Was it you that I already dressed down on those misleading stats last week, or someone else?
The wealthy are paying less as a proportion of their income than they were 40 year ago. This is unambiguously true.
Bitch all you want about how the top 5% pays 59% of the income taxes -- they own about the same amount of the wealth in the country, and they earn far more than they did in the past, so it's all good. They are still getting richer -- their share of wealth is increasing, despite the progressive tax rate you bitch about.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that these people would otherwise be unemployed if those "evil rich" hadn't decided to give them a job?
Because that's false. If those evil rich people weren't exploiting an opportunity for profit by employing that person (or someone else), someone else would be. And the GP's point stands. Employers don't have to be evil. They choose to be, in the name of marginal personal gain.
But whatever -- I know that the school of economic thought you follow holds personal gain as the best of good endeavors.
Suffice it to say that I, and many others, believe this to be not only evil, but short-sighted as well.
Think about how much you like getting a paycheck the next time you want to vilify businesses.
Think about how much you like getting a paycheck the next time you DON'T get one because of the owners of businesses decided that earning more cash for themselves (that makes no difference to their personal lifestyle) is the most important thing in the world.
Or, you know, join the fucking workforce. It's pretty easy to believe as you do when you're some kid in academia who's not had to support a family on his labor, skills, and knowledge.
I have a bachelors in Economics and am in grad school for Economics - and I can tell you that very, VERY few people in the Economics departments at universities support Obama due to his utterly idiotic policies when it comes to the economy.
That's incomplete unless we know where you're getting your PhD (and where you got your BS).
You'll get a completely different viewpoint on things if you were to survey professors at U of Chicago, than if you were to survey professors at, say, MIT.
Although most likely you're right, few professors would support Obama's economic policies because he's all over the place with them. Keynesians are pissed because his piss-poor attempt at stimulus was far too small and we're wasting trillions of public spending on war, while Chicago economists feel that the stimulus was a stupid idea in the first place, as they feel about his plan to disincentivize offshoring.
Obama has businesses terrified of hiring because of all his plans for raising taxes (on top of the taxes he's already raised)
That sounds suspiciously like FUD. First, please provide an example of how Obama has raised corporate income taxes. Then, please explain why companies are terrified of his projected tax increases, which are mostly a reshuffling of the tax code to disincentivize certain activities and incentivize others. You mean the companies that currently take advantage of the tax code to pull a double-Irish and pay no corporate income tax? Seems to me like they are cheating the system, and it's not right theat they enjoy a competitive advantage.
I personally believe that if a company needs to use a development style with a name, it generally means that they do not understand their own situation well enough to create their own workflow and certainly not enough to finish a project properly.
Why should every organization delevop their own project management system? Surely there are gains to be made from using a standardized system, particularly in getting new hires up to speed, etc.
In my experience, a large company that does not have a clearly defined process *that they actually use* for project management is likely to be extremely f*d up. I don't think it matters if it's a named workflow or not.
I think what you're referring to is the use of buzzwords in project management -- when bad management says "agile", they sometimes mean "instantly adaptable and conforming to demands no matter how ridiculous those demands are".
Do you really think Gore would have invaded Iraq just because his poll numbers dipped for a few months before a midterm election?
Aw, come on... that's not the only reason GWB pushed us into Iraq. The neocons who directed GWB's policies also wanted to make sure their friends in the military-industrial and energy industries got rich.
My congresscritter felt so secure of his seat that he voted for the Obamacare health package despite the fact that something like 80% of his constituency are/were opposed to it,
Of those 80%, how many had read the bill, or even understood the main clauses?
How many, as many polls have shown, don't like the bill, but are in favor of almost every provision in the bill?
IMO, who the fuck cares if 80% of ignorant (on the issue) constituents don't like the bill... far better for me to vote what *I* believe is best, since that's what I was elected to do. THAT is the kind of balls a real public servant should have.
Also, WHY do 80% of the constituency dislike the bill? Because they watch Fox news and night after night watched it get skewered (and skewed) by partisan hacks? Because they're unhappy with the economy and want something to lash out at? Because they have a skewed view of public welfare programs because of the polemics launched by demagogues?
