At the ned of tha day, when the interest on your debt forms such a great portion of your overall budget that it squeezes out vital programs, you will have no choice but to raise the tax. There is a level of service that people will not accept being cut-off. The bill comes due.
All we have to do is stop paying out 250 billion dollars a year overseas to fund that "bullshit that we do to other countries" and we'd have a pretty good chunk of yearly payments taken care of right there. Last poll I saw, the American people don't support messing around with other countries, it is our government which does that all on its own, even after we've voted for them on their promise not to. There is a lot more going on here than that too, like the fact that many of our government agencies are utter wastes of taxpayer money. Take the FTC for example: Do they regulate trade? No. Did they do anything to even bother talking to the oil companies when they were raping us at the pump? No. Those are costly services we can do without. Add them up and we can pay off this stupid debt pretty quick AND make people happier at the same time.
So you're right that we can't afford this debt in the long-run, but I disagree that raising taxes is the *only* solution. Cutting idiotic government spending is equally possible, although it is politically impossible to imagine that happening with this current batch of scum (right and left). We desperately need political change here in the US, not more taxes.
Which is exactly my point: that's why the ultimate tax bill will get only bigger before you are left with no other choice but than to pay it. But make no mistake, Western European pixie-dust or no, the bill comes due. Whether you like it - or not. The bill doesn't care much about why you incurred it. It only wants to be paid.
And that "some day maybe far off in the future" day of bill paying? It's on the horizon and it is a lot nearer than you think.
We're still paying off debt we incurred during WWII. I doubt this new debt is anything less than net 60 years either. That's one of the unfortunate side-effects of this spending -- it's going to affect not only my children, but probably my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and maybe even great-great-grandchildren. Our politicians rely on building the tax base by future population growth, not paying off bills due in any particular rush, as you seem to be suggesting.
You simply will not have a *choice* but to increase taxes in the USA to at least Canadian and possibly Western European levels if you don't deal with it soon enough. (My bet - you won't deal with it soon enough. Americans are nutty when it comes to taxes.) You'll put it off and put it off and then put it off somemore until there is no wiggle room left at all. And then you will point fingers at your politicians - instead of you the voters - which is *precisely* where the blame will lie.
No, it really is the politicians' fault. They flat-out lied to us (over and over). Bush literally told us that it would be wrong for any country to invade another country without just cause, a clear goal, yada yada... The Republican party said they wanted to lower taxes and make government smaller and do less spending. All they did was largely lower taxes on the rich (because they thought that would make things better, which it clearly did not) and then did the exact opposite of what they said they'd do with everything else, which in my view qualifies as pure lies. That doesn't exactly put the blame on the voters in my opinion. So yes, fingers are being pointed at the politicians because they are nearly all liars, crooks and criminals of the highest order.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but our tax system here in the US is unjust, and insanely complex. We don't mind paying taxes because we all know the roads need to be paid for by someone, but our government taxes us for roads, and then later changes their mind and spends it on wars and making new government agencies to bully its citizens with, which is not what we voted for in the first place. Then they confiscate our wealth with deficit spending, which is even worse than taxes. Now our income is worth less because the cost of goods is more. Then they need more money (because they made it less valuable, remember) and tax us from any new angle they can find, which even further increases the damage they did by printing more money in the first place. It's a vicious, and stupid cycle which has absolutely nothing to do with our "nuttiness" about paying taxes.
Some of us, who favor gun control, do not have any problem whatsoever with this decision. It seems like a perfectly reasonable view of the constitution as written. Trying to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
What I question is the constitution itself: Is the right to bear arms really a key element to protest against excessive government control?
I appreciate your intent to be honest about the fact that the Constitution says what it says, but... The right to bear arms isn't about "protesting" anything; it is about protecting against government tyranny over a disarmed citizenry. This is about maintaining a balance of *power* between the government and the people, not a balance of *authority* as so many gun-control advocates seem to think.
India didn't gain their independence through guns. Today, we don't need them.
I am skeptical that India's social situation is comparable to ours to the extent that, "Since they don't need guns, neither do we!"
On the other hand, the right of privacy, not clearly stated in the American constitution, is necessary, and should be added. There was no need for it in the 1800s, if just because it was impossible to violate with their technology. It was pretty easy to keep the content of your conversations private: don't talk near a government official. Today, you can be snooped on alone in your home, over a phone, or on the internet. Technology has created a new issue, that deserves a constitutional amendment. Some European countries with constitutions that came after the telephone do cover the right of privacy explicitly. To become a freer country, America must follow their lead.
THIS is the real reason why I replied to you. I could not possibly agree more with your last paragraph. The right to individual privacy in the US has taken a back seat in nearly every major political discussion which has taken place since 9/11 and even before then. Until we can, as a society, value privacy more than the theatrical security ruse our government has been propagandizing, we will never be free -- guns or no guns.
Slashdot Mirror
At the ned of tha day, when the interest on your debt forms such a great portion of your overall budget that it squeezes out vital programs, you will have no choice but to raise the tax. There is a level of service that people will not accept being cut-off. The bill comes due.
