Are you saying that you are the sole judge of what general Welfare means? Or are you going to leave that up to the people who actually have that responsibility, which is the Supreme Court?
Actually, that responsibility would fall on those writing the laws. For example, the Supreme Court can be disbanded to "Provide the General Welfare". See, you're saying the federal government, specifically Congress, has unlimited power, as long as they claim that their purpose is to "Provide the General Welfare".
In theory, this is true. If you've been living in the US a while, you know that it is not true in practice. They can stretch the "General welfare" clause and the "Interstate Commerce" clause to cover anything.
Limited Government is history.
This is because any time someone claims that the 10th Amendment means something, they are ridiculed out of existence. Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Rick Perry have all said the 10th Amendment means something or have said that a government program that is not backed up by the Constitution is unconstitutional, and they have all paid the price.
(Note: I am not a Ron Paul Fan. I have nothing against him, but I see his followers and think, "I'm not going to join with these loons!")
Dude, don't expect to change his mind about the Constitution by quoting the Constitution to him. You will never, EVER convince him that Congress has the Constitutional power to promote the general welfare -- NEVER. He will NEVER admit that. He will NEVER acknowledge that A1S8 exists, or that it gives Congress broad power -- which it does, and does.
Eugenics supports the "general welfare". Gassing the homeless would promote the general welfare. Enslaving peoples from conquered lands would promote the general welfare. Do you think that A1S8 gives the federal government this power? Tell me, what power does the "general welfare" part of A1S8 is NOT given to the federal government?
Also, answer this, what does the 10th Amendment mean if the federal government has unlimited power?
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8
Are you saying that the Federal Government has unlimited power to anything it wants as long as it claims to promote general Welfare? Keep in mind, this could mean execution of every citizen when they reach the age of 30 ala Logan's Run (Renew!!!). This could mean the rounding up of all people who are homeless and Soylent Greening them. This could mean anything at all.
So, I ask again, are you saying that the Federal Government has unlimited power to anything it wants as long as it claims to promote general Welfare? Do you honestly think that general Welfare, as mentioned in the article that gives the government power to levy taxes, was meant by the founders to give the federal government unlimited power? Or do you think that it might, maybe, mean that the Feds may collect taxes to promote general Welfare, like building bridges, an interstate highway system and fund things like the FBI?
God and such a terrible burden it is. Of course I guess the alternative in a wonderful libertarian utopia would be deny to medical treatment to anyone not wearing a seat belt during a crash, after all that's that would be the logical thing for an insurance company to do. Yeah let's do that rather than mandating the minor inconvenience in order to save lives and reduce overall health care costs for everyone. I guess you're against speed limits as well? If I want to drive 100 mph in a school zone I have every right!
Speed limits are set by the states because there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate traffic laws. According to the 10th Amendment, any power not given to the federal government by the Constitution, and that is not prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved for the states, or people. Health care is like speed limits. Since there is no Constitutionally granted power for the feds to regulate it, the power falls to the states. This is why the Massachusetts health care law is Constitutional, but "Obamacare" is not.
opponents say it represents an unconstitutional encroachment of federal power.
Don't you mean encroachment of state's power?
Don't you mean "encroachment ON state's power"?
encroach (nkrt)
— vb (often foll by on or upon ) 1. to intrude gradually, stealthily, or insidiously upon the rights, property, etc, of another 2. to advance beyond the usual or proper limits
It's not the states power that is doing the encroaching. It is the states rights that are being encroached upon.
The distinction here is that health care is pretty vital to "promote the general Welfare" (US Constition - Preamble)
welfare |welfe()r| (noun)
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group
To that end, it seems pretty obvious that the founders of the United States cared enough about the health of it's citizens.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
LOL. The Preamble does not give any power to the government. It explains WHY the Constitution was written, nothing more. It is certainly not an enumerated power and does not give the federal government unlimited power to "promoting the general Welfare" or "insure domestic Tranquility".
a flying saucer with limitless zero-point fuel (which could ascend as slowly as the pilot liked)
Also known as a Bullshit Device because you cannot get it without finding some magical Unobtanium that breaks the laws of physics.
Or a high altitude balloon as a launch platform. Maybe a ground laser driven craft. There are many other feasible ideas, but I think these two are sufficient to prove your ignorance and close mindedness. No Unobtanium required.
