Is there a time where taxes rates in the US were decreased, for more than a limited period (and yes I am talking about this stupid economic stimulus check from Uncle Sam and other short term fixes), and collections didn't rise? We did it in the 20s, 60s and 80s and revenues increased. There is a short term increase before rising taxes, but that is a one time thing.
If wiki can be believed, your history of the ATM is miss dated. It originated in 70 (to hit 155 households) and was expanded in 86, after the beginning of the 80s boom.
I disagree with your "Apples and Oranges" reference. With one group, he is conditional, with the other, near identical group, he isn't. The problem is the same. Iran's problem includes a nuclear glow, but they also directly support terrorist in Iraq. We may not like being there, but we certainly do not want our troops killed by Iranian munitions.
The raising of taxes even if it doesn't increase revenue, I believe, was said in the last debate and it concerned either capital gains tax or the top tax rate. He was asked the question directly and he said he would raise tax rates, even when it was shown that it would decrease revenue, because it was fair.
A lot of people were wrong about ethanol, but he still is. I agree his platform is broader than corn, but your argument is that he is nuanced and I believe here his platform is anything but. He is for every alternative to oil, if it works or not, he is going to throw government money (our money) at it. If the market is allowed to make these decisions, we should find a better alternative faster than if government chooses who wins and who loses.
Obviously we disagree but you have been a civil defender of your beliefs and I appreciate it.
Here is where we differ: I do not think of Obama's positioned as nuanced.
On terrorism, he says he would not sit down and talk to the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority until they renounce terrorism and recognize previous agreements. But, he would sit down with Iran and Syria who will not renounce terrorism and openly call for the destruction of Israel. Iran directly funds Hamas for Pete's sake!
On taxation, he says he would raise rates on certain groups because he thinks it is fair, even if it reduces tax revenue. That isn't nuanced, that is stupid.
On the energy policy, he has supported ethanol in the past and for the future (which has increased the cost of food, caused an increase in farm land [to the reduction of forest lands], and has not and will not materially alter the price at the pump), while he plans to increase taxes on the US corporations that produce oil with the windfall profit tax (WPT). Carter put in place a WPT and it decreased domestic oil production and increased our dependence on foreign oil.
Obama is a gifted speaker, but he isn't saying anything worthwile.
His first condemnation of the war was from Senate of his state government, where it didn't matter. He flip flopped on the war during his run for Senate because the war was popular at the time. Now his finger is in the wind and he is picking his position.
Do the Iranian Mullahs make you feel better? I know their President is more figure-head than executive, but the fact that the Mullahs do not rebuke him speaks volumes to their intent.
Pathetic. A world without U.S. would have meant what for Europe in 1941?
A land where people can choose what they do with their life is bound to have a percentage who choose to screw up. If that is the price for freedom, so be it.
A world without the U.S. is a world under Sharia law. A world without liquor, homosexuality, and SI swimsuit issues. Sounds like hell.
Universities are perhaps the most diverse marketplace of ideas on the planet. As a current Masters student in History, I deny this idea based on my own experience. It is not something pushed down by the professors, although every professor I have had so far is left of mainstream politically. It is the students who lack any real diversity of thought. Our classroom has racial and diversity, but even if you combined moderate and conservative opinions they would still be in the minority.
If you actually watch the movie or listen to Stein talk about the movie, of course the majority of this group won't, Stein is pointing out that there is no tolerance for dissenting opinions in universities.
Stein does not reject Darwinism for the evolution of individual species. He rejects that it is the answer for why life exists and why the universe works that way that it does.
Insourcing off sets many of the jobs lost by outsourcing, they just don't fill the spot you are expecting. The state of Alabama is filling up with car manufactures like Hyundai, Honda, and Mercedes. The new Airbus tanker is partially made in Mobile.
Obama offers real hope of what? Talking about hope is empty rhetoric. Compare his actions to any other candidate. Compare his detailed statements of policy to the other candidates. He isn't different, unless you mean the most liberal in the Senate, and "hoping" he is doesn't change anything.
And Change to what? He is just another politician and that is the lesson learned from his response concerning pastor Wright. Obama pandered and he threw his grandmother under the bus to do it.
Let's give McCain credit, he isn't afraid to buck his party to stick with what he believes in.
The problem with a Bill of Rights is that you automatically suggest that those rights that are listed are the most important. As an example: Government passes a law that stops you from speaking in public and a law that restricts you from leaving your house. One is covered under the bill of rights and the other is not listed. Is one less important than the other?
nope.