All we have to do is stop paying out 250 billion dollars a year overseas to fund that "bullshit that we do to other countries" and we'd have a pretty good chunk of yearly payments taken care of right there. Last poll I saw, the American people don't support messing around with other countries, it is our government which does that all on its own, even after we've voted for them on their promise not to. There is a lot more going on here than that too, like the fact that many of our government agencies are utter wastes of taxpayer money. Take the FTC for example: Do they regulate trade? No. Did they do anything to even bother talking to the oil companies when they were raping us at the pump? No. Those are costly services we can do without. Add them up and we can pay off this stupid debt pretty quick AND make people happier at the same time.
So you're right that we can't afford this debt in the long-run, but I disagree that raising taxes is the *only* solution. Cutting idiotic government spending is equally possible, although it is politically impossible to imagine that happening with this current batch of scum (right and left). We desperately need political change here in the US, not more taxes.
Which is exactly my point: that's why the ultimate tax bill will get only bigger before you are left with no other choice but than to pay it. But make no mistake, Western European pixie-dust or no, the bill comes due. Whether you like it - or not. The bill doesn't care much about why you incurred it. It only wants to be paid.
And that "some day maybe far off in the future" day of bill paying? It's on the horizon and it is a lot nearer than you think.
We're still paying off debt we incurred during WWII. I doubt this new debt is anything less than net 60 years either. That's one of the unfortunate side-effects of this spending -- it's going to affect not only my children, but probably my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and maybe even great-great-grandchildren. Our politicians rely on building the tax base by future population growth, not paying off bills due in any particular rush, as you seem to be suggesting.
You simply will not have a *choice* but to increase taxes in the USA to at least Canadian and possibly Western European levels if you don't deal with it soon enough. (My bet - you won't deal with it soon enough. Americans are nutty when it comes to taxes.) You'll put it off and put it off and then put it off somemore until there is no wiggle room left at all. And then you will point fingers at your politicians - instead of you the voters - which is *precisely* where the blame will lie.
No, it really is the politicians' fault. They flat-out lied to us (over and over). Bush literally told us that it would be wrong for any country to invade another country without just cause, a clear goal, yada yada... The Republican party said they wanted to lower taxes and make government smaller and do less spending. All they did was largely lower taxes on the rich (because they thought that would make things better, which it clearly did not) and then did the exact opposite of what they said they'd do with everything else, which in my view qualifies as pure lies. That doesn't exactly put the blame on the voters in my opinion. So yes, fingers are being pointed at the politicians because they are nearly all liars, crooks and criminals of the highest order.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but our tax system here in the US is unjust, and insanely complex. We don't mind paying taxes because we all know the roads need to be paid for by someone, but our government taxes us for roads, and then later changes their mind and spends it on wars and making new government agencies to bully its citizens with, which is not what we voted for in the first place. Then they confiscate our wealth with deficit spending, which is even worse than taxes. Now our income is worth less because the cost of goods is more. Then they need more money (because they made it less valuable, remember) and tax us from any new angle they can find, which even further increases the damage they did by printing more money in the first place. It's a vicious, and stupid cycle which has absolutely nothing to do with our "nuttiness" about paying taxes.
Some of us, who favor gun control, do not have any problem whatsoever with this decision. It seems like a perfectly reasonable view of the constitution as written. Trying to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
What I question is the constitution itself: Is the right to bear arms really a key element to protest against excessive government control?
I appreciate your intent to be honest about the fact that the Constitution says what it says, but... The right to bear arms isn't about "protesting" anything; it is about protecting against government tyranny over a disarmed citizenry. This is about maintaining a balance of *power* between the government and the people, not a balance of *authority* as so many gun-control advocates seem to think.
India didn't gain their independence through guns. Today, we don't need them.
I am skeptical that India's social situation is comparable to ours to the extent that, "Since they don't need guns, neither do we!"
On the other hand, the right of privacy, not clearly stated in the American constitution, is necessary, and should be added. There was no need for it in the 1800s, if just because it was impossible to violate with their technology. It was pretty easy to keep the content of your conversations private: don't talk near a government official. Today, you can be snooped on alone in your home, over a phone, or on the internet. Technology has created a new issue, that deserves a constitutional amendment. Some European countries with constitutions that came after the telephone do cover the right of privacy explicitly. To become a freer country, America must follow their lead.
THIS is the real reason why I replied to you. I could not possibly agree more with your last paragraph. The right to individual privacy in the US has taken a back seat in nearly every major political discussion which has taken place since 9/11 and even before then. Until we can, as a society, value privacy more than the theatrical security ruse our government has been propagandizing, we will never be free -- guns or no guns.
>What needs to happen is someone needs to sue the Patent Office for negligence. Better yet, someone needs to patent the Patent Office.
You are absolutely correct. I was mis-informed by a collegue. I figured that was correct since they were founded on April 1st 1976.
April 1st is the beginning of Apple's fiscal year, so that wouldn't be a surprising release date.