So... You go to the doctor and tell him what treatment you should get?
Somewhat, yeah. I go to the doctor I want, and that usually means the one that listens to me. Sure, he's not going to give me oxycotin (sp?) for a runny nose, but when I tell him that drug X gives me the runs, he has no problems prescribing me drug Y.
And you have a choice today? I'm tired of this false argument. If you have any sort of health care insurance, its a decision between your (for profit) insurance company and NOBODY. Your insurance company doesn't want it, you don't get it.
I'd rather have a trip to the DMV than mafia.
Um, if my health insurance provider screws me over, I can sue them. You can't sue the government. Ever heard of an Erin Brockovich leading the charge against a government provided anything?
If my health insurance provider screws me over, I can bitch to and/or sue my company, which pays for most of that insurance.
As of yet, I've had no problems ever with any health insurance company. I know that not everyone has been so lucky, but that's what the courts are for. (see Erin Brockovich)
Either way, can you tell me one single government program that works better than a private equivalent (other than the military, but with what is spent, private industry could do better)? Amtrack, Postal Service, Social Security... Nope, they all suck.
I don't want my health care decisions handed over to the same group of losers that are wasting my retirement funds.
I had to laugh when I read, "they're becoming more conservative" because that's what Bush was for the last 8 years. It's a little late to be saying you don't like it. He might as well come on the record and say we shouldn't invade Iraq....oops, late on that one too. Switching primaries is an interesting approach. I guess his voting record can or will sink him.
Bush was a conservative? Compared to Stalin, sure, Bush was a conservative. On social issues, sure, Bush was a conservative. But on the economy? No. Conservatives don't grow the government. Bush did.
They seem like crazy nut jobs here, too. Every time I hear another insane rant about "Obama's Fascist Regime" it pushes me further and further away from the Republican party.
They are SO upset that they lost the election and they're going ape shit. Instead of trying to push their message with resonable thought, they force it on you with words of communism and "fascism."
So 100 days of Republican bitching has more of an effect than 8 years of relentless Bush Bashing?
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
I want my trip to the doctor to be like a trip to the DMV.
Where were you complaining the last 8 years as the government ran up $TRILLIONS in debt, like on an unnecessary and neverending war? Or on unleashing free credit money while wages stayed the same?
From where are you pulling "75% taxes"? What else can we do to work our way out of the hole "we" dug ourselves into?
A tripling of debt is hardly digging yourself out. To me, it's more like digging deeper.
You were complaining about the trillions in debt from the last administration. This administration wants to more than triple that debt.
So allow me to turn the question around on you: Why are you not complaining now that the current administration is putting us further and faster in debt than the last administration?
Or to put it another way: Which tea party were you at?
Who gives a shit why he needs a touchscreen? This is just excuse-making. Maybe he IS working on a kiosk. Maybe he's working on a POS cash-register app, or the next generation of surface-based interfaces. Maybe he just prefers touchscreens.
Honestly, I get sick of this attitude from developers when someone suggests a useful feature - "why would you need that?" That's why Linux will always by a system "by programmers, for programmers."
I believe that the GP was talking about XP and Vista's lack of support for certain touchscreens. What does that have to do with Linux developers? If anything, it shows that Windows "will always be a system 'by programmers, for programmers.'"
It seems fairly likely that Shell and Exxon would have cross sharing agreements.
If the batteries had a nice smooth lifetime behavior, you could just put down a deposit on the first battery and next time, use that battery as a deposit (or get a partial refund, depending on the difference in quality; the smooth behavior would ensure that you weren't the victim of a big surprise).
There are thousands of gas station owners across the US alone ranging from the big-oil chains (Shell, Exxon), truckstop chains (Flying J, Loves, Buccees, Travel Centers of America, etc), convenience store chaings (Stop-n-Go, Circle K, 7-11), the big-box store chains (Meijer, Walmart), the local independents and even grocery stores all sell gasoline and would have to be part of this battery exchange. I don't see every single one of them signing cross-battery-exchange agreements with every other one. There is way too much room for abuse, fraud or whatever else these guys could do to cut down their competition.
