It's not necessarily the removal of material. That's an easy avenue to go down. It's important to remember that fracking relies on chemical alteration of long polymer suspended liquids into gas (which then can be tapped). That's not just "removal of material" it's seriously altering physical(and chemical) properties of a stratum crossing deposit of tar.
Removal of material is what we do with oil/coal/water. We know how much effect that has.
This is not in the subset of posts I've made that I consider insightful. This is a case where I posted something I knew to be flamebait because I thought it was funny, but it's not a very good argument.:-/
Equal value doesn't mean identical. I have 5 dollars of bread, you've got 5 dollars of cucumbers, we each sell each other 2.5 dollars of material and have sandwiches.
Nope, you're still being cavalier and using general terms. "Out of control" is actually a quite measurable term with respect to debt, and compared to private institutions in the U.S., the federal government isn't really over-leveraged.
Not woosh, you idiot. He was making a sarcastic joke about the reversal of fortunes, and I was suggesting that the basis for that humor was off because it had nothing to do with what I said. It's like you can't even suss out basic context.
I think you'll find that when it comes to conflicts between people who produce food, and wealthy concentrations of people and power, people who produced the food lost just about every kind of conflict. That's not because they're bad people or they are poor contributors to society, just that organization, manpower, and tech are really powerful.
and I'm saying that your position vis-a-vis subsidies is too general to even begin addressing as a serious point. It's like saying "violence is bad" it sounds true from a basic perspective, but doesn't even begin to address the realities of the world.
Ok, I have to totally withdraw the "I don't really think anyone was leveling that accusation" statement. I am not "everyone" and some douchebag was doing exactly that. I apologize.
Ha. HA! haahahha. You, my friend, are completely off your damn rocker. Federal taxes aren't limited to the damn income tax. It's completely clear that you've never looked a minimum wage pay stub in your life.
There's a difference between an unfair burden to subsidize the wealthy(which doesn't describe all of the use of this program) and considering those living in a region to be worthless. I don't really think that anyone was leveling that accusation. I grew up rural, became urban, and that's life. At least we can all agree that suburbs are worthless, right?
Sales taxes in many states exclude food and clothing. Rich people will tend to pay more sales tax, depending on how much they consume. That's what we care about, right? We'd rather they invest their money.
In my state, it is half on food, and not reduced at all on clothing.
OK, you can keep your broadband. Us country folk will keep all the lumber, minerals, and produce.
Yeah yeah, and we'll keep all the money, finished goods, and medicine(or at least the intellectual backing thereof). Or... it could be we live in a complex interconnected society, and every discussion of fairness doesn't need to slide into "well our subculture is better than yours".
It became a right when having a phone was a necessary step in getting a job, something we consider fundamentally necessary to taking part in modern society.
2. Why people have to have phone that requires 90% or more of the country to pay for it because of where they choose to live
Cart before horse problem. Their families lived there, then phones became necessary.
3. Why I should pay more because someone wants to live in a rural area where they can't make any money and don't have phone service. And where storms can bring down phone lines causing thousands of dollars in repair costs for a phone they don't pay for.
The same reason you pay more so someone else doesn't get robbed or shot. Enlightened self interest isn't a complex idea.
4. Why they can't move
Why don't you move to where they are to lower the cost per person of the line? Oh now moving is a huge onus to place on someone?
5. Why, after all of the above, if they don't have skills, can't live off the land, can't get a job, can't move, and are poor, we don't relocate them someplace else since they must already be living on the government dole. When you don't make your own way and don't contribute to society, you don't get to decide the rules that govern how you receive free money and other things.
Because they actually earn more than they cost, as part of a complex interconnected society, and their location may be important to maintaining the support network for the country's agricultural base? Who knows? You're criticizing totally anonymous people we don't even remotely know individually, which turns out to be easy.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, how many times can I say "removal of material" in one post?
It's not necessarily the removal of material. That's an easy avenue to go down. It's important to remember that fracking relies on chemical alteration of long polymer suspended liquids into gas (which then can be tapped). That's not just "removal of material" it's seriously altering physical(and chemical) properties of a stratum crossing deposit of tar.
Removal of material is what we do with oil/coal/water. We know how much effect that has.
Ha, corporations get to settle their criminal cases.
