had a bond on their ballots to pay for roadwork, but I know of none that had a ballot issue concerning state funding of the invasion of Iraq (likely because there is no such funding).
Right, I vote against taxes, income taxes, and some bonds that are from the federal government. As for whether states tax income, that's a matter for the residents of the state to decide. Apply it to bonds as well.
Going back to the example I just used in the very paragraph you pasted from, if you buy gas in Pennsylvania, you've paid the "user fee" to drive on Pennsylvania roads. New York doesn't see a dime of it and, using a strict "user fee" interpretation, they would do well to set up roadblocks along the PA-NY border to ensure that the fees have been collected from people driving into NY using PA gasoline.
The same applies turned around, A New Yorker fills up then drives to PA. As for more people go from PA the NY or it's the other way around I don't know but I bet it's pretty much balanced. Even if it's not there's still a federal tax on fuel and not just state taxes. And the federal tax helps pay for many roads or highways, such as Sen Ted Steven's Bridge to nowhere at a cost of $315 million.
FalconLegal and ethical rights apply to human actions only - to the questions of "what shall the state do?" and "how shall we, as social individuals, live"?
We as individuals may take steps to avoid what may offend others, for instance while I smoke I try not to smoke in front of children, and I rarely smoke indoors, usually when I eat out and am sitting in a smoking section or when I'm over someone's house who smokes inside themself. I do this of my own free will but I don't think government should be banning smoking on private property, whether in a commercial business, in a private residence, or in a privately owned vehicle. Smoking can, and should be banned or at least a smoking section set aside in public ie government buildings but not on the roads, in parks, or in other open air public spaces.
FalconI'd look more but my pc is acting like it's about to crash so I need to send this then reboot.
I'm back and I found this:
2006-07 College Costs
Keep Rising Prices in Perspective
There's no escaping the fact that college costs are rising. According to recently released reports from the College Board, most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $90 to $1,238 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college.
But there is good news. There is more financial aid available than ever before--over $134 billion. And, despite all of these college cost increases, a college education remains an affordable choice for most families.
The page continues with education costs and financial aid.
FalconWhat bothers me is that nearly everyone by and large has that chance. Certain cultures in the US just don't look at education as important and then don't take advantage of the opportunities given.
Partially true but do you know how much tuition has been raised and how much financial aid has been cut? For someone who comes from a lower income background being able to pay for college can difficult if not impossible. Education is one of the things the cost of has risen more than inflation, the other being healthcare. oops, perhaps I misspoke, according to this article financial aid has gone up too. So maybe, I hope, I was wrong about the costs of getting an education. I'd look more but my pc is acting like it's about to crash so I need to send this then reboot.
FalconMercifully, the US is the only jurisdiction (as far as I know, at least) where the law is broken in this way.
Agreed! The mercy part at least. But in other countries the law works for big business or wealthy not for the people.
And this, fundamentally, is where we disagree. What you do as a private individual on your own private property is your business, and I agree that governments should be heavily against interfering in such matters. But when you open a business to the public, the rules change. In the catering trade, you are required to meet basic food hygiene standards, for example. You have certain health and safety obligations, certain concessions you must make to those with disabilities, restrictions on misleading advertising, and so on. These things are the price of doing business in a society that has decided the interests of the people outweight the interests of profit-makers. I fail to see why this law is any different in principle to the others, or any less justified.
As I haven't thought of it that way, you've given me soemthing to think about. I probably won't but you may of given me info that will change my mind.
As a business owner, you have no legal rights and freedoms in most places. Get over it.
I was afraid I'd see this. After how you made the statement wherein I said you gave me something to think about, in which you used reasoning, you then come up with an antaganistic remark like "Get over it." All that does is provoke the defensive response and shuts down thinking.
Another straw man. The cost to society of banning smoking is a little inconvenience to a minority of people, who will get over it, while the benefit is a much healthier society. The cost to society of banning road transport would be staggering, and not just in financial terms. The cases aren't even remotely comparable.