If electric car manufacturers standardize their battery pack on dimmensions and voltage output this will create huge benefits:
Swapping batteries either automatic or manual is easy
A new market will be created for companies providing improved batteries which can be used in any electric car
Cost down by mass producing the battery packs
Which is exactly why it won't happen. Car companies make a killing selling parts that they only allow themselves to sell. This is why most parts for new cars can only be purchased at a dealership or junkyard. While standardization would be great for the consumer, it would cost the car companies dearly. Since the car companies make the decisions, don't expect to see this happen.
I think you missed the point. You don't own the battery, your power-provider does.
It becomes their problem to ensure that spent batteries are appropriately down-cycled from the system... and that is what makes this idea beautiful.
OK, what if I normally "rent" my batteries from the local service station (You're supposed to buy local to support local businesses, right?)? If I take a road trip that is outside the range of those batteries, I'm kinda screwed.
Even if you don't buy local, I don't want to pigeon holed into buying my batteries at a single service station chain. What if I can only find a Shell electric station and my batteries came from Exxon?
The idiocy is all yours. First you say that the Antarctic ice cap is melting and that the ice mass is decreasing. Now, you say that the increase of ice mass in Antarctica was expected. So, which one is it? Which time were you lying? If it was expected, you had to know it was increasing when you said it wasn't, right? If you was not expected, then you are lying now... So let me ask you again, which time were you telling lies? There is absolutely NO WAY you were telling the truth both times.
And you seriously don't know why you and your "temps are rising, sky is falling" types have lost your credibility? "When it heats, it's because of global warming. When it cools, it's because of global warming." Sorry, but you've lost credibility not just for yourself, but your entire religion.
Either show me your contra-evidence that asserts Mann is incorrect, the ice caps are NOT melting, or the world is NOT getting warmer.
I find it funny that in one article, you ask for evidence that the ice caps are not melting, as if you didn't believe it, and now you are saying it was expected? Please, find a story and stick with it.
Please allow me to say, RTFA. There is your evidence.
The last few years have been warmer than any year in the 20th centry except 1998.
(Citation needed). I only ask for a citation because I recall that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that these past few years have been cooler than normal. Come to find out, 1998 was NOT the hottest year on record, 1938 was.
Also note that 1938 and 1998 were both in the 20th century and both years were hotter than these past few years.
Actually, never mind. I did some searching and found out that 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 are all the hottest year on record, depending on what source you use.
And I load-up my rifle and track-down the CEO and every regional manager. "What matter a few deaths in a century? From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party
What are you, some kind of right-wing extremist or returning vet? I read that your type would do something like this!
Hmmm... speculation. I've been hearing about all sorts of horrible things Obama might do: take away all guns, outlaw religion, destroy capitalism etc. I prefer to judge his actions or at the very least specific policy declarations.
True. I intend to give the guy the chance that I feel Bush never got (his car was hit by snowballs on the way to his inauguration). That's why my post was titled with the sarcasm instead of, "Obama is a liar!" or some other trollish nonsense.
However, since the pledge has already been broken with the cigarette tax, I am gladly going to throw that $250K number up there every time a tax is proposed that is not based on income. Although, to be completely honest, I prefer a sales tax to income tax any day, but I won't let that keep me from holding my elected officials to their word.
True. So your complaint is not that Obama is leading this effort (which he is not) or that he has broken his pledge on taxes (which he has not), but that he has not already vetoed a bill that has not been passed and sent to his desk?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Close. My complaint is that all it would take to kill this is for Obama to publicly state that he will veto this bill. With a veto looming, congress will usually not pass a bill unless they can get 60 votes to override the veto. Even if there is more than 60 votes to begin with, most Democrats will not attempt to override a Democrat's Presidential veto (same with Republicans).
However, I would accept him to wait until the bill gets passed before he vetoes it, even though that would be a waste of tax payer dollars and congressional time. As it stands right now, there is a damn good chance that Obama will sign this bill if passed which will lead citizens making less than $250,000 a year paying more in taxes; something he promised to prevent.
