Like the parent said. Remember in the old days, you'd have instructions like "Insert disk, click start->run, type "D:\setup.exe", press enter". Anyone who had more than one cd-rom drive or hd would have to work out for themselves what drive letter they should type -- that's assuming they even knew what a drive letter was!
The removal of oil from the pan was my analogy to having a governmental "cushion" of employees and services. Take away the "cushion" and you're going to rapidly lose oil pressure and subsequently your engine as soon as you come across a curve or bump. It seems like we actually need a certain amount of waste as "backup"
As for your engine rings, note that engine rings run along hardened cylinder walls (iron sleeves?). If you were comparing rich vs. poor to piston rings vs cylinder walls, your cylinder walls would be made of putty, and no amount of oil would let your engine last one revolution:D
I'll pay whatever the IRS says I should pay. Same as everyone else should do. Somebody has to pay for the services that help all of us. I live a moderate lifestyle, drive a 15 year old car with no air conditioning, live in a dangerous as hell neighborhood where some 23 shots were fired just outside my house just last saturday night, and I bet you use several times more subsidized services than I do. Hell, other than public streets, and police to occasionally quiet the damn hoodlums with their bass, I can't think of a single thing the government directly provides me. So-- what's your economic situation that you don't want to help your fellow man, pay off our national debt, or support public services?
Come to think of it, maybe you're right. You should drain all that excess oil that sits in your oil pan like lazy govt employees and only keep what your engine currently needs in it's oil passages and filter. 2 quarts total should do it. (or 1/4 quart if a motorcycle)
Way to not understand. That tax model is quite correct and you are just misrepresenting it to try and prove a point.
I suppose you think we can pull our way out of this economic slump and bailouts of giant corporations with puppies and wishes? As per http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/, we currently owe $43,261.80 per citizen! Maybe you can afford to write a check for this, but not most of us lower and middle class. If the corporate-welfare republicans (not all republicans are this type) didn't bankrupt our country, this wouldn't be a problem. I realize that Obama isn't exactly reducing our debt either, but at this point I don't think he has much choice. History has not shown the republicans to be any better. Check out this link http://zfacts.com/p/318.html and see how much good Bush/Reagan's tax policies have done to paying our debts.
Ha. True enough on the internet purchases tax. I will say that I've actually received a check in the mail from the IRS because I somehow paid them too much. I've also never had the income or assets to use anything but the base income tax deduction -- that's even after purchasing a house. Apparently getting a tax deduction from your mortgage interest only helps those who can afford far nicer houses than I.
That's an interesting response, and I'm curious what your alternative is. Also, at what tax rate will the 'fat cat' stop scamming the govt out of taxes owed? Is there such a limit, or will he cheat to the full extent possible regardless?
I agree with most of your points, except for a flat tax system. A couple years ago, I made an excel spreadsheet using actual census records of incomes to demonstrate how increasing taxes on the top 1% by 10% allow the bottom 50% to pay drastically lower taxes. (I wish I still had that spreadsheet) A flat tax system however would at least double what the lower 50% pay right now. Do you really want to double your taxes so to help someone else buy their third house?
If you ever bother to check, The Dems aren't proposing increasing taxes on the rich and lowering taxes on the poor, they're suggesting raising taxes on the rich and raising different taxes on the poor.
The raising/lowering taxes on the rich/poor is accurate if the total taxes required are equal. Unfortunately, we have a national debt that needs to be paid down and raising taxes are unavoidable. In that situation, raising taxes for everyone but the most destitute is unavoidable, but should be raised on a curve so as to minimize the pain as much as possible based on your ability to pay. I was just simplifying the concept.
It's not personal benefit, it's for the benefit of society. I have no problem at all with paying higher taxes to make this a better place.
For example: I personally pay only $20/mo for pretty good health insurance (no idea what my employer pays as the remainder), but I've used it only once in the 9 years I've been working here and even that was for less then $500. All of the money I'm saving my insurance company is pure profit for them-- I'd rather it went into the government as per a socialized health care system, or at least was regulated to a reasonable profit cap and the rest going to cover others.
I think one issue that both parties can agree on is that we need to reduce waste. Wouldn't regulating profit on necessary services help achieve this goal?
I can't tell you how many records I've played that had beautiful covers, but were nothing but audio as soon as I tried to play them. I demand my money back!!
