Hmmm... Santa Barbara is about the most beautiful city in Southern California. Beaches, mountains, near-perfect weather, phenomenal architecture, small and tree-lined streets. And it's about 2.5 times the cost of Houston. How about Ventura? A 1.5 times differential. Need something more urban, perhaps like Santa Monica? 3 times differential. Irvine, Dana Point, Oceanside, Ojai, San Diego - all much more expensive than Houston. So which beautiful California city do you think is cheaper than Houston? Even Bakersfield is more expensive than Houston - and that's considered a pit that has its only redeeming quality being it's not Oildale.
AMEN! That is so refreshing and real to hear! Give me a second, I'm going to make sure I repost it on to Twitter, Facebook, and send out a Snapchat of the post!
As far as the notch goes, the problems with it are caused by lazy/ignorant app developers. Apps could easily take advantage of the notch, or just ignore it entirely and let it continue showing the time, signal, etc... But no, I have yet to find an app that is properly set up to work with or around the notch. I won't hold this against apple though, this is all on you lazy developers. Get with the damn program. My how you have forgotten the nightmare of developing apps to work on hundreds of different Android phones each with their own differences and quirks.
So the issue that you hate the "lazy developers" for is NOT supporting a wide variety of platforms and resolutions? The exact same thing you condemn the Android ecosystem for offering?
Hey, I'm a deplorable. The folks on the Left are the ones that are acting like Nazis with brownshirt actions and stifling of free speech, and fought like crazy so two men can both be cocksuckers together in marital bliss...
Because it was bogus. Can you explain how you can have a budget surplus, but you ended up borrowing even more money and increased your debt? You can't. If you had to borrow money - increasing your debt - then you cannot have a surplus. Unless you choose to "ignore" some spending. But that's not really ethical, is it?
Please explain how you can have debt increase without borrowing more money. And please explain how having a surplus of funds means you have to borrow money to pay off expenses.
Your point is that if you ignore some mandatory spending (off budget expenditures), you can claim you actually have less spending! So, if you have $10,000 monthly income, and $12,000 of monthly expenses, by moving your $1500 rental payment and $1000 credit card debt payment to "off budget" expenditures, you now have a surplus of $500! Hurray! Your debt won't increase, right? Same kind of BS lying that was attempted back in the 1990s, and the same result happened - debt continued to increase.
Please learn basic budgeting and accounting before you end up sounding like a politician. We just need to spend it out of the deficit, and we'll all be good!
You still see the ad - but when was the last time you clicked an online ad on purpose? Advertising is so over-used today that the consumer is generally becoming immune to it.
Unfortunately, most of those comparisons add in the VAT for the EU - but ignore State, County, and City sales taxes in the US. Dial that in, and suddenly things shift dramatically.
The GOP tends to use reasons WHY they are cutting budgets or shifting money - but then vote on that money independent of everything else. The Democrats are showing us that unless we give them everything they want, they will not approve any budgets at all. The current CR under consideration does nothing to the funding of DACA, so it's not a GOP thing. It's the Democrats demanding that DACA be part of a CR, even though the two share nothing in common.
I thought that bills in Congress were to address a single item only. Attaching DACA reform to a budget seems a bit like hitching a donkey to a cable modem.
Because filibusters don't exist, right? It takes 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. And now we see that the Democrats prefer illegal aliens (Dreamers) to US Citizens (Deplorables).
There was budget surpluses each year between 1998 and 2001, 2001 being the last year of Clinton's budgets. In 2002, the first year of Bush's budgets, we once again had a deficit.
False. Please see the facts at the Federal Government itself. The national debt increased every single year since 1957. How does a debt increase if you have a surplus? Answer: it doesn't. The "surplus" was for a subsection of the entire national budget only. When you look at the entire, actual budget, we spent more than we brought in every single year since 1957. Proof? The national debt has increased every single year since then.
What Clinton did, was essentially ignore some of the spending. It would be like a person spending $7,000 per month, making $6,000 per month, and claiming they are actually cash-flow positive because they ignore the $2,000 per month in rent they pay. Hey, they only spent $5,000 per month on $6,000 revenue - if you ignore that $2,000 per month payment over there...