Yea, like the military blowing the crap out of poor people and instigating coups in banana republics have ever protected my house. If anything they have made it more likely my house will be destroyed.
A dictator builds multiple palaces while his people starve. We throw his ass out and we are accused "blowing the crap out of poor people". You should really ask these "poor people" what they think before you prove your ignorance.
We tried doing nothing and letting the UN take care of places like Rwanda. How did that work out? How many "poor people" have to die before we react, in your humble opinion?
Yes, that is what I meant by "completely devalued." Thank you for confirming your reading comprehension to be of the average level for the republican redneck retard fringe.
You, my friend, are a bigot. Re-read your post and replace "republican redneck" with any other slur and maybe then you will understand. You are quick to defend the target a racial slur, but you are too stupid to even recognize that you do the exact same thing. You speak of the "fringe" without realizing that you are on the fringe yourself, so much so that anyone even close to the middle of America is viewed as the "fringe" by you.
Reading your posts and realizing the willful ignorance and raw hatred that contributes to them is depressing.
It was pretty clear that Obomba inherited a sagging economy. Bushy also inherited a sagging economy, but managed to re-inflate the bubble, and then leave office as it was all coming down.
As decent as it was under Clinton, and a republican house of the 1990s, that too was a bubble. Just look at tech, manufacturing data, consumption.
republican and democrat politicians are to blame.
Close. Remember, Congress writes laws, regulations, and budgets. Presidents may do executive orders and suggest budget proposals, but the responsibility ultimately falls on Congress. Bush had six years of a Republican Congress, and coincidentally, six years of economic prosperity. When Democrats took over Congress in Jan 2007, unemployment was at 4.7%. So, yes, Obama did inherit a bad economy, but he didn't inherit it from Bush. It was passed down from Pelosi and Reid.
But what about executive orders? Bush banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Clinton banned drilling in ANWR. Which one do you think had more of an economic impact?
As for NASA, it is ultimately the President who is in charge. However, the money comes from Congress. The president may set the direction, but unless Congress pays for it, it's meaningless. However, when Congress and the White House are controlled by the same party, Congress usually does what the President says. But, if you want to talk about who inherited what, Obama inherited a working shuttle fleet with plans for the Constellation program as a replacement. Now, we have neither. Both were cancelled under a Democrat in the White House and in charge of both chambers of Congress.
Guess what will happen when your employer decides that it's better to outsource your job than to keep paying you your large salar so you can sit all day and read Slashdot?
Alternatively, if you are self-employed imagine what would happen when all those union-employed napping-on-the-job hippies are fired and nobody has money to buy stupid shit you're producing?
When Indians (people from India, not Native Americans) are able to do my job better and for less money, I fully expect my employer to lay me off and hire them. That's why I work hard to make sure that I am more valuable than the outsource.
The problem with unions is that they build protections in for themselves that inflate the cost of employment, but do nothing to increase the value of the employee. Eventually, union companies are unable to compete with ones that get more value* from their employees and the company fails once government bail-outs are exhausted. Once that happens, there are no more napping union hippies to buy my stupid shit anyway.
* I'm not saying that these non-union members are better than union workers. I'm saying that the company gets more per dollar out of them, making them a better value to the company. It sux, I know, but you can not change the laws of economics (to paraphrase Scotty).
Maybe an answer is to work through the UN or other International agencies to promote fair worker treatment world wide. This would increase the quality of life everywhere and would open up more markets full of people to buy our stupid shit. The problem with that is that there are countries whose population needs these crappy jobs. If you force them to increase worker salaries, jobs would move back here because our workers are better if salary and working conditions are the same, leaving them unemployed again and worse off. It's an ugly cycle. We need to increase the quality of our workers to produce stuff that requires an education to produce and leave the cheap, quality-doesn't-matter crap to the countries with low literacy rates until they can get their workers up to speed... and then the cycle repeats.
It would be easier if you'd walk around with an "I'm a dickhead" shirt on so people can steer clear of you without having to hear you talk.
Wow! That totally refuted all of my points. Well, except it really didn't.
I'm sorry if you don't like the facts, but that is no reason to insult the messenger. You are free to form your own opinions. You are not free to form your own facts.
What about Portal? It didn't involve any bullet shooting and it was a FPS
If there's no shooting it's not a fucking FPS. By definition.