When Republicans and GWB were running the economy, we were doing damn well. Unemployment was less than 4%
No, this is a lie. Unemployment was never under 4% under GWB, Jan of '01 it was at 4.2% and got progressively worse, until '06-'07, when it improved some before entering into the current slide. It was never under 4% under GWB.
Record tax receipts are just a function of a growing GDP and inflation, nothing more.
Things didn't go to shit until the D's took over Congress starting in 2007. It's gotten worse since 2008 when the D's got the White House and a filibuster proof Senate.
Things started to hit the shitter in '06, which is WHY the D's got Congress. We put them in office to correct the problems we all knew were coming because of Bush's careless borrowing and spending when times were good.
Do you really think that unemployment responds immediately to whoever is in Congress? Truly, you are deluded.
Memorize this:
CONGRESS CONTROLS THE ECONOMY
That's false, simplistic, and just plain stupid. Consumer confidence largely drives our domestic economy, which is impacted by who is in the White House, among lots of other things. Never mind the role of monetary policy (which is under the domain of the president, in case you're too retarded to know how our government works). Yes, Congress has some input. But they are far from the only player.
But I have to get back to your main idiocy in your post, which is somehow thinking that the unemployment rate instantly corresponds to who controls Congress and nothing else. For Chrissake, you're a prime example of why the Republican party sandbagged the election by nominating Palin as their VP candidate. Because they wanted Americans to associate Democrats with the horrendous economy they knew was coming, and they knew NO ONE had the power to forestall.
If you're really simplistic enough to not understand that any economy is largely a product of recent (to that economy) history, not current activity, then you should probably read a book or two.
You are wrong. Politicians cannot manufacture votes. They cannot buy votes. These things are illegal.
Horsepoop. Just because a thing is illegal doesn't mean it can't be done. What do you think pork barrel politics is all about? That's right, buying votes.
Not to mention you ignored most of what the parent poster wrote... "by exploiting wedge issues and other political tricks". Indirect methods of manufacturing votes exist, and are used. If you don't realize this, likely you are an unwitting victim of some of it.
Run yourself. Sure, you may not win, but you're voting for someone you feel isn't corrupt.
Bad advice for me. I'd be corrupt as all hell, and would use the power and access to power of elected office to enrich myself and my friends.
Then again, I'd also try to do some good for others, so that at least makes me as good as the other candidates.
* This is not actually how I feel. It is, however, my gut instinct of what most aspiring politicians feel once they make to the higher levels -- you don't get there by being pure.
And therein lies the problem: the head-on concern I'd have for schools is efficiency. Why is it the best schools spend $4000-$6000 per student year, while the worst chew through $13000+ and have 15 year old books?
[Citation Needed]:)
Where do you live, that a schoold can get away with spending only $6000 a year per student? Where I live, schools spend far, far more than that per student. And interestingly, there is a positive correlation between money spent and results; it's just that the broken school systems see a lot of extra cash poured in to try to fix problems that may have causes rooted in decades prior, or in the community at large.
If you really want to fix our schools, you need to fix our communities. Children rarely succeed without supportive parents and systems. Unfortunately, community outreach, support systems, and parent education are expensive.
What course of action do you recommend to someone who wishes to withhold consent?
(1) Move and renounce citizenship, as countless immigrants to the US have done, or (2) revolt. Those are pretty much your choices if you want to withhold consent.
You agree to abide by the laws of the country by maintaining your citizenship.
Oh, also, suicide is an option, and while in likely outcome is very similar to option (2) above, I don't recommend it. For that matter, I don't recommend (2) above, either.
Comepletely gutted in order to get those crossover votes.
And a couple of stimulus packages.
Also gutted to get those crossover votes.
And a couple of Supremes.
You don't think that likelihood of confirmations plays a big hand in candidate selection and nomination?
Note that the above could NOT have happened without Republican votes, since the Repubs could have maintained a filibuster if they'd voted as a bloc all the time. Or even most of the time.
You're mistaken. Repubs voted party line and threatened filibuster until the bills were changed to suit their preferences.
This was also mostly true when the Repubs had majorities in both Houses - they seldom had enough votes to block a filibuster by the Dems, yet the Dems could seldom find the votes to maintain a filibuster.