You can keep those! Of course, you also get to pay another $5000+ per year (and have a $6500+ annual deductible) for health insurance costs. But a $15 copay is still possible. And remember - this isn't voluntary, you HAVE to pay for it; the US Supreme Court even ruled it to be a tax because of the mandatory nature of the payment. When you add those kinds of costs in, to equalize the prices paid, you'll find the US is actually quite highly taxed. I've lived in the US, Belgium, Chile, and China - and Belgium and the US are pretty much on-par, when you look at what you pay for on an apples-to-apples basis.
Scandinavians love to tout the fact they get "free healthcare" as well for their taxes. Add in health insurance spending in the US to the tax burden and re-run the numbers - you'll find the US is right up there, next to you.
The US used to have the highest statutory rate, and was near the top in average and effective rates for corporate income taxes. We've now just moved to the middle of the pack, closer down to what German companies pay.
Essentially its local Governments granting monopolies to companies in exchange for money and promises. This isn't an issue that can be solved at the Federal level, since it does not cross State lines. This is a local Government issue, with the Government having too much control.
I have a choice of exactly ONE broadband provider - Spectrum (cable). It is good and affordable (400 Mbps down, ~35 Mbps up, 3 TVs, wife has ~200 cable channels, for about $160 per month) but my other alternative is Windstream ADSL at 1.5 Mbps symmetric. That's it, unless I want poor satellite coverage (Frontier is around, but it's a patchwork and they do not service my area). And it's because the local Governments (Ventura County, Oxnard, Ventura, Port Hueneme, Camarillo) granted monopolies to the providers.
It's not so much a free market when the Government picks who can even participate in that free market, and then restricts your options to essentially one. It's more of a fascist thing - Government deciding for you what's best, then enforcing its will via regulation and the power of law to shape the market.
We've had the capability to do this for quite a while, at least on the military side.
Can you point to a single electric plane that can carry at least 70 people? The Embraer 175 series is really the airplane of choice for short hop/short-haul planes, and it seats 75 to 85, depending upon configuration. What is out there, electric, that does that?
Remember, without massive tax subsidies and tax exemptions, fossil fuels aren't that cost effective.
Oh, so fossil fuels now get tax exemptions, not just tax subsidies? And solar and wind do not? Wind and solar are massively subsidized, especially when you take into account the much lower amount of energy we get from them. Without the much-more massive subsidies for wind and solar, they would be DOA.
People are just fearful of change: suppliers, operators, capital loans providers, and so on.
Some love change simply because they want to "stick it to the man" and want to "change things up" for no reason other than change. Forcing adoption of electric commercial planes - when there isn't a single, viable plane in existence or even planned - is extremely short sighted. But hey - it gets the no-nukes/hate-fossil-fuel crowd all motivated!
Slashdot Mirror
California's debt passed $400 billion under Moonbeam, and the deficit is back. But we'll tax more and borrow more, that'll fix it! Never mind that California has the highest poverty rate and is firmly in the bottom half in terms of educational quality. At least we get warnings that just about everything can cause cancer!
Nah, only about 4-5% goes to almonds. Half the water goes to delta smelt and scenic rivers.
What city is that? IIRC, you live in Paso Robles, right? That is 1.4 times the cost of living in Houston, for the average person.
Hmmm... Santa Barbara is about the most beautiful city in Southern California. Beaches, mountains, near-perfect weather, phenomenal architecture, small and tree-lined streets. And it's about 2.5 times the cost of Houston. How about Ventura? A 1.5 times differential. Need something more urban, perhaps like Santa Monica? 3 times differential. Irvine, Dana Point, Oceanside, Ojai, San Diego - all much more expensive than Houston. So which beautiful California city do you think is cheaper than Houston? Even Bakersfield is more expensive than Houston - and that's considered a pit that has its only redeeming quality being it's not Oildale.
Doesn't pay them too well given that California has the highest poverty rate per the US Census' supplemental poverty measure. Seems to make a lot of people very poor...
AMEN! That is so refreshing and real to hear! Give me a second, I'm going to make sure I repost it on to Twitter, Facebook, and send out a Snapchat of the post!
As far as the notch goes, the problems with it are caused by lazy/ignorant app developers. Apps could easily take advantage of the notch, or just ignore it entirely and let it continue showing the time, signal, etc... But no, I have yet to find an app that is properly set up to work with or around the notch. I won't hold this against apple though, this is all on you lazy developers. Get with the damn program. My how you have forgotten the nightmare of developing apps to work on hundreds of different Android phones each with their own differences and quirks.