Why can't you just say it's a game you play in the first person. You could have a first person adventure/puzzle game, a first person Civ-style game, a first person sports game...
FPS = First Person SHOOTer
What did you do, exactly, with that Portal gun to make it work? Here's a hint, GP said " It didn't involve any bullet shooting and it was a FPS".
Even in this game, you have a camera. What do photographers call it when they take pictures or video?
This would work only because then people would be forced to shop elsewhere, at higher prices, and thus able to buy less landfill-destined crap.
This assumes that whatever you pay, all you will get is landfill-destined crap. The alternative is that you will spend more to by fewer, but durable things. They might be more expensive because they require more highly skilled labor to build.
Of course, there is no money in durability if you are a manufacturer or retailer, and highly skilled workers are a liability. Thus, they flood the market with garbage and talk only about price, or at best, trendy features.
I'm sorry, but a lawn chair is a lawn chair is a lawn chair. Just rubber dog shit is rubber dog shit and shower curtain rings are shower curtain rings! All this stuff is crap, and no matter how much quality you put into any of these crappy products, they last about the same amount of time and perform about the same as those that have little to no quality control. These are not automobiles or complex microprocessors. These products have two levels of quality; works and doesn't work. There is no middle ground. This is the type of stuff you find at Walmart. It's stuff that has no measure of quality that is produced so cheaply, it's actually cheaper to throw away 10% of the finished product than it is to improve quality to 95% or even the unobtainable 100%.
So, your American "union quality" shower curtain rings that I have to buy for $5.00 so someone I don't care about can get a paid vacation, health insurance for his "domestic partner" and four 15-minute breaks a day plus 1-hr lunch will perform the exact same function as the $2.00 shower curtain rings that were made by 8-yr-old Tibetan girl. As I'm standing in Walmart at 2:00am looking for something to hang my shower curtain in my new apartment so I can go to work tomorrow freshly showered, guess which one I'm gonna buy. If you really need help figuring that one out, remember, all I see are shower curtain rings and a price tag, and they both will perform the exact same function.
A national sales tax would ensure that they moved all of their operations off shore rather than just a portion. It astonishes me how folks trot out the sales tax line all the time without comprehending that it's even easier to circumvent than the income tax is.
Why would a sales tax mean that corporations would move offshore? They will be taxed on the products they sell here regardless of where they are located. If they want to move offshore, fine. If they want to sell their widgets here, they will be taxed. The only way to avoid paying the sales tax is to not sell your products here. I don't see a whole lot of companies rushing to get out of the American market.
Corporations move off shore to avoid paying corporate taxes. If those are eliminated and replaced with a sales tax, that benefit disappears. Sorry, but your argument is false.
The only products that won't be taxed are exports, but that still helps our our trade deficit and the workers that produce exported products will still buy stuff domestically and paying sales taxes on those.
The easiest way to make corporations pay their taxes is to prevent them from booking losses without first booking profits, require that any losses only counter act gains and remove all the stupid subsidies that they're given to create jobs in the US without requiring them to follow through.
Ah, but see, that's the beauty of a sales tax. It would eliminate the need corporations have of cooking their books. Of course, it may put a lot of crooked accountants out of a job, but I've heard of worse things.
You're right in that it has nothing to do with the anti-science far right. Your diatribe about christians, on the other hand, has nothing to do with anything. He never mentioned christians. Didn't even imply a religious component. Thou dost protest too much.
No, he didn't mention Christians specifically. Can you tell me what other "far right" subgroup has been accused of being "anti-science"? What other group could he possibly be talking about?
I should have also noted that other things effect the profit margin/price per can of Coca Cola such as sugar prices, shipping costs (gas prices) and other non-tax cost pressures that may effect profit drastically. Sure, per can they won't make much difference, but when you are selling billions of cans per day, the smallest price fluctuation makes a HUGE difference to the bottom line.
Or Coca-Cola would just take the hit to profit per unit instead of raising prices but by doing that sell far more soda than PepsiCo. If a business could raise prices it would. Price is based on what the market will pay, not what costs are.
Welcome to econ 101.
So how much profit does Coca Cola make from a single can of soda?