Dems are less likely to vote party lines than Republicans... the Republicans already cast out their "traitors"... Democrats are still dealing with Blue Dogs. Republican legislation got rammed through when the Rs had a majority because the Dems wouldn't stand together. Democratic legislation got changed into quasi-Republican legislation because Rs DID stand together.
In short, I think you're ignoring the impact a party standing together has had on the legislation that has come through.
What many of us really want in our government is our personal opinion and political views represented more clearly and like our own.
What many of us fear is the personal opinions and political views of uneducated dolts being represented over the opinions and views of people actually educated on whatever topic is on hand.
Sometimes, you need to defer to experts with the knowledge necessary to make decisions and take action. Sure, it's hard to figure out which experts (if any) can be trusted, and to what extent... but a good elected official is one that exercises good judgment in doing so.
People are dumb, panicky animals, and putting them collectively in charge of anything important is asking for a clusterfuck.
Jimmy Carter had a Democrat congress and nearly doomed us all.
Yes and no. Carter was a failure, but the economic situation was hardly all his doing -- though his response was woefully misguided. And as for dooming us all... he very likely delayed our doom by 40 years by pardoning Nixon, which was seen as unforgivable and cost him any chance at getting his policies actually implemented (which is usually a second-term thing). Now we have the situation Carter avoided with his masterstroke, which is partisan insanity that is causing legislative paralysis[1].
Bill Clinton, for his first two years, almost did what Obama has done to us now. Most of the people on this site are probably too young to understand how truly horrible both of those time periods were.
What? Those time periods were not horrible because of Carter or Clinton. They were horrible because of their predecessors, just as the time now is horrible because of Obama's predecessor's administration.
Obama has not wreaked this economy upon us, the Bush administration and the prior Congress did.
Clinton fixed a broken economy, and if it weren't for people who are blind to the economic benefits of social safety nets and public healthcare, Obama's administration would be able to fix this one.
Another note about the first two years of Clinton's presidency -- the last year of Bush41's presidency ('88) was just as bad, and more attributable to him that '89-90 were to Clinton.
I'd be willing to bet you recall certain times as particularly awful partly because you associate Democratic control of Congress & the Presidency as awful -- although it may be subconscious on your part.
[1] Of course, as a conservative, you believe this to be the best thing since sliced bread. As someone who sees a need for action on many different items, I see it differently than you.
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] you are incorrect.
According to the definition of the terms, I am correct.
The public debt is the summation of the deficit over time. You're confusing the terms.
The person (not sure if it was you) I responded to claimed that the rate of borrowing increased; this is completely false. The rate of borrowing has reduced -- but, as your figures show, we're still borrowing, so the public debt has increased.
If you're going to cite statistics to make a point, kindly please ensure that you cite relevant statistics that actually represent the topic of the discussion.
Also, while the revenue is 50M for the last quarter, what's their profit out of that?
According to their 10k, it's around 30M a quarter, and rising over the past several quarters.
I mean, 20M is 2% of 1Billion, so there has to be more reason than profit here to buy the company for that money.
Correct, which I mentioned in my first reply:)
This is about getting onto mobile platforms, which ATG is doing quite a bit of. Oracle can use ATG's penetration onto mobile platform e-commerce to sell more of the stack -- Oracle can provide the e-commerce solution, the DB it runs on, even the hardware in conjunction with their partners -- and get the licensing and support contracts that come along with it.
Keep in mind also that Oracle can almost definitely improve the profitability of ATG, since they can eliminate a lot of overhead -- and they get to leverage their sales force (a known strength of Oracle) in training/replacing ATG salespeople.
But yeah, the decision to run for office is pretty rational in an egoistic and sociopathic way. It's a shame that the only people who want to get into office are exactly the wrong people to do so.
we've also nationalized the banks and one of the largest automotive makers in the country.
We propped up the banks and that automaker. All are on schedule to buy themselves back out. It was a temporary measure, and you're being disingenuous by stating otherwise. Furthermore, neither industry is nationalized -- control is still private, though with oversight; and private competitors remain in the marketplace.