This is a federal bill that allows states to collect taxes which are already owed. Individual tax liability will not increase. Instead, individuals will simply be forced to pay (by online retailers) the sales tax they already owe.
No. This is a NEW law requiring online retailers to charge the state sales tax required from the customer's state. In other words, if I live in Maine and purchase a product from Nevada, the company in Nevada will be forced to charge Maine's sales tax rate and send it Maine. Currently, companies in Nevada are not bound by Maine's laws. This FEDERAL bill will change that and force this Nevada company to keep up with the tax laws in all 50 states and pay those states their sales tax. Right now, states must try to get the tax revenue from the customer, not the seller. The seller can tell them to pound sand.
In other words, this law is a CHANGE on the Federal level, NOT an enforcement of existing FEDERAL laws as you imply.
However, I'll throw you a bone here and say that the taxes charged will not be federal, but state taxes, of which Obama has no control. Even though that is not the argument you were making, I will admit that this will not violate the letter of Obama's campaign promise. It does, however, violate the spirit, especially since this is a FEDERAL law that will result in a tax increase for citizens making under $250K. Obama could use his handy veto stamp to stop this tax increase and uphold the principles that got him elected.
Let me say again that this is not tax evasion. You don't seem to understand the difference between a non-existent tax and tax evasion. Let me explain it.
Tax evasion, as in your example, means that my tax bill is X. Sure, I may pay nothing, but that does not negate the fact that my bill is X.
This is a FEDERAL bill that will allow taxes of interstate goods. That means that tax bill will go from X to X+Y (Y>0). In case you're really bad at math, the new tax bill (X+Y) is greater than X. In English, that means a tax increase, which is exactly what Obama promised would not happen to those making under $250,000/yr.
Sure, I guess you can spin however you want. You could say, "It's not his plan. He only mentioned HIS plan" or say "It's not going up one dime. It's going to go up several dimes" or some other stupid nonsense. I'm not going to sit here and argue the meaning of the word "is", but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that what Obama said in his campaign speeches was that taxes would be going down, period.
It's funny to see how pathetic the Obama-haters get in their criticism.
Funny. I was just thing the same thing about Obama-Lovers with their defense of the indefensible.
I didn't realize there were so many people that believed that "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime" somehow means "We will pass federal legislation that will make your taxes go up."
So you are also suggesting that if you've been cheating on your federal income tax for the last few years, his statement means the IRS can't come after you?
Thought so.
That's tax evasion. This is NOT tax evasion. From TFA:
A bill expected to be introduced in the U.S. Congress as early as Monday would rewrite the ground rules for mail order and Internet sales by eliminating what its supporters view as a "loophole" that, in many cases, allows Americans to shop over the Internet without paying sales taxes.
If the law stated that I had to pay sales tax on interstate goods, why does it need to be RE-written???
Also from TFA:
...the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that out-of-state retailers generally couldn't be obligated to collect sales taxes unless Congress changes the law.
Only tax revenues are going up. The tax isn't going up, its collection is just being enforced.
Are you serious? Please, tell me, HOW are revenues going to go up if no one is paying them? If I pay a tax tomorrow that I'm not paying today, is that not a tax increase?
Please, enough of the BS. Stop trying to spin this as a NON-tax increase. Numbers don't lie. When the amount I pay in taxes increases, I am paying higher taxes. You can't get out of third grade math without knowing that.
President Obama does not control state sales tax. President Obama's plan does not introduce legislation to allow collecting state sales tax on internet purchases.
So within the realm of what President Obama can control and what he has proposed, he has completely fulfilled his pledge.
If this were a bill being passed by the Congress in the state of Michigan, you'd be correct. Unfortunately, this is a bill proposed by the United States Congress. The President has veto power over that bill. This is within his control.
Slashdot Mirror
So... You go to the doctor and tell him what treatment you should get?
Somewhat, yeah. I go to the doctor I want, and that usually means the one that listens to me. Sure, he's not going to give me oxycotin (sp?) for a runny nose, but when I tell him that drug X gives me the runs, he has no problems prescribing me drug Y.