Over the past decade, the profit per 8-oz. serving increased from half a penny to nearly a penny ($0.009), as the company utilized technology to improve efficiency. This might not sound like much, but when extrapolated across more than a billion servings per day, that's a lot of money!
So, if the government taxes soda, say a meager $0.02 per can, do you really think that Coca Cola is going to take LOSS of $0.011 per can? Does selling more soda at a loss somehow make you more money? Seems to me that it would just make the loss greater.
Did you miss the part that these "cuts" are over 10 years?
There's nothing binding here if the next President -- or even the next seated Congress -- decides it is going to change things.
More bread and circuses, with a nice class warfare frosting.
Because cutting half a trillion as a whole this immediate fiscal year (or even in the next 2-3) starting tomorrow is absolutely possible and practical. You can't have it now so having in 10 years is just impractical. Totally zero-sum. </sarcasm>
I love how people call this idea "class warfare" when it's been heralded not just by one billionaire (Buffett) but several. Ideology trumps logic.
I guess it's easy for Buffet to call for higher taxes since his company doesn't pay them.
Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.
Sure, if I didn't pay taxes, I wouldn't mind if they were raised.
I call bullshit. Wealth transferred to non earners is quickly spent, and usually ends up very quickly back in the hands of the wealthy and large corporations (and the government itself). The rich and corporations on the other hand, are known to hoard wealth, and send it out of the country respectively. Also, "non-earners" vs "earners" is bogus, people go back and fourth if you are measuring annually. Unless you are already rich....
Really? So is poor people who live in mansions, drive exotic, expensive autos, eat at fine restaurants and take vacations that don't involve loading up the station wagon? Wow! And here I thought these people were rich.
I always believed that wealthy people invested their money so that they might make more of it so they could buy more nice things. Who knew that they were living in $20/night hotels with all their cash stuffed into duffle bags stuffed under their beds.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying that you are the sole judge of what general Welfare means? Or are you going to leave that up to the people who actually have that responsibility, which is the Supreme Court?
Actually, that responsibility would fall on those writing the laws. For example, the Supreme Court can be disbanded to "Provide the General Welfare". See, you're saying the federal government, specifically Congress, has unlimited power, as long as they claim that their purpose is to "Provide the General Welfare".
In theory, this is true. If you've been living in the US a while, you know that it is not true in practice. They can stretch the "General welfare" clause and the "Interstate Commerce" clause to cover anything.
Limited Government is history.
This is because any time someone claims that the 10th Amendment means something, they are ridiculed out of existence. Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Rick Perry have all said the 10th Amendment means something or have said that a government program that is not backed up by the Constitution is unconstitutional, and they have all paid the price.
(Note: I am not a Ron Paul Fan. I have nothing against him, but I see his followers and think, "I'm not going to join with these loons!")
Dude, don't expect to change his mind about the Constitution by quoting the Constitution to him. You will never, EVER convince him that Congress has the Constitutional power to promote the general welfare -- NEVER. He will NEVER admit that. He will NEVER acknowledge that A1S8 exists, or that it gives Congress broad power -- which it does, and does.
Eugenics supports the "general welfare". Gassing the homeless would promote the general welfare. Enslaving peoples from conquered lands would promote the general welfare. Do you think that A1S8 gives the federal government this power? Tell me, what power does the "general welfare" part of A1S8 is NOT given to the federal government?
Also, answer this, what does the 10th Amendment mean if the federal government has unlimited power?
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8
Are you saying that the Federal Government has unlimited power to anything it wants as long as it claims to promote general Welfare? Keep in mind, this could mean execution of every citizen when they reach the age of 30 ala Logan's Run (Renew!!!). This could mean the rounding up of all people who are homeless and Soylent Greening them. This could mean anything at all.
So, I ask again, are you saying that the Federal Government has unlimited power to anything it wants as long as it claims to promote general Welfare? Do you honestly think that general Welfare, as mentioned in the article that gives the government power to levy taxes, was meant by the founders to give the federal government unlimited power? Or do you think that it might, maybe, mean that the Feds may collect taxes to promote general Welfare, like building bridges, an interstate highway system and fund things like the FBI?
God and such a terrible burden it is. Of course I guess the alternative in a wonderful libertarian utopia would be deny to medical treatment to anyone not wearing a seat belt during a crash, after all that's that would be the logical thing for an insurance company to do. Yeah let's do that rather than mandating the minor inconvenience in order to save lives and reduce overall health care costs for everyone. I guess you're against speed limits as well? If I want to drive 100 mph in a school zone I have every right!