We've inflated the dollar to the point of being worthless
What? That's an extraordinary claim, considering inflation has been markedly low the past several years considering the shape of the economy. Inflation was higher under Bush than it has been under Obama.
and have continued to accelerate the rate of borrowing from China.
What? The deficit is smaller under Obama than it was under Bush. This means less borrowing from creditor nations.
You sir, are chock full of either delusion or lies. I don't care which it is, but it would be nice if you stopped spewing your misinformed/lying bullshit.
One other note...
I've seen this TV show, except I saw an earlier visioning of it. I think it had something to do with Germany or Italy in the 1930s - I can't quite remember. (Argentina in 2000 is a good enough example as well.)
Disembark from the crazy train, dude. Stop listening to the demagogues like Beck who spew this nonsense.
Rational people simply don't run for political office anymore since the act of running for political office is in and of itself irrational.
Why is the act of running for office irrational? You can be a nobody, narrowly dodging foreclosure and bankruptcy, and then you run for office... and get a book deal, paid speaking engagements, etc.
If you're reasonably charismatic but poor, running for office is a very rational decision.
Sure, the majority goes into that. But how much of that voter contact is revenue raising in disguise? Pleas for donations coupled with a fact sheet are still pleas for donations (and thus administrative overhead, though not classed as such by the regulations governing 501s).
But even so, we know that airtime costs millions. But ever wonder how Karl Rove became a millionaire? By getting paid to send out political mailings. Ever see the salaries of the people who corporate PACs?
People get rich (or richer) in the career of politicking. Surely that's a sign that 'administrative overhead' might be excessive.
By leaving the Republicans have skewed farther to the right and the Democrats skewed farther to the left.
Oh, I'll agree the Republicans have moved farther to the right. People in the center have left the Republican party because it's become more extreme (thus making it even more extreme).
But the Democrats? It's the opposite effect. People on the extreme left have left the Democratic party because the party has tilted hard right. The Democratic party is far right of where it used to be, largely because the party leaders kowtowed to corporate money. This drove away the leftist elements of the party, so what remains of the Democratic Party is more like Reagan than the Republican party is.
I suppose this is a somewhat meaningful purchase, though obviously the company in question has over 942M market capitalization (per Yahoo) and this year revenue is just over $50 million, which doesn't say much about their profit. Ellison can do whatever he wants with his money but I think he is overpaying for this company by at least a factor of 2.
Wait, the market cap is just under 1 BN, and Oracle paid 1 BN... so, you're saying that in your expert opinion, the stock price of ATG was overvalued by a factor of 2 by those who owned the stock prior to acquisition??
and this year revenue is just over $50 million
No, their quarterly revenue for the past quarter was just over $50 million.
Your google-fu needs some work.
What this is really about is Oracle being able to tap into the growing market of mobile computing.
The "to improve education, throw more money at it" crowd fails to realize that by far the biggest factor in education is the student's own willingness to learn. If they don't want to be there, students will squirm just as much in an expensive chair as a cheap one, and get just as little out of the experience.
And those who don't realize that being in physical discomfort all day may predispose a student to be unwilling to learn... well... they're just being stupid, and in this case, reacting in a knee-jerk manner that is neither useful nor particularly insightful.
Throwing money at a problem will not fix the problem... but spending money to ameliorate causes of the problem will likely help.
But go ahead, keep fucking that "don't tax me" chicken. Meanwhile, those of us who actually would like to see the education system become not only better, but more efficient, will continue to look for specific ways that schools can be improved, and for ways that school funding can be used more efficiently.
Maybe better chairs and desks can actually save money by reducing the need for remedial classes and/or summer school?
Sure, conservatives give more. Their church tax counts as charitable giving, even when none of the money is used for charitable causes.
Perhaps if we considered the portion of our federal and state income taxes that go to erstwhile charitable causes, liberals would be seen to give more, since they pay more in taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Was it you that I already dressed down on those misleading stats last week, or someone else?
The wealthy are paying less as a proportion of their income than they were 40 year ago. This is unambiguously true.
Bitch all you want about how the top 5% pays 59% of the income taxes -- they own about the same amount of the wealth in the country, and they earn far more than they did in the past, so it's all good. They are still getting richer -- their share of wealth is increasing, despite the progressive tax rate you bitch about.