Motorized vehicles are insignificant compared to secondhand smoke? Let me see if I can find statistics on the rate of death compared to vehicles versus the same rate for secondhand smoke.... Guess I didn't take long enough tyme to find actual statistics but I didn't find any that actually stated how many people die from secondhand smoke, just things like "thousands" and "more than 3000". But out of the those numbers how many deaths can actually be atributed directly to secondhand smoke versus say lung cancer from Radon gas? Now for vehicles: According to the government's National Center for Statistics and Analysis more than 43,443 people died in vehicular accidents(pdf) in 2005. I bet that's a hell of a lot more people than the number who died from secondhand smoke.
Falcon"Ah but the Constitution of the USA doesn't not say anything about healthcare insurance."
I knew somebody who failed civics would bring this up. In case you've forgotten, you're talking about a federal constitution, while I specifically and deliberately focused on the states. While I agree that the role of the federal government getting involved in an individual's healthcare is, at best, debatable, there is nothing in the federal constitution denying the states any involvement. Go reread the Ninth Amendment.
Purhaps you missed it but I did address states being involved with healthcare. Notice how I said "Though I may not like it the states don't have the limitations put on the federal government so they may take proactive steps to offer healthcare, as long as their constitutions allow it." I think that handles it quite well.
I believe I've already made my stance clear.
Yeah, you're antismoking period and will use whatever excuse to ban it.
You are paying more for health insurance while you have it, while smoking and trans-fat consumption cause lifelong problems. Unless you are able to guarantee that you will always be insured and never fall under the aegis of state programs designed to attend to those who are otherwise unable to afford such insurance, it is (to say the least) in your own self interest to continue paying into such state programs; an insurance policy for your health insurance.
Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?
The tax footprint we live under is ridiculously low for the industrialized world, and the unseemly amounts of debt we've amassed isn't a coincidence. And it is the fiscally irresponsible voters such as yourself that maintain the status quo, refusing to fund even the state-provided resources that you yourself use.
I had nothing to do with maintaining the status quo, or of making it worse. If I had had my way we never would have had this hugh, massive, national deficit. I was against the adventure in Iraq, and cutting taxes without cutting spending as well. Bush took the US from a budget surplus to the nation's largest deficit, and I voted for him neither tyme he ran for president. Actually in 2000 instead of voting for whom I wanted to vote for I specifically voted against Bush, both Bush and Gore were bad but Gore was less bad than Bush, so as the elections was so close I thought it was more important to try to deny Bush the win than to vote for who I wanted as president.
"There are already taxes on fuel, just have the tax (a user fee) enough to pay for this."
No, that's a tax, not a user fee.
It is a user fee, if you use fuel you pay. That is unless you've got an underground connection that doesn't charge you the tax. If so I'd like to know where I can get cheaper fuel.
FalconWhat about depressed communities where there are more people who want work than there are jobs? Everyone has to work in order to put food on the table. But if you live in a geographical area that has been hit hard by changing times, then your only choice might be a workat a place that is hazardous to your health.
This is true dealing with more than just smoking. There are many jobs that are more dangerous than working with smokers. And there are many work places that are dangerous to those who don't work there. You don't even have to have a dangerous activity occur in your area to be at risk. Take for instance PCBs and other POPs or persistent organic pollutants. Native peoples throughout the world, including the Inuit in northern Canada, Alaska, Iceland and parts of northern Europe in the Artic Circle have to deal with them and are suffering major health risks because of a manmade chemical they never made or used themself. Are they less worthy of any protection than a worker who can leave? These are of much greater concerns than any risk a worker has from secondhand smoke.
People do some crazy things when they are down and out...prostitution,
If a person wants to sale their body, trade sex for money, then they should be able to do so legally. And it is legal in many places, in most if not all of Europe. Many European cities have redlight districts where this happens out in the open. It used to be legal in the US as well, now the only place here that I now it's still legal is Nevada. But place like New York City, New Orleans, and others have had their own redlight districts. It was mainly because of puritanic interests that prostitution was made illegal.