All you have to do is read the comment section in the Washington Post on any article with Obama's name to find dozens of comments that no unpaid partisan would bother posting. It saddens me how much the republican party is buying popular opinion and I'm not sure that they're all that unsuccessful at it. The problem is that the democratic party is mostly fighting fair, (way less propaganda postings and emails) and as such is being destroyed/overwhelmed by the current republican agenda.
Where I work, our main receptionist is a 60yo republican. She doesn't make that much, and her husband has been a truck driver for years, so they can't make all that much money. Her car is at least 10 years old. For some crazy reason, she has "Joe the Plumber"-itus and seems to think she'd be better off with republican policies. Somehow the republicans have managed to convince people that increasing taxes on the rich (over $250,000/yr) and lowering everyone else's taxes is the wrong thing to do. I just don't understand it.
I almost wish the republicans were in office and put social security into the stock market. The resulting fallout might have been enough to wake people up. Also, it just irks me to death that high-dollar traders can make millions just by having a faster connection to the stock-market. That's basically stealing money from all the little folk who are also investing in the stock market -- money doesn't come from nowhere!
Plus speed bumps have the added bonus of wrecking and perhaps killing all those pesky motorcyclists! (I was kind of assuming from the description that he wasn't talking about a sub 20 mph area.)
Well, I doubt my old 720p 52" Plasma weighs 100 lbs, but it would still be tough for someone to walk off with. Though granted, even a team of hardcore thieves wouldn't bother with a 42" crt.
Crap. I forgot about Easter Island. I watched a documentary that seemed to indicate that they cut down their trees for the main purpose of transporting their massive statues in an attempt to one-up each others' tribes. I can only hope that we lose much of our transportation technology before we can destroy everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, maybe they should just make a few mine-sweeper heavy vehicles. They're bound to be much cheaper and have the bonus of removing/defusing bombs.
Ok, you type out your GUI steps to install a cd without autorun that work on w95-xp that hopefully all users can follow.
Like the parent said. Remember in the old days, you'd have instructions like "Insert disk, click start->run, type "D:\setup.exe", press enter". Anyone who had more than one cd-rom drive or hd would have to work out for themselves what drive letter they should type -- that's assuming they even knew what a drive letter was!
The removal of oil from the pan was my analogy to having a governmental "cushion" of employees and services. Take away the "cushion" and you're going to rapidly lose oil pressure and subsequently your engine as soon as you come across a curve or bump. It seems like we actually need a certain amount of waste as "backup"
:D
As for your engine rings, note that engine rings run along hardened cylinder walls (iron sleeves?). If you were comparing rich vs. poor to piston rings vs cylinder walls, your cylinder walls would be made of putty, and no amount of oil would let your engine last one revolution
One of the problems with stashing $150,000 in cash is that you lose some $4,500/yr (or more) due to inflation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg
I'd trade the crazy orgy scene for ultra-violence any day of the week. :)
I don't know if I'm counter-counter culture or what, but I loved both Avatar and Eyes-wide-shut. Certainly way better movies than A Clockwork Orange.
I'll pay whatever the IRS says I should pay. Same as everyone else should do. Somebody has to pay for the services that help all of us. I live a moderate lifestyle, drive a 15 year old car with no air conditioning, live in a dangerous as hell neighborhood where some 23 shots were fired just outside my house just last saturday night, and I bet you use several times more subsidized services than I do. Hell, other than public streets, and police to occasionally quiet the damn hoodlums with their bass, I can't think of a single thing the government directly provides me. So-- what's your economic situation that you don't want to help your fellow man, pay off our national debt, or support public services?
Come to think of it, maybe you're right. You should drain all that excess oil that sits in your oil pan like lazy govt employees and only keep what your engine currently needs in it's oil passages and filter. 2 quarts total should do it. (or 1/4 quart if a motorcycle)
Except engines don't have parts actively sabotaging each other for personal gain.
Way to not understand. That tax model is quite correct and you are just misrepresenting it to try and prove a point.
I suppose you think we can pull our way out of this economic slump and bailouts of giant corporations with puppies and wishes? As per http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/, we currently owe $43,261.80 per citizen! Maybe you can afford to write a check for this, but not most of us lower and middle class. If the corporate-welfare republicans (not all republicans are this type) didn't bankrupt our country, this wouldn't be a problem. I realize that Obama isn't exactly reducing our debt either, but at this point I don't think he has much choice. History has not shown the republicans to be any better. Check out this link http://zfacts.com/p/318.html and see how much good Bush/Reagan's tax policies have done to paying our debts.