And you have a choice today? I'm tired of this false argument. If you have any sort of health care insurance, its a decision between your (for profit) insurance company and NOBODY. Your insurance company doesn't want it, you don't get it.
I'd rather have a trip to the DMV than mafia.
Um, if my health insurance provider screws me over, I can sue them. You can't sue the government. Ever heard of an Erin Brockovich leading the charge against a government provided anything?
If my health insurance provider screws me over, I can bitch to and/or sue my company, which pays for most of that insurance.
As of yet, I've had no problems ever with any health insurance company. I know that not everyone has been so lucky, but that's what the courts are for. (see Erin Brockovich)
Either way, can you tell me one single government program that works better than a private equivalent (other than the military, but with what is spent, private industry could do better)? Amtrack, Postal Service, Social Security... Nope, they all suck.
I don't want my health care decisions handed over to the same group of losers that are wasting my retirement funds.
I had to laugh when I read, "they're becoming more conservative" because that's what Bush was for the last 8 years. It's a little late to be saying you don't like it. He might as well come on the record and say we shouldn't invade Iraq....oops, late on that one too. Switching primaries is an interesting approach. I guess his voting record can or will sink him.
Bush was a conservative? Compared to Stalin, sure, Bush was a conservative. On social issues, sure, Bush was a conservative. But on the economy? No. Conservatives don't grow the government. Bush did.
They seem like crazy nut jobs here, too. Every time I hear another insane rant about "Obama's Fascist Regime" it pushes me further and further away from the Republican party.
They are SO upset that they lost the election and they're going ape shit. Instead of trying to push their message with resonable thought, they force it on you with words of communism and "fascism."
So 100 days of Republican bitching has more of an effect than 8 years of relentless Bush Bashing?
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
I want my trip to the doctor to be like a trip to the DMV.
Where were you complaining the last 8 years as the government ran up $TRILLIONS in debt, like on an unnecessary and neverending war? Or on unleashing free credit money while wages stayed the same?
From where are you pulling "75% taxes"? What else can we do to work our way out of the hole "we" dug ourselves into?
A tripling of debt is hardly digging yourself out. To me, it's more like digging deeper.
You were complaining about the trillions in debt from the last administration. This administration wants to more than triple that debt.
So allow me to turn the question around on you:
Why are you not complaining now that the current administration is putting us further and faster in debt than the last administration?
Or to put it another way:
Which tea party were you at?
Who gives a shit why he needs a touchscreen? This is just excuse-making. Maybe he IS working on a kiosk. Maybe he's working on a POS cash-register app, or the next generation of surface-based interfaces. Maybe he just prefers touchscreens.
Honestly, I get sick of this attitude from developers when someone suggests a useful feature - "why would you need that?" That's why Linux will always by a system "by programmers, for programmers."
I believe that the GP was talking about XP and Vista's lack of support for certain touchscreens. What does that have to do with Linux developers? If anything, it shows that Windows "will always be a system 'by programmers, for programmers.'"
Well, in fairness, Amazon could sell the units at a loss and make up the difference on digital book sales much like the console manufacturers do.
But, I agree with you. If these units are selling, why lower the cost?
It seems fairly likely that Shell and Exxon would have cross sharing agreements.
If the batteries had a nice smooth lifetime behavior, you could just put down a deposit on the first battery and next time, use that battery as a deposit (or get a partial refund, depending on the difference in quality; the smooth behavior would ensure that you weren't the victim of a big surprise).
There are thousands of gas station owners across the US alone ranging from the big-oil chains (Shell, Exxon), truckstop chains (Flying J, Loves, Buccees, Travel Centers of America, etc), convenience store chaings (Stop-n-Go, Circle K, 7-11), the big-box store chains (Meijer, Walmart), the local independents and even grocery stores all sell gasoline and would have to be part of this battery exchange. I don't see every single one of them signing cross-battery-exchange agreements with every other one. There is way too much room for abuse, fraud or whatever else these guys could do to cut down their competition.