Because that's false. If those evil rich people weren't exploiting an opportunity for profit by employing that person (or someone else), someone else would be. And the GP's point stands. Employers don't have to be evil. They choose to be, in the name of marginal personal gain.
But whatever -- I know that the school of economic thought you follow holds personal gain as the best of good endeavors.
Suffice it to say that I, and many others, believe this to be not only evil, but short-sighted as well.
Think about how much you like getting a paycheck the next time you DON'T get one because of the owners of businesses decided that earning more cash for themselves (that makes no difference to their personal lifestyle) is the most important thing in the world.
Or, you know, join the fucking workforce. It's pretty easy to believe as you do when you're some kid in academia who's not had to support a family on his labor, skills, and knowledge.
That's incomplete unless we know where you're getting your PhD (and where you got your BS).
You'll get a completely different viewpoint on things if you were to survey professors at U of Chicago, than if you were to survey professors at, say, MIT.
Although most likely you're right, few professors would support Obama's economic policies because he's all over the place with them. Keynesians are pissed because his piss-poor attempt at stimulus was far too small and we're wasting trillions of public spending on war, while Chicago economists feel that the stimulus was a stupid idea in the first place, as they feel about his plan to disincentivize offshoring.
That sounds suspiciously like FUD. First, please provide an example of how Obama has raised corporate income taxes. Then, please explain why companies are terrified of his projected tax increases, which are mostly a reshuffling of the tax code to disincentivize certain activities and incentivize others. You mean the companies that currently take advantage of the tax code to pull a double-Irish and pay no corporate income tax? Seems to me like they are cheating the system, and it's not right theat they enjoy a competitive advantage.
Why should every organization delevop their own project management system? Surely there are gains to be made from using a standardized system, particularly in getting new hires up to speed, etc.
In my experience, a large company that does not have a clearly defined process *that they actually use* for project management is likely to be extremely f*d up. I don't think it matters if it's a named workflow or not.
I think what you're referring to is the use of buzzwords in project management -- when bad management says "agile", they sometimes mean "instantly adaptable and conforming to demands no matter how ridiculous those demands are".
Aw, come on... that's not the only reason GWB pushed us into Iraq. The neocons who directed GWB's policies also wanted to make sure their friends in the military-industrial and energy industries got rich.
Of those 80%, how many had read the bill, or even understood the main clauses?
How many, as many polls have shown, don't like the bill, but are in favor of almost every provision in the bill?
IMO, who the fuck cares if 80% of ignorant (on the issue) constituents don't like the bill... far better for me to vote what *I* believe is best, since that's what I was elected to do. THAT is the kind of balls a real public servant should have.
Also, WHY do 80% of the constituency dislike the bill? Because they watch Fox news and night after night watched it get skewered (and skewed) by partisan hacks? Because they're unhappy with the economy and want something to lash out at? Because they have a skewed view of public welfare programs because of the polemics launched by demagogues?
No, this is a lie. Unemployment was never under 4% under GWB, Jan of '01 it was at 4.2% and got progressively worse, until '06-'07, when it improved some before entering into the current slide. It was never under 4% under GWB.
Record tax receipts are just a function of a growing GDP and inflation, nothing more.
Things started to hit the shitter in '06, which is WHY the D's got Congress. We put them in office to correct the problems we all knew were coming because of Bush's careless borrowing and spending when times were good.
Do you really think that unemployment responds immediately to whoever is in Congress? Truly, you are deluded.
That's false, simplistic, and just plain stupid. Consumer confidence largely drives our domestic economy, which is impacted by who is in the White House, among lots of other things. Never mind the role of monetary policy (which is under the domain of the president, in case you're too retarded to know how our government works). Yes, Congress has some input. But they are far from the only player.
But I have to get back to your main idiocy in your post, which is somehow thinking that the unemployment rate instantly corresponds to who controls Congress and nothing else. For Chrissake, you're a prime example of why the Republican party sandbagged the election by nominating Palin as their VP candidate. Because they wanted Americans to associate Democrats with the horrendous economy they knew was coming, and they knew NO ONE had the power to forestall.