Ps-I believe this was Madison's point over 200 years ago.
The real problem with IT in the corporate world is leadership. They don't think you have any for non-geek people. Here is the problem: Most people in an office will never really know you. They will know you by your work and what they see.
IT, by its nature, is too complicated for most people to understand and you dress funny.
It is a pity really. I have known IT people, who were natural leaders, but they go unrecognized because they didn't know how to get it.
Sorry the late post...
Get Dress for Success by Molloy and avoid everything plaid.
Why would a corporation, run by someone who believes the government should tax more, pursue any type of Tax avoidance? If government should tax people more, shouldn't that belief start at home?
You are second person that has pointed out my error. I should not have said "paraphrase", I should have phrased it differently. I highlighted the words that I changed. I did not intend to mislead. Too much of a hurry makes error.
Pure capitalism doesn't lead to one mega corporation. Corporations make mistakes and the larger the corporation the less nimble it is in the market. What capitalism does is allocate resources form maximum benefit. Not perfect. Not for everybody.
Yes, the US government has rules in place for minimum wage and anti-monopolies. But, and this wasn't widely reported, the last minimum wage increase effected mostly high-school students because even McDonald's pays more than the minimum wage.
I am not for a purely capitalistic society. But I believe a society that is capitalistic first with a little socialism is better than a society that is socialists with a little capitalism.
My point about Bill Gates was that he is not for a new system because he has studied economics or politics, it is because he feels bad about being one of the most economically successful people in history.
This is guilt and arrogance. "I have so much, I am so smart, let me device a plan to improve capitalism."
Note to Bill, its been tried at least twice in the past 100 years and they were called communism and socialism. The only change for the poor in those systems is there is more of them.
To paraphrase Churchill: "It has been said that capitalism is the worst form of economy except all the others that have been tried."
By limiting the number, representation of each citizen drops with every increase in population. When our population hits 435 million, the people's House will have one representative for every million citizens.
Regardless of the number of people, the only thing that will be agreed to by the group will be what the majority of those people vote for. By increasing the number, we limit the power of individuals in the House and force compromise. Reason and civility have an opening where partisanship dominates. Maybe more people might mean less meaningless regulation and budgets with less pork. Can you see 3001 people agreeing to the bridge to nowhere?
We should have passed the original first amendment before the joint committee screwed it up. It would have contained a minimum number of representatives per X (I want to say 50,000) number of citizens. Then we would not have an apportionment problem.
Political power is still power. It is safer to divide it among many than to concentrate it among the few.
When the cars are made light enough so the companies can average 35/mpg they will be less safe.
New Government Standards for safety will come in to make the cars safer or the date 2020 will get pushed out to practically to infinity because gas will not be the dominate fuel in 20 years.
As another plus, the penalty for autos with MPG less than 35 will be a tax the buyer gets to pay when he buys the vehicle. More money for government.
If you want a car that gets 35/mpg you can buy it now. If enough people want it somebody will make it. You don't need government for everything.
Why would you need a NAS for a backup solution for 120GB drive? Why not a simple USB or eSata with some imaging software? NAS, for you size drive, sounds like a lot of tech for a little problem.
Citizens have rights and responsibilities that non citizens do not. Otherwise, anyone who crosses the border in Canada has the same rights as someone who was born in and lived their entire life in New York. The most important of which is non-citizens can be deported.
9/11 murdering hijackers, not citizens. If I remember correctly, most were here on expired Visas.
Slashdot Mirror
If wiki can be believed, your history of the ATM is miss dated. It originated in 70 (to hit 155 households) and was expanded in 86, after the beginning of the 80s boom.
The raising of taxes even if it doesn't increase revenue, I believe, was said in the last debate and it concerned either capital gains tax or the top tax rate. He was asked the question directly and he said he would raise tax rates, even when it was shown that it would decrease revenue, because it was fair.
A lot of people were wrong about ethanol, but he still is. I agree his platform is broader than corn, but your argument is that he is nuanced and I believe here his platform is anything but. He is for every alternative to oil, if it works or not, he is going to throw government money (our money) at it. If the market is allowed to make these decisions, we should find a better alternative faster than if government chooses who wins and who loses.
Obviously we disagree but you have been a civil defender of your beliefs and I appreciate it.
On terrorism, he says he would not sit down and talk to the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority until they renounce terrorism and recognize previous agreements. But, he would sit down with Iran and Syria who will not renounce terrorism and openly call for the destruction of Israel. Iran directly funds Hamas for Pete's sake!