FalconYou can lower tax by fiat, but where are the lower medical bills coming from again?
Healthcare costs is be lower because when people have to pay for their own healthcare they will shop for lower costs. Health insurance should only be used for catastrophic coverage. And because they will pay for most normal healthcare costs out of pocket they will be more proactive with taking preventive measures to begin with.
Also, the GP was talking about homeless people. They are probably not paying much, if any, taxes right now, so this would not likely enable them to afford health insurance. (And that's also assuming that these homeless people can afford a mailbox at Mailboxes Etc to have their insurance cards and EOB forms mailed to, as well as a cell phone for talking to the insurance company's customer service representatives when something goes wrong. Perhaps this is a common thing for homeless people on whatever planet you live on.)
Let me start by saying though I've never been homeless myself I have worked with a number of homeless people. As a student between permanent jobs I worked through day labor pools and many of those working in these pools are homeless. A person shows up in the morning and signup, and when the pool gets a call for help the pool will send people who signed up as workers. Most of these people were trying to get onto their feet financially, and some like me found permanent employment when sent out to a jobsite. This is how I found the best paying job I ever had, which was in construction working for a concrete and masonry company. I worked on a concrete crew for almost three years until I was laidoff. As for taxes, when people and businesses can pay less in tax, they can and will then use the money to expand and create more jobs. Mind you, I'm not saying they all would but many will, and with more jobs more homeless can get regular and permanent employment.
And because health insurance will be cheaper they can offer employees coverage, as it is now offering health insurance is a major expense for businesses. This is why many employers are dropping health insurance for thier employees. Also if employers were allowed to they could form healthcare associations with other employers to offer low cost health insurance. Some places do this but there are barriers to do this in many places.
As for cellphones, because of a relatively free market, cellphones and cellphone service is dropping in price. The costs are such that for many a cellphone is cheaper than having a landline phone. For instance I only have a cellphone, and I pay $10 less for it than I paid for a landline, and that's not including long distance charges. With the landline I had to pay long distance but with my cellphone I don't, and I spend as much tyme on the phone long distance as I do on local calls. Either way it's not much tyme though. Also because cellphones are cheap and portable they make it easier for the unemployed to find work, ever try to find a job without having a phone? Many people in places like Brazil, China, and India are able to find work because they can afford a cellphone. If people there can do it people in the US can too.
BTW, can someone from the cutting-taxes-solves-all-problems camp tell me what they think is the appropriate level of taxation? Will there ever be a point at which you'll say, "ok, that's enough tax cuts, we've got too much work to do that gov't (including military) needs to do, and we're going too far into debt"? Or should we keep cutting taxes down to zero?
As far as earned income is concerned, a worker should never have the money s/he earns taxed. People shouldn't have to work for the government, which is what taxes on earned income is. The one place I believe where taxes should be paid on earned income is with corporations. Have only corporations, which offers their owners the stock or shareholders limited liability, pay tax on their profits. The rest of the money needed by government should be sale
Improving the availability of medicine does not involve abolishing the agency which protects the food supply just because they happen to be currently part of the same agency.
The Agriculture Department can be the agency that protects the food supply. There already is overlap as Agriculture already oversees meats and dairy. The FDA doesn't do this.
FalconIf an innocent is sent to prison for life there's still a change s/he can be cleared and set free but they can't be brought back to life once executed.
I mostly agree, but with one exception: if it's blatantly obvious the person is guilty (e.g. the person in question is Saddam Hussein, or there's video and 100 eye-witnesses that saw the guy pull the trigger, or whatever, I think the death penalty, swiftly carried out, is useful for the simple fact that it saves the taxpayers the cost of imprisonment. Either that, or the prisoners should be made to work to earn their keep, anyway...
I'd add another exception, in cases like I believe it was Gary Gilmore's who wanted to be executed. I vaguely recall Johnny Cash had tried to talk him into accepting life in prison.