If electric car manufacturers standardize their battery pack on dimmensions and voltage output this will create huge benefits:
Which is exactly why it won't happen. Car companies make a killing selling parts that they only allow themselves to sell. This is why most parts for new cars can only be purchased at a dealership or junkyard. While standardization would be great for the consumer, it would cost the car companies dearly. Since the car companies make the decisions, don't expect to see this happen.
I think you missed the point. You don't own the battery, your power-provider does.
It becomes their problem to ensure that spent batteries are appropriately down-cycled from the system ... and that is what makes this idea beautiful.
OK, what if I normally "rent" my batteries from the local service station (You're supposed to buy local to support local businesses, right?)? If I take a road trip that is outside the range of those batteries, I'm kinda screwed.
Even if you don't buy local, I don't want to pigeon holed into buying my batteries at a single service station chain. What if I can only find a Shell electric station and my batteries came from Exxon?
Stop stalking me with your idiocy, wanker!
The idiocy is all yours. First you say that the Antarctic ice cap is melting and that the ice mass is decreasing. Now, you say that the increase of ice mass in Antarctica was expected. So, which one is it? Which time were you lying? If it was expected, you had to know it was increasing when you said it wasn't, right? If you was not expected, then you are lying now... So let me ask you again, which time were you telling lies? There is absolutely NO WAY you were telling the truth both times.
And you seriously don't know why you and your "temps are rising, sky is falling" types have lost your credibility? "When it heats, it's because of global warming. When it cools, it's because of global warming." Sorry, but you've lost credibility not just for yourself, but your entire religion.
Sorry it was 1934, not 1938
Oh, and in this comment, you said:
Either show me your contra-evidence that asserts Mann is incorrect, the ice caps are NOT melting, or the world is NOT getting warmer.
I find it funny that in one article, you ask for evidence that the ice caps are not melting, as if you didn't believe it, and now you are saying it was expected? Please, find a story and stick with it.
Please allow me to say, RTFA. There is your evidence.
The last few years have been warmer than any year in the 20th centry except 1998.
(Citation needed). I only ask for a citation because I recall that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that these past few years have been cooler than normal. Come to find out, 1998 was NOT the hottest year on record, 1938 was.
Also note that 1938 and 1998 were both in the 20th century and both years were hotter than these past few years.
Actually, never mind. I did some searching and found out that 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 are all the hottest year on record, depending on what source you use.
And these guys wonder why we don't believe them??
No one is EVER too broke to go to the hospital. They have no choice but to treat you, regardless of you income status.
Sure, they may hound you for cash for a few years and ruin your credit, but you will get the treatment you need.
>>>they then burn down your house.
And I load-up my rifle and track-down the CEO and every regional manager. "What matter a few deaths in a century? From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party
What are you, some kind of right-wing extremist or returning vet? I read that your type would do something like this!
Hmmm... speculation. I've been hearing about all sorts of horrible things Obama might do: take away all guns, outlaw religion, destroy capitalism etc. I prefer to judge his actions or at the very least specific policy declarations.
True. I intend to give the guy the chance that I feel Bush never got (his car was hit by snowballs on the way to his inauguration). That's why my post was titled with the sarcasm instead of, "Obama is a liar!" or some other trollish nonsense.
However, since the pledge has already been broken with the cigarette tax, I am gladly going to throw that $250K number up there every time a tax is proposed that is not based on income. Although, to be completely honest, I prefer a sales tax to income tax any day, but I won't let that keep me from holding my elected officials to their word.
The President has veto power over that bill.
True.
So your complaint is not that Obama is leading this effort (which he is not) or that he has broken his pledge on taxes (which he has not), but that he has not already vetoed a bill that has not been passed and sent to his desk?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Close. My complaint is that all it would take to kill this is for Obama to publicly state that he will veto this bill. With a veto looming, congress will usually not pass a bill unless they can get 60 votes to override the veto. Even if there is more than 60 votes to begin with, most Democrats will not attempt to override a Democrat's Presidential veto (same with Republicans).