If you're really simplistic enough to not understand that any economy is largely a product of recent (to that economy) history, not current activity, then you should probably read a book or two.
Horsepoop. Just because a thing is illegal doesn't mean it can't be done. What do you think pork barrel politics is all about? That's right, buying votes.
Not to mention you ignored most of what the parent poster wrote... "by exploiting wedge issues and other political tricks". Indirect methods of manufacturing votes exist, and are used. If you don't realize this, likely you are an unwitting victim of some of it.
Bad advice for me. I'd be corrupt as all hell, and would use the power and access to power of elected office to enrich myself and my friends.
Then again, I'd also try to do some good for others, so that at least makes me as good as the other candidates.
* This is not actually how I feel. It is, however, my gut instinct of what most aspiring politicians feel once they make to the higher levels -- you don't get there by being pure.
[Citation Needed] :)
Where do you live, that a schoold can get away with spending only $6000 a year per student? Where I live, schools spend far, far more than that per student. And interestingly, there is a positive correlation between money spent and results; it's just that the broken school systems see a lot of extra cash poured in to try to fix problems that may have causes rooted in decades prior, or in the community at large.
If you really want to fix our schools, you need to fix our communities. Children rarely succeed without supportive parents and systems. Unfortunately, community outreach, support systems, and parent education are expensive.
(1) Move and renounce citizenship, as countless immigrants to the US have done, or (2) revolt. Those are pretty much your choices if you want to withhold consent.
You agree to abide by the laws of the country by maintaining your citizenship.
Oh, also, suicide is an option, and while in likely outcome is very similar to option (2) above, I don't recommend it. For that matter, I don't recommend (2) above, either.
Comepletely gutted in order to get those crossover votes.
Also gutted to get those crossover votes.
You don't think that likelihood of confirmations plays a big hand in candidate selection and nomination?
You're mistaken. Repubs voted party line and threatened filibuster until the bills were changed to suit their preferences.
Dems are less likely to vote party lines than Republicans... the Republicans already cast out their "traitors"... Democrats are still dealing with Blue Dogs. Republican legislation got rammed through when the Rs had a majority because the Dems wouldn't stand together. Democratic legislation got changed into quasi-Republican legislation because Rs DID stand together.
In short, I think you're ignoring the impact a party standing together has had on the legislation that has come through.
What many of us fear is the personal opinions and political views of uneducated dolts being represented over the opinions and views of people actually educated on whatever topic is on hand.
Sometimes, you need to defer to experts with the knowledge necessary to make decisions and take action. Sure, it's hard to figure out which experts (if any) can be trusted, and to what extent... but a good elected official is one that exercises good judgment in doing so.
People are dumb, panicky animals, and putting them collectively in charge of anything important is asking for a clusterfuck.
Yes and no. Carter was a failure, but the economic situation was hardly all his doing -- though his response was woefully misguided. And as for dooming us all... he very likely delayed our doom by 40 years by pardoning Nixon, which was seen as unforgivable and cost him any chance at getting his policies actually implemented (which is usually a second-term thing). Now we have the situation Carter avoided with his masterstroke, which is partisan insanity that is causing legislative paralysis[1].
What? Those time periods were not horrible because of Carter or Clinton. They were horrible because of their predecessors, just as the time now is horrible because of Obama's predecessor's administration.
Obama has not wreaked this economy upon us, the Bush administration and the prior Congress did.
Clinton fixed a broken economy, and if it weren't for people who are blind to the economic benefits of social safety nets and public healthcare, Obama's administration would be able to fix this one.
Another note about the first two years of Clinton's presidency -- the last year of Bush41's presidency ('88) was just as bad, and more attributable to him that '89-90 were to Clinton.
I'd be willing to bet you recall certain times as particularly awful partly because you associate Democratic control of Congress & the Presidency as awful -- although it may be subconscious on your part.
[1] Of course, as a conservative, you believe this to be the best thing since sliced bread. As someone who sees a need for action on many different items, I see it differently than you.
According to the definition of the terms, I am correct.
The public debt is the summation of the deficit over time. You're confusing the terms.
The person (not sure if it was you) I responded to claimed that the rate of borrowing increased; this is completely false. The rate of borrowing has reduced -- but, as your figures show, we're still borrowing, so the public debt has increased.