FalconAh but notice they earned $25,000 in 2004 and owe no income tax. They only got $2,138. They also qualify for an EIC of $2,209, bringing their total refund to $4,347!. Even adding your $8664/year in food stamps in Texas, that only comes to $12,111 in government welfare, which is nowhere near the $35,000. It's not even half that, half being $17,500. To reach it they'd have to have another 2 children. You can only reach $40k by including their earnings, which is the vast majority of their income, more than 2/3. And that's if they live in Texas and get foodstamps. However it doesn't say they live in Texas or get foodstamps. But it does say they work, that is they earned $25,000.
Now I'm not saying it's going to be easy to raise a family on this amount of money, but by setting things up this way we as a society are giving the wrong message (have more kids, we'll give you more assistance). I also don't want kids starving in the streets, but at some point we are going to have to make people responsible when they bring new lives into this world.
Ooh I agree. But the way the system is setup makes it difficult if not impossible to leave the system. Instead people need to be encouraged to only have the children they can afford for one thing. They also should have the chance to get more education, be it finishing high school and going to a trade or vocational school, or going to college. And if needed they should be able to get any counselling they need to stay in school and get a job and keep it. I don't have any answers for those who just won't, not can't but won't, try to improve their lot. But I will say that a big reason the USA got the big middleclass it has is because of the educational assistance vets received after WWII. This enabled them to get college degrees and well paying jobs once they graduated. By far from the only reason, but that was one of the reasons I went into the army. Actually you could almost say my family was a military family, my dad retired from the air force and my older sister went into the army, then when she left the regular army she went into the reserves.
FalconYou can find some more fascinating videos on the Net about this and of course other topics to read. YouTube/Google has videos of Michael Badnarik discussing the subject, and www.cato.org probably has some basic primers on classical liberalism, libertarianism, and self-determination.
Yea, Michael Badnarik got my vote in 2004. If I lived in the district he's running to represent in Texas he'd get my vote again. Ron Paul would also get my vote. Actually if you go through his, Badnarik's website, he has some good stuff on the subject as well. One I like is about a speech Davy Crocket gave in the House of Representatives when they were debating a bill, "Not Yours to Give". Other good sources on classical liberalism are Thomas Paine, his Common Sense being pretty intro. Alexis de Tocqueville is another pretty good source on classical liberalism as is Adam Smith.
FalconThe death penalty is a punishment, not a deterrent. It's "Crime and Punishment", not "Crime and Deterrent"
I agree that that's how it should be but many who are pro capital punishment say they support it because it's a deterrent.
Jefferson was wrong.
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Given a chance between protecting myself from a vicious killer or being falsely punished for a crime I didn't do I'd much rather try to protect myself even if unsuccessful. I don't want to have to depend on any nanny state.
FalconInsofar that medical treatment extends one's life, American republicanism expressly states that it is a valid aim (indeed, a raison d'etre) of the state to ensure that all citizens can obtain it. This is from a document ratified by delegates of the duly elected legislature of the state in which you wish to establish your "Free State." Whether a particular people wish to grant their republican government that particular power is ultimately up to them, but to imply that the act of establishing any level of state-sponsored healthcare is inherently wrong and illiberal is, to put it bluntly, unAmerican. The language of the Declaration of Independence is far less ambiguous about the validity of a government acting to secure life for its citizens than it is about a government paving roads.
Ah but the Constitution of the USA doesn't not say anything about healthcare insurance. And it specifically states what powers the government has, it is a limit on what government can do not what it should do. If the Constitution says nothing about something then the government, the feds, can't do anything. Of course it violates the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution daily
The route taken by the State of Washington and agents of the State of New York involves the government stepping in to ensure that the people make good healthcare choices; it happens to be the choice that abandons the fewest citizens while still fulfilling the states' responsibilities to secure life for them.