On taxation, he says he would raise rates on certain groups because he thinks it is fair, even if it reduces tax revenue. That isn't nuanced, that is stupid.
On the energy policy, he has supported ethanol in the past and for the future (which has increased the cost of food, caused an increase in farm land [to the reduction of forest lands], and has not and will not materially alter the price at the pump), while he plans to increase taxes on the US corporations that produce oil with the windfall profit tax (WPT). Carter put in place a WPT and it decreased domestic oil production and increased our dependence on foreign oil.
Obama is a gifted speaker, but he isn't saying anything worthwile.
His first condemnation of the war was from Senate of his state government, where it didn't matter. He flip flopped on the war during his run for Senate because the war was popular at the time. Now his finger is in the wind and he is picking his position.
1. It has been proven over and over again that reduced tax rates equal greater tax revenue. Less shackles equals more work.
2. Most of what McCain wants to do is keep the current tax rates the same.
3. Think progress is not an independent website.
Do the Iranian Mullahs make you feel better? I know their President is more figure-head than executive, but the fact that the Mullahs do not rebuke him speaks volumes to their intent.
Churchill didn't predict victory when Germany turned on their Ally the Soviets.
You should know that Iran's whack-job President thinks he will see the apocalypse and Iran will be a part of it. Feel safer now?
A land where people can choose what they do with their life is bound to have a percentage who choose to screw up. If that is the price for freedom, so be it.
A world without the U.S. is a world under Sharia law. A world without liquor, homosexuality, and SI swimsuit issues. Sounds like hell.
Stein does not reject Darwinism for the evolution of individual species. He rejects that it is the answer for why life exists and why the universe works that way that it does.
Everybody complains, not many listen.
And Change to what? He is just another politician and that is the lesson learned from his response concerning pastor Wright. Obama pandered and he threw his grandmother under the bus to do it.
Let's give McCain credit, he isn't afraid to buck his party to stick with what he believes in.
nope.
Ps-I believe this was Madison's point over 200 years ago.
IT, by its nature, is too complicated for most people to understand and you dress funny.
It is a pity really. I have known IT people, who were natural leaders, but they go unrecognized because they didn't know how to get it.
Sorry the late post...
Get Dress for Success by Molloy and avoid everything plaid.
Join Toastmasters.
Break the geek wall.
I wonder if Bill Gates itemizes his deductions?
I apologize if this is redundant, but but but...
You are second person that has pointed out my error. I should not have said "paraphrase", I should have phrased it differently. I highlighted the words that I changed. I did not intend to mislead. Too much of a hurry makes error.
Yes, the US government has rules in place for minimum wage and anti-monopolies. But, and this wasn't widely reported, the last minimum wage increase effected mostly high-school students because even McDonald's pays more than the minimum wage.
I am not for a purely capitalistic society. But I believe a society that is capitalistic first with a little socialism is better than a society that is socialists with a little capitalism.
My point about Bill Gates was that he is not for a new system because he has studied economics or politics, it is because he feels bad about being one of the most economically successful people in history.
Too much hurry, makes too much error.
Note to Bill, its been tried at least twice in the past 100 years and they were called communism and socialism. The only change for the poor in those systems is there is more of them.
To paraphrase Churchill: "It has been said that capitalism is the worst form of economy except all the others that have been tried."
By limiting the number, representation of each citizen drops with every increase in population. When our population hits 435 million, the people's House will have one representative for every million citizens.
Regardless of the number of people, the only thing that will be agreed to by the group will be what the majority of those people vote for. By increasing the number, we limit the power of individuals in the House and force compromise. Reason and civility have an opening where partisanship dominates. Maybe more people might mean less meaningless regulation and budgets with less pork. Can you see 3001 people agreeing to the bridge to nowhere?
Political power is still power. It is safer to divide it among many than to concentrate it among the few.
New Government Standards for safety will come in to make the cars safer or the date 2020 will get pushed out to practically to infinity because gas will not be the dominate fuel in 20 years.
As another plus, the penalty for autos with MPG less than 35 will be a tax the buyer gets to pay when he buys the vehicle. More money for government.
If you want a car that gets 35/mpg you can buy it now. If enough people want it somebody will make it. You don't need government for everything.
Why would you need a NAS for a backup solution for 120GB drive? Why not a simple USB or eSata with some imaging software? NAS, for you size drive, sounds like a lot of tech for a little problem.
9/11 murdering hijackers, not citizens. If I remember correctly, most were here on expired Visas.