If you're going to cite statistics to make a point, kindly please ensure that you cite relevant statistics that actually represent the topic of the discussion.
According to their 10k, it's around 30M a quarter, and rising over the past several quarters.
Correct, which I mentioned in my first reply :)
This is about getting onto mobile platforms, which ATG is doing quite a bit of. Oracle can use ATG's penetration onto mobile platform e-commerce to sell more of the stack -- Oracle can provide the e-commerce solution, the DB it runs on, even the hardware in conjunction with their partners -- and get the licensing and support contracts that come along with it.
Keep in mind also that Oracle can almost definitely improve the profitability of ATG, since they can eliminate a lot of overhead -- and they get to leverage their sales force (a known strength of Oracle) in training/replacing ATG salespeople.
Where's Zaphod Beeblebrox when you need him?
We propped up the banks and that automaker. All are on schedule to buy themselves back out. It was a temporary measure, and you're being disingenuous by stating otherwise. Furthermore, neither industry is nationalized -- control is still private, though with oversight; and private competitors remain in the marketplace.
What? That's an extraordinary claim, considering inflation has been markedly low the past several years considering the shape of the economy. Inflation was higher under Bush than it has been under Obama.
What? The deficit is smaller under Obama than it was under Bush. This means less borrowing from creditor nations.
You sir, are chock full of either delusion or lies. I don't care which it is, but it would be nice if you stopped spewing your misinformed/lying bullshit.
One other note...
Disembark from the crazy train, dude. Stop listening to the demagogues like Beck who spew this nonsense.
Why is the act of running for office irrational? You can be a nobody, narrowly dodging foreclosure and bankruptcy, and then you run for office... and get a book deal, paid speaking engagements, etc.
If you're reasonably charismatic but poor, running for office is a very rational decision.
Sure, the majority goes into that. But how much of that voter contact is revenue raising in disguise? Pleas for donations coupled with a fact sheet are still pleas for donations (and thus administrative overhead, though not classed as such by the regulations governing 501s).
But even so, we know that airtime costs millions. But ever wonder how Karl Rove became a millionaire? By getting paid to send out political mailings. Ever see the salaries of the people who corporate PACs?
People get rich (or richer) in the career of politicking. Surely that's a sign that 'administrative overhead' might be excessive.
Oh, I'll agree the Republicans have moved farther to the right. People in the center have left the Republican party because it's become more extreme (thus making it even more extreme).
But the Democrats? It's the opposite effect. People on the extreme left have left the Democratic party because the party has tilted hard right. The Democratic party is far right of where it used to be, largely because the party leaders kowtowed to corporate money. This drove away the leftist elements of the party, so what remains of the Democratic Party is more like Reagan than the Republican party is.
Wait, the market cap is just under 1 BN, and Oracle paid 1 BN... so, you're saying that in your expert opinion, the stock price of ATG was overvalued by a factor of 2 by those who owned the stock prior to acquisition??
No, their quarterly revenue for the past quarter was just over $50 million.
Your google-fu needs some work.
What this is really about is Oracle being able to tap into the growing market of mobile computing.
I had no idea the taxes I pay were optional...
To members of many churches, tithes or other giving is just as mandatory, if not more so, as paying taxes.
And those who don't realize that being in physical discomfort all day may predispose a student to be unwilling to learn... well... they're just being stupid, and in this case, reacting in a knee-jerk manner that is neither useful nor particularly insightful.
Throwing money at a problem will not fix the problem... but spending money to ameliorate causes of the problem will likely help.
But go ahead, keep fucking that "don't tax me" chicken. Meanwhile, those of us who actually would like to see the education system become not only better, but more efficient, will continue to look for specific ways that schools can be improved, and for ways that school funding can be used more efficiently.
Maybe better chairs and desks can actually save money by reducing the need for remedial classes and/or summer school?
Sure, conservatives give more. Their church tax counts as charitable giving, even when none of the money is used for charitable causes.
Perhaps if we considered the portion of our federal and state income taxes that go to erstwhile charitable causes, liberals would be seen to give more, since they pay more in taxes.