Though I may not like it the states don't have the limitations put on the federal government so they may take proactive steps to offer healthcare, as long as their constitutions allow it. However just because they do it doesn't mean they should bar smoking, every or alomost every state has a tax of tobacco and if this tax isn't there to pay for higher healthcare costs for smokers then it's not my fault. Any and all taxes on tobacco should go to healthcare the state pays for as well as other tobacco expenses. Also when people get health insurance they pay more for the coverage. Fact is is that smokers do pay more for health insurance.
This past November, voting taxpayers across the 50 states of the Union approved a record volume of bonds rather than increase taxes, ignoring the fact that bonds come with interest payments.
I didn't approve of any bonds. I vote for liberty and small government, which most of the tyme would mean a balanced budget. If all of the federal agencies et alia that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution of the USA were abolished then taxes wouldn't need to be as high as they are. This would mean the economy would be more robust and people would be able to spend or save and invest more of the money they earn. More employers could offer health insurance and people could then afford the insurance.
And this is in addition to the already strong focus of instituting user fees rather than taxes, which ignores both the higher overhead needed to collect and manage those user fees as well as the way such fees dissuade users who might otherwise avail themselves of the services offered (how far out of your way have you gone to avoid driving on a toll road?).
I am all for user fees. If I don't use something why should I pay for it? Take roads and the highway system, the money to build and maintain them should come from those who use them, and this can be done easily without much overhead. There are already taxes on fuel, just have the tax (a user fee) enough to pay for this. Speaking of toll roads, where I used to live the government decided to build an expressway and have tolls to pay for it. Once the road was paid for the tolls were supposed to be removed. What did the government do? It decided it didn't want to give up the money so the tolls were never taken out. Instead they kept adding more and more toll roads. Like all typical bureaucracies, they didn't want to give up their power. And I knew some people who had had thier homes taken from them through eminent domain, they didn't want to sale so the government took their homes.
FalconIf they would simply give up the use (and we could legislate this away very easily) of gypsum phosphate based fertilizers on tobacco crops we could cut cancer from smoking by more than 80% (some say 90%).
Do you have a single published study in a peer-reviewed medical journal that backs up this assertion?
I was courious about this as well so I did a search. Google didn't return anything but the first result with Alta Vista, there are 49, returned this: SENATE STAFF ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT(pdf). The summary is:
This bill authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to abate imminent hazards from phosphogypsum stack systems through the use of funds from the Nonmandatory Land Reclamation Trust Fund (NLRTF). The bill provides registration fees and financial responsibility requirements. It also provides for a right of action and lien to seek reimbursement of expended funds and provides for the closure of abandoned stack systems. It also repeals provisions exempting certain small mines from review as developments of regional impact.
FalconPerhaps there's some other difference between a Big Mac and a sauteed piece of fish that accounts for the difference in health outcomes among those eating it than that the former is made with partially hydrogenated oils and the latter with olive oil? We just don't know yet.
There is a big difference, some fish are high in Omega 3 fatty acids which are heart healthy. Big Macs don't have any. Unfortunately I don't like fish therefore I don't, or only rarely, eat fish. It's funny I say I love seafood but not fish, I love shellfish such as crabs, clams, lobster, mussels, and oysters.
FalconEveryone bitches about a smaller government, but the fact is, they only want it downsized in certain areas.
That's about the size of it. Conservatives talk about shrinking social programs while today's liberals or neoliberals or whatever want to shrink military and corporate welfare. And please notice I said "today's liberal", they are a different breed than Classical Liberals, who are more like today's Libertarians. There are a few though that want to shrink all of them, take the Constitution of the USA; a list of federal agencies, bureaus, departments, and what not; and a pair of scissors then go through the list and check it against the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the agency, et alia, cut it out, throw it away, and get rip of it. Doing that will lead back to a Constitutionally authorized government and reduce the tax burden. Then income taxes can be seriously reduced if not eliminated.
FalconBlack bears are scavengers, so acting dead is just playing right into their hand. In fact, they've been behind most of the play dead propaganda in the hopes of easier meals...