This is not in the subset of posts I've made that I consider insightful. This is a case where I posted something I knew to be flamebait because I thought it was funny, but it's not a very good argument. :-/
But they claim that they do. And in in the case of religion, if you take out the spurious claims, you're basically left with no beliefs at all.
We've engineered a future without ourselves, our founding fathers would be ashamed.
Our founding fathers wouldn't know what electrical engineering is. Educating people as engineers wasn't a thing that was done in 1790.
Equal value doesn't mean identical. I have 5 dollars of bread, you've got 5 dollars of cucumbers, we each sell each other 2.5 dollars of material and have sandwiches.
Nope, you're still being cavalier and using general terms. "Out of control" is actually a quite measurable term with respect to debt, and compared to private institutions in the U.S., the federal government isn't really over-leveraged.
Not woosh, you idiot. He was making a sarcastic joke about the reversal of fortunes, and I was suggesting that the basis for that humor was off because it had nothing to do with what I said. It's like you can't even suss out basic context.
I think you'll find that when it comes to conflicts between people who produce food, and wealthy concentrations of people and power, people who produced the food lost just about every kind of conflict. That's not because they're bad people or they are poor contributors to society, just that organization, manpower, and tech are really powerful.
and I'm saying that your position vis-a-vis subsidies is too general to even begin addressing as a serious point. It's like saying "violence is bad" it sounds true from a basic perspective, but doesn't even begin to address the realities of the world.
Ah, but Neptune is named for a water god, which totally refutes your point and isn't a non-sequitur at all.
Ok, I have to totally withdraw the "I don't really think anyone was leveling that accusation" statement. I am not "everyone" and some douchebag was doing exactly that. I apologize.
Especially since they get 83% of their first 20,000 too.
Ha. HA! haahahha. You, my friend, are completely off your damn rocker. Federal taxes aren't limited to the damn income tax. It's completely clear that you've never looked a minimum wage pay stub in your life.
And how do you know that your lower cost of living doesn't reflect subsidies? I mean that's essentially impossible to say.
That's really too generic a criticism to respond to, because as far as I can tell, it can be leveled equally at, say, neoliberalism, too.
Not every broken system is broken because of fraud.
I can be more due to things like fixed registration fees, and the like.
There's a difference between an unfair burden to subsidize the wealthy(which doesn't describe all of the use of this program) and considering those living in a region to be worthless. I don't really think that anyone was leveling that accusation. I grew up rural, became urban, and that's life. At least we can all agree that suburbs are worthless, right?
Certainly not to the same extent, no.
According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization, Washington families living at the federal poverty level pay 17 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, whereas the highest-income families pay 3 percent.
Sales taxes in many states exclude food and clothing. Rich people will tend to pay more sales tax, depending on how much they consume. That's what we care about, right? We'd rather they invest their money.
In my state, it is half on food, and not reduced at all on clothing.
OK, you can keep your broadband. Us country folk will keep all the lumber, minerals, and produce.
Yeah yeah, and we'll keep all the money, finished goods, and medicine(or at least the intellectual backing thereof). Or... it could be we live in a complex interconnected society, and every discussion of fairness doesn't need to slide into "well our subculture is better than yours".
I'm not going to argue with you. "Transportation is a necessary element of a post-industrial society" is so obvious as to be incontestable.
1. When having a phone became a 'right'
It became a right when having a phone was a necessary step in getting a job, something we consider fundamentally necessary to taking part in modern society.
2. Why people have to have phone that requires 90% or more of the country to pay for it because of where they choose to live
Cart before horse problem. Their families lived there, then phones became necessary.
3. Why I should pay more because someone wants to live in a rural area where they can't make any money and don't have phone service. And where storms can bring down phone lines causing thousands of dollars in repair costs for a phone they don't pay for.
The same reason you pay more so someone else doesn't get robbed or shot. Enlightened self interest isn't a complex idea.
4. Why they can't move
Why don't you move to where they are to lower the cost per person of the line? Oh now moving is a huge onus to place on someone?
5. Why, after all of the above, if they don't have skills, can't live off the land, can't get a job, can't move, and are poor, we don't relocate them someplace else since they must already be living on the government dole. When you don't make your own way and don't contribute to society, you don't get to decide the rules that govern how you receive free money and other things.
Because they actually earn more than they cost, as part of a complex interconnected society, and their location may be important to maintaining the support network for the country's agricultural base? Who knows? You're criticizing totally anonymous people we don't even remotely know individually, which turns out to be easy.