Speed limits are set by the states because there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate traffic laws. According to the 10th Amendment, any power not given to the federal government by the Constitution, and that is not prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved for the states, or people. Health care is like speed limits. Since there is no Constitutionally granted power for the feds to regulate it, the power falls to the states. This is why the Massachusetts health care law is Constitutional, but "Obamacare" is not.
opponents say it represents an unconstitutional encroachment of federal power.
Don't you mean encroachment of state's power?
Don't you mean "encroachment ON state's power"?
encroach (nkrt)
— vb (often foll by on or upon )
1. to intrude gradually, stealthily, or insidiously upon the rights, property, etc, of another
2. to advance beyond the usual or proper limits
It's not the states power that is doing the encroaching. It is the states rights that are being encroached upon.
The distinction here is that health care is pretty vital to "promote the general Welfare" (US Constition - Preamble)
welfare |welfe()r| (noun)
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group
To that end, it seems pretty obvious that the founders of the United States cared enough about the health of it's citizens.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
LOL. The Preamble does not give any power to the government. It explains WHY the Constitution was written, nothing more. It is certainly not an enumerated power and does not give the federal government unlimited power to "promoting the general Welfare" or "insure domestic Tranquility".
a flying saucer with limitless zero-point fuel (which could ascend as slowly as the pilot liked)
Also known as a Bullshit Device because you cannot get it without finding some magical Unobtanium that breaks the laws of physics.
Or a high altitude balloon as a launch platform.
Maybe a ground laser driven craft.
There are many other feasible ideas, but I think these two are sufficient to prove your ignorance and close mindedness.
No Unobtanium required.
The difference being that DoD technology tends to stay secret while NASA technology tends to stay open.
You mean like the jet engine, rocket engines, satellites, nuclear energy, and the Internet?
Yea, like the military blowing the crap out of poor people and instigating coups in banana republics have ever protected my house. If anything they have made it more likely my house will be destroyed.
A dictator builds multiple palaces while his people starve. We throw his ass out and we are accused "blowing the crap out of poor people". You should really ask these "poor people" what they think before you prove your ignorance.
We tried doing nothing and letting the UN take care of places like Rwanda. How did that work out? How many "poor people" have to die before we react, in your humble opinion?
Yes, that is what I meant by "completely devalued." Thank you for confirming your reading comprehension to be of the average level for the republican redneck retard fringe.
You, my friend, are a bigot. Re-read your post and replace "republican redneck" with any other slur and maybe then you will understand. You are quick to defend the target a racial slur, but you are too stupid to even recognize that you do the exact same thing. You speak of the "fringe" without realizing that you are on the fringe yourself, so much so that anyone even close to the middle of America is viewed as the "fringe" by you.
Reading your posts and realizing the willful ignorance and raw hatred that contributes to them is depressing.
It was pretty clear that Obomba inherited a sagging economy. Bushy also inherited a sagging economy, but managed to re-inflate the bubble, and then leave office as it was all coming down.
As decent as it was under Clinton, and a republican house of the 1990s, that too was a bubble. Just look at tech, manufacturing data, consumption.
republican and democrat politicians are to blame.
Close. Remember, Congress writes laws, regulations, and budgets. Presidents may do executive orders and suggest budget proposals, but the responsibility ultimately falls on Congress. Bush had six years of a Republican Congress, and coincidentally, six years of economic prosperity. When Democrats took over Congress in Jan 2007, unemployment was at 4.7%. So, yes, Obama did inherit a bad economy, but he didn't inherit it from Bush. It was passed down from Pelosi and Reid.
But what about executive orders? Bush banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Clinton banned drilling in ANWR. Which one do you think had more of an economic impact?
As for NASA, it is ultimately the President who is in charge. However, the money comes from Congress. The president may set the direction, but unless Congress pays for it, it's meaningless. However, when Congress and the White House are controlled by the same party, Congress usually does what the President says. But, if you want to talk about who inherited what, Obama inherited a working shuttle fleet with plans for the Constellation program as a replacement. Now, we have neither. Both were cancelled under a Democrat in the White House and in charge of both chambers of Congress.