Grizzlies too will take the easy food. Those living around Yellowstone have found they need bear proof trash cans and need to empty them daily. More and more grizzlies are leaving the park and going into national forests along with onto private property. The magazine On Earth has an article on this, The Rancher and the Grizzly: A Love Story.
FalconTalk about violating civil liberties! (And, natch, in every single case the ACLU was behind it 100%.)
I keep on seeing others say the ACLU was all for these bans but I have yet to see any evidence the ACLU in fact did support them. Searching ACLU's website I found this:
Isn't this creating a right to smoke?
No. The A.C.L.U. does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke.We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home.
Further down on the page is this:
The city of North Miami, however, recently adopted an ordinance barring smokers from any municipal employment. The Florida A.C.L.U. has challenged this policy in court, 8 and the result will shed much light upon the extent to which public employees are already protected.
Here the Florida ACLU fought against a smoking ban. Again on the same page:
1. Prohibit Discrimination Based on Off-Duty Smoking
This is the most limited form of protection. While it protects one of the largest groups of victims, it leaves many unprotected. It also lends credence to the charge that the legislation is about smoking rather than autonomy and privacy. Its only real benefit is that its impact is limited and clearly defined. This can reduce, or even eliminate, opposition from organized business.
It continues on with more on smoking and with one exception they are about protecting smokers with nothing about the ACLU supporting smoking bans, the one exception is where it says "The A.C.L.U. does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke.We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home." The only conclusion I can come to is that either are against smoking bans as well as against the ACLU or they're blowing smoke out of their ass. I hope I'm wrong and someone will correct me.
FalconSex isn't the only cause of pregnancy. Which I had the reference but in some medical documents there was a case of a female getting pregnant during the US Civil War without having sexual intercourse. What happened was that a male got shot, the round passed through his testes then hit the female and she ended up pregnant. I know it may be unusual but the point is is that it does not require sex to become pregnant. Heck even "Mary" didn't have sex when she became pregnant.
FalconWhat is so sad is that only "liberals" would care if you were set to be executed for a murder you didn't commit. I'm a conservative when it comes to the budget, but when it comes to issues like this, I would be ashamed to stand on the same side of the room as conservatives. This is also why their "right to life" movement rings so hollow. It isn't life they cherish. They just don't want women escaping the consequences of sex.
Amen! Or whatever. It seems most antichoice, anti-abortion, people support the death penalty. And most of them are Christian as well. I ask them where their "pro life" stance went when it comes to the death penalty, as well as what happened to "turn the other cheek"? The rest of your post sounds like you're fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's like a Libertarian. I'm that way myself. Socially I've against victimless crimes and for liberty, such that I support ending the "War on Drugs", I'm for allowing "homosexuals" to marry (though I have a real big problem with assigning homosexuality because it ignores those who are neither male nor female or are both, intersexuals), and I am very much pro small government.
FalconWashington's smoking ban appies to public places and workplaces. You are still quite free to breath toxic radioactive smoke in private, but your right to pollute the air ends where my respiratory tract begins.
Does that right not to breath radioactive smoke apply to any right to not breath the radioactive gas radon?
FalconYou have no right to harm me that way. If anything the Seattle ban should go farther- it should ban any smoking in any public place, including outdoors.
I wonder if you're willing to far enough to ban vehicles as well. I'd bet they are more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Years ago I used to ride my bike 100+ miles a week, and I had to breath in all that exhaust from vehicles. That all ended when I was hit by a moving van while riding my bike. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it'd be a miracle if I lived. NOT!!! My live has been like living in hell since.
FalconBanning smoking from places where innocent people can be harmed by the second-hand smoke is a decision in favor of, not against, civil liberties.
No it isn't, it would be a violation of civil liberties if all places were required to allow smoking. The violation in this case is in not allowing owners to decide for themself if they want to allow or ban smoking on thier property.
Falcon