Ha. True enough on the internet purchases tax. I will say that I've actually received a check in the mail from the IRS because I somehow paid them too much. I've also never had the income or assets to use anything but the base income tax deduction -- that's even after purchasing a house. Apparently getting a tax deduction from your mortgage interest only helps those who can afford far nicer houses than I.
That's an interesting response, and I'm curious what your alternative is. Also, at what tax rate will the 'fat cat' stop scamming the govt out of taxes owed? Is there such a limit, or will he cheat to the full extent possible regardless?
I agree with most of your points, except for a flat tax system. A couple years ago, I made an excel spreadsheet using actual census records of incomes to demonstrate how increasing taxes on the top 1% by 10% allow the bottom 50% to pay drastically lower taxes. (I wish I still had that spreadsheet) A flat tax system however would at least double what the lower 50% pay right now. Do you really want to double your taxes so to help someone else buy their third house?
If you ever bother to check, The Dems aren't proposing increasing taxes on the rich and lowering taxes on the poor, they're suggesting raising taxes on the rich and raising different taxes on the poor.
The raising/lowering taxes on the rich/poor is accurate if the total taxes required are equal. Unfortunately, we have a national debt that needs to be paid down and raising taxes are unavoidable. In that situation, raising taxes for everyone but the most destitute is unavoidable, but should be raised on a curve so as to minimize the pain as much as possible based on your ability to pay. I was just simplifying the concept.
It's not personal benefit, it's for the benefit of society. I have no problem at all with paying higher taxes to make this a better place.
For example: I personally pay only $20/mo for pretty good health insurance (no idea what my employer pays as the remainder), but I've used it only once in the 9 years I've been working here and even that was for less then $500. All of the money I'm saving my insurance company is pure profit for them-- I'd rather it went into the government as per a socialized health care system, or at least was regulated to a reasonable profit cap and the rest going to cover others.
I think one issue that both parties can agree on is that we need to reduce waste. Wouldn't regulating profit on necessary services help achieve this goal?
I can't tell you how many records I've played that had beautiful covers, but were nothing but audio as soon as I tried to play them. I demand my money back!!
All you have to do is read the comment section in the Washington Post on any article with Obama's name to find dozens of comments that no unpaid partisan would bother posting. It saddens me how much the republican party is buying popular opinion and I'm not sure that they're all that unsuccessful at it. The problem is that the democratic party is mostly fighting fair, (way less propaganda postings and emails) and as such is being destroyed/overwhelmed by the current republican agenda.
Where I work, our main receptionist is a 60yo republican. She doesn't make that much, and her husband has been a truck driver for years, so they can't make all that much money. Her car is at least 10 years old. For some crazy reason, she has "Joe the Plumber"-itus and seems to think she'd be better off with republican policies. Somehow the republicans have managed to convince people that increasing taxes on the rich (over $250,000/yr) and lowering everyone else's taxes is the wrong thing to do. I just don't understand it.
I almost wish the republicans were in office and put social security into the stock market. The resulting fallout might have been enough to wake people up. Also, it just irks me to death that high-dollar traders can make millions just by having a faster connection to the stock-market. That's basically stealing money from all the little folk who are also investing in the stock market -- money doesn't come from nowhere!
Conspiracy theorist! Pay no attention to him!
He thinks George Bush is responsible for 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina too!
;
Plus speed bumps have the added bonus of wrecking and perhaps killing all those pesky motorcyclists! (I was kind of assuming from the description that he wasn't talking about a sub 20 mph area.)
If I recall correctly, I was getting at least 350,000bps on ATT's 3G, fast enough for everything I need other than high-res youtube.
Well, I doubt my old 720p 52" Plasma weighs 100 lbs, but it would still be tough for someone to walk off with. Though granted, even a team of hardcore thieves wouldn't bother with a 42" crt.
Wow. Are you speaking from experience, or just making assumptions?
Crap. I forgot about Easter Island. I watched a documentary that seemed to indicate that they cut down their trees for the main purpose of transporting their massive statues in an attempt to one-up each others' tribes. I can only hope that we lose much of our transportation technology before we can destroy everything.