You seem to have missed the last part of that:
Fedora is nice, but it's too far removed from the main Red Hat release and can be unstable.
They're similar and in a couple years RHEL will resemble Fedora today, but by that point Fedora will be quite different too.
Well, businesses could run a Fedora from a few years ago. That should be like RHEL today, right?
I think CentOS is a better option if you are looking for "free as in beer".
Guess what will happen when your employer decides that it's better to outsource your job than to keep paying you your large salar so you can sit all day and read Slashdot?
Alternatively, if you are self-employed imagine what would happen when all those union-employed napping-on-the-job hippies are fired and nobody has money to buy stupid shit you're producing?
When Indians (people from India, not Native Americans) are able to do my job better and for less money, I fully expect my employer to lay me off and hire them. That's why I work hard to make sure that I am more valuable than the outsource.
The problem with unions is that they build protections in for themselves that inflate the cost of employment, but do nothing to increase the value of the employee. Eventually, union companies are unable to compete with ones that get more value* from their employees and the company fails once government bail-outs are exhausted. Once that happens, there are no more napping union hippies to buy my stupid shit anyway.
* I'm not saying that these non-union members are better than union workers. I'm saying that the company gets more per dollar out of them, making them a better value to the company. It sux, I know, but you can not change the laws of economics (to paraphrase Scotty).
Maybe an answer is to work through the UN or other International agencies to promote fair worker treatment world wide. This would increase the quality of life everywhere and would open up more markets full of people to buy our stupid shit. The problem with that is that there are countries whose population needs these crappy jobs. If you force them to increase worker salaries, jobs would move back here because our workers are better if salary and working conditions are the same, leaving them unemployed again and worse off. It's an ugly cycle. We need to increase the quality of our workers to produce stuff that requires an education to produce and leave the cheap, quality-doesn't-matter crap to the countries with low literacy rates until they can get their workers up to speed... and then the cycle repeats.
It would be easier if you'd walk around with an "I'm a dickhead" shirt on so people can steer clear of you without having to hear you talk.
Wow! That totally refuted all of my points. Well, except it really didn't.
I'm sorry if you don't like the facts, but that is no reason to insult the messenger. You are free to form your own opinions. You are not free to form your own facts.
Not much to brag about !!
Unless you're a girl... or a gay man.
What about Portal? It didn't involve any bullet shooting and it was a FPS
If there's no shooting it's not a fucking FPS. By definition.
Why can't you just say it's a game you play in the first person. You could have a first person adventure/puzzle game, a first person Civ-style game, a first person sports game...
FPS = First Person SHOOTer
What did you do, exactly, with that Portal gun to make it work? Here's a hint, GP said " It didn't involve any bullet shooting and it was a FPS".
Even in this game, you have a camera. What do photographers call it when they take pictures or video?
This would work only because then people would be forced to shop elsewhere, at higher prices, and thus able to buy less landfill-destined crap.
This assumes that whatever you pay, all you will get is landfill-destined crap. The alternative is that you will spend more to by fewer, but durable things. They might be more expensive because they require more highly skilled labor to build.
Of course, there is no money in durability if you are a manufacturer or retailer, and highly skilled workers are a liability. Thus, they flood the market with garbage and talk only about price, or at best, trendy features.
I'm sorry, but a lawn chair is a lawn chair is a lawn chair. Just rubber dog shit is rubber dog shit and shower curtain rings are shower curtain rings! All this stuff is crap, and no matter how much quality you put into any of these crappy products, they last about the same amount of time and perform about the same as those that have little to no quality control. These are not automobiles or complex microprocessors. These products have two levels of quality; works and doesn't work. There is no middle ground. This is the type of stuff you find at Walmart. It's stuff that has no measure of quality that is produced so cheaply, it's actually cheaper to throw away 10% of the finished product than it is to improve quality to 95% or even the unobtainable 100%.
So, your American "union quality" shower curtain rings that I have to buy for $5.00 so someone I don't care about can get a paid vacation, health insurance for his "domestic partner" and four 15-minute breaks a day plus 1-hr lunch will perform the exact same function as the $2.00 shower curtain rings that were made by 8-yr-old Tibetan girl. As I'm standing in Walmart at 2:00am looking for something to hang my shower curtain in my new apartment so I can go to work tomorrow freshly showered, guess which one I'm gonna buy. If you really need help figuring that one out, remember, all I see are shower curtain rings and a price tag, and they both will perform the exact same function.
and being 'Renewed'
AWESOME!!!!!