However, I would accept him to wait until the bill gets passed before he vetoes it, even though that would be a waste of tax payer dollars and congressional time. As it stands right now, there is a damn good chance that Obama will sign this bill if passed which will lead citizens making less than $250,000 a year paying more in taxes; something he promised to prevent.
This is a federal bill that allows states to collect taxes which are already owed. Individual tax liability will not increase. Instead, individuals will simply be forced to pay (by online retailers) the sales tax they already owe.
No. This is a NEW law requiring online retailers to charge the state sales tax required from the customer's state. In other words, if I live in Maine and purchase a product from Nevada, the company in Nevada will be forced to charge Maine's sales tax rate and send it Maine. Currently, companies in Nevada are not bound by Maine's laws. This FEDERAL bill will change that and force this Nevada company to keep up with the tax laws in all 50 states and pay those states their sales tax. Right now, states must try to get the tax revenue from the customer, not the seller. The seller can tell them to pound sand.
In other words, this law is a CHANGE on the Federal level, NOT an enforcement of existing FEDERAL laws as you imply.
However, I'll throw you a bone here and say that the taxes charged will not be federal, but state taxes, of which Obama has no control. Even though that is not the argument you were making, I will admit that this will not violate the letter of Obama's campaign promise. It does, however, violate the spirit, especially since this is a FEDERAL law that will result in a tax increase for citizens making under $250K. Obama could use his handy veto stamp to stop this tax increase and uphold the principles that got him elected.
Let me say again that this is not tax evasion. You don't seem to understand the difference between a non-existent tax and tax evasion. Let me explain it.
Tax evasion, as in your example, means that my tax bill is X. Sure, I may pay nothing, but that does not negate the fact that my bill is X.
This is a FEDERAL bill that will allow taxes of interstate goods. That means that tax bill will go from X to X+Y (Y>0). In case you're really bad at math, the new tax bill (X+Y) is greater than X. In English, that means a tax increase, which is exactly what Obama promised would not happen to those making under $250,000/yr.
Sure, I guess you can spin however you want. You could say, "It's not his plan. He only mentioned HIS plan" or say "It's not going up one dime. It's going to go up several dimes" or some other stupid nonsense. I'm not going to sit here and argue the meaning of the word "is", but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that what Obama said in his campaign speeches was that taxes would be going down, period.
It's funny to see how pathetic the Obama-haters get in their criticism.
Funny. I was just thing the same thing about Obama-Lovers with their defense of the indefensible.
I didn't realize there were so many people that believed that "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime" somehow means "We will pass federal legislation that will make your taxes go up."
So you are also suggesting that if you've been cheating on your federal income tax for the last few years, his statement means the IRS can't come after you?
Thought so.
That's tax evasion. This is NOT tax evasion. From TFA:
A bill expected to be introduced in the U.S. Congress as early as Monday would rewrite the ground rules for mail order and Internet sales by eliminating what its supporters view as a "loophole" that, in many cases, allows Americans to shop over the Internet without paying sales taxes.
If the law stated that I had to pay sales tax on interstate goods, why does it need to be RE-written???
Also from TFA:
...the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that out-of-state retailers generally couldn't be obligated to collect sales taxes unless Congress changes the law.
So, was your argument a strawman?
Thought so.
Only tax revenues are going up. The tax isn't going up, its collection is just being enforced.
Are you serious? Please, tell me, HOW are revenues going to go up if no one is paying them? If I pay a tax tomorrow that I'm not paying today, is that not a tax increase?
Please, enough of the BS. Stop trying to spin this as a NON-tax increase. Numbers don't lie. When the amount I pay in taxes increases, I am paying higher taxes. You can't get out of third grade math without knowing that.
President Obama does not control state sales tax.
President Obama's plan does not introduce legislation to allow collecting state sales tax on internet purchases.
So within the realm of what President Obama can control and what he has proposed, he has completely fulfilled his pledge.
If this were a bill being passed by the Congress in the state of Michigan, you'd be correct. Unfortunately, this is a bill proposed by the United States Congress. The President has veto power over that bill. This is within his control.