For those that didn't get the reference...
A national sales tax would ensure that they moved all of their operations off shore rather than just a portion. It astonishes me how folks trot out the sales tax line all the time without comprehending that it's even easier to circumvent than the income tax is.
Why would a sales tax mean that corporations would move offshore? They will be taxed on the products they sell here regardless of where they are located. If they want to move offshore, fine. If they want to sell their widgets here, they will be taxed. The only way to avoid paying the sales tax is to not sell your products here. I don't see a whole lot of companies rushing to get out of the American market.
Corporations move off shore to avoid paying corporate taxes. If those are eliminated and replaced with a sales tax, that benefit disappears. Sorry, but your argument is false.
The only products that won't be taxed are exports, but that still helps our our trade deficit and the workers that produce exported products will still buy stuff domestically and paying sales taxes on those.
The easiest way to make corporations pay their taxes is to prevent them from booking losses without first booking profits, require that any losses only counter act gains and remove all the stupid subsidies that they're given to create jobs in the US without requiring them to follow through.
Ah, but see, that's the beauty of a sales tax. It would eliminate the need corporations have of cooking their books. Of course, it may put a lot of crooked accountants out of a job, but I've heard of worse things.
You're right in that it has nothing to do with the anti-science far right. Your diatribe about christians, on the other hand, has nothing to do with anything. He never mentioned christians. Didn't even imply a religious component. Thou dost protest too much.
No, he didn't mention Christians specifically. Can you tell me what other "far right" subgroup has been accused of being "anti-science"? What other group could he possibly be talking about?
Sorry, forgot my source:
http://www.fool.com/news/1999/foolplate990910.htm
I should have also noted that other things effect the profit margin/price per can of Coca Cola such as sugar prices, shipping costs (gas prices) and other non-tax cost pressures that may effect profit drastically. Sure, per can they won't make much difference, but when you are selling billions of cans per day, the smallest price fluctuation makes a HUGE difference to the bottom line.
Or Coca-Cola would just take the hit to profit per unit instead of raising prices but by doing that sell far more soda than PepsiCo. If a business could raise prices it would. Price is based on what the market will pay, not what costs are.
Welcome to econ 101.
So how much profit does Coca Cola make from a single can of soda?
Over the past decade, the profit per 8-oz. serving increased from half a penny to nearly a penny ($0.009), as the company utilized technology to improve efficiency. This might not sound like much, but when extrapolated across more than a billion servings per day, that's a lot of money!
So, if the government taxes soda, say a meager $0.02 per can, do you really think that Coca Cola is going to take LOSS of $0.011 per can? Does selling more soda at a loss somehow make you more money? Seems to me that it would just make the loss greater.
Did you miss the part that these "cuts" are over 10 years?
There's nothing binding here if the next President -- or even the next seated Congress -- decides it is going to change things.
More bread and circuses, with a nice class warfare frosting.
Because cutting half a trillion as a whole this immediate fiscal year (or even in the next 2-3) starting tomorrow is absolutely possible and practical. You can't have it now so having in 10 years is just impractical. Totally zero-sum. </sarcasm>
I love how people call this idea "class warfare" when it's been heralded not just by one billionaire (Buffett) but several. Ideology trumps logic.
I guess it's easy for Buffet to call for higher taxes since his company doesn't pay them.
From HERE
Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.
Sure, if I didn't pay taxes, I wouldn't mind if they were raised.
I call bullshit. Wealth transferred to non earners is quickly spent, and usually ends up very quickly back in the hands of the wealthy and large corporations (and the government itself). The rich and corporations on the other hand, are known to hoard wealth, and send it out of the country respectively. Also, "non-earners" vs "earners" is bogus, people go back and fourth if you are measuring annually. Unless you are already rich....
Really? So is poor people who live in mansions, drive exotic, expensive autos, eat at fine restaurants and take vacations that don't involve loading up the station wagon? Wow! And here I thought these people were rich.
I always believed that wealthy people invested their money so that they might make more of it so they could buy more nice things. Who knew that they were living in $20/night hotels with all their cash stuffed into duffle bags stuffed under their beds.