So the issue that you hate the "lazy developers" for is NOT supporting a wide variety of platforms and resolutions? The exact same thing you condemn the Android ecosystem for offering?
Hey, I'm a deplorable. The folks on the Left are the ones that are acting like Nazis with brownshirt actions and stifling of free speech, and fought like crazy so two men can both be cocksuckers together in marital bliss...
Because it was bogus. Can you explain how you can have a budget surplus, but you ended up borrowing even more money and increased your debt? You can't. If you had to borrow money - increasing your debt - then you cannot have a surplus. Unless you choose to "ignore" some spending. But that's not really ethical, is it?
Please explain how you can have debt increase without borrowing more money. And please explain how having a surplus of funds means you have to borrow money to pay off expenses.
Your point is that if you ignore some mandatory spending (off budget expenditures), you can claim you actually have less spending! So, if you have $10,000 monthly income, and $12,000 of monthly expenses, by moving your $1500 rental payment and $1000 credit card debt payment to "off budget" expenditures, you now have a surplus of $500! Hurray! Your debt won't increase, right? Same kind of BS lying that was attempted back in the 1990s, and the same result happened - debt continued to increase.
Please learn basic budgeting and accounting before you end up sounding like a politician. We just need to spend it out of the deficit, and we'll all be good!
You still see the ad - but when was the last time you clicked an online ad on purpose? Advertising is so over-used today that the consumer is generally becoming immune to it.
Unfortunately, most of those comparisons add in the VAT for the EU - but ignore State, County, and City sales taxes in the US. Dial that in, and suddenly things shift dramatically.
BGR, an Android boy-Army? LOL - BGR is about the biggest Apple enthusiast out there!
The GOP tends to use reasons WHY they are cutting budgets or shifting money - but then vote on that money independent of everything else. The Democrats are showing us that unless we give them everything they want, they will not approve any budgets at all. The current CR under consideration does nothing to the funding of DACA, so it's not a GOP thing. It's the Democrats demanding that DACA be part of a CR, even though the two share nothing in common.
I thought that bills in Congress were to address a single item only. Attaching DACA reform to a budget seems a bit like hitching a donkey to a cable modem.
Because filibusters don't exist, right? It takes 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. And now we see that the Democrats prefer illegal aliens (Dreamers) to US Citizens (Deplorables).
There was budget surpluses each year between 1998 and 2001, 2001 being the last year of Clinton's budgets. In 2002, the first year of Bush's budgets, we once again had a deficit.
False. Please see the facts at the Federal Government itself. The national debt increased every single year since 1957. How does a debt increase if you have a surplus? Answer: it doesn't. The "surplus" was for a subsection of the entire national budget only. When you look at the entire, actual budget, we spent more than we brought in every single year since 1957. Proof? The national debt has increased every single year since then.
What Clinton did, was essentially ignore some of the spending. It would be like a person spending $7,000 per month, making $6,000 per month, and claiming they are actually cash-flow positive because they ignore the $2,000 per month in rent they pay. Hey, they only spent $5,000 per month on $6,000 revenue - if you ignore that $2,000 per month payment over there...
Smoke and mirrors. Completely false.
Federal Government says you are wrong.
Total debt on Jan 21, 2009 (first day of the Obama presidency): $10,625,053,544,309.79.
Total debt on Jan 20, 2017 (last day of the Obama presidency):$19,947,304,555,212.49.
Total increase in debt during the Obama presidency: $9,322,251,010,902.70.
That's a pretty stiff increase, just about doubling the debt. Quite a bit different than a reduction, eh?
FOUR trillion? You're off by a factor of 2.5... $10 trillion to $20 trillion in 8 short years...
You can keep those! Of course, you also get to pay another $5000+ per year (and have a $6500+ annual deductible) for health insurance costs. But a $15 copay is still possible. And remember - this isn't voluntary, you HAVE to pay for it; the US Supreme Court even ruled it to be a tax because of the mandatory nature of the payment. When you add those kinds of costs in, to equalize the prices paid, you'll find the US is actually quite highly taxed. I've lived in the US, Belgium, Chile, and China - and Belgium and the US are pretty much on-par, when you look at what you pay for on an apples-to-apples basis.
Scandinavians love to tout the fact they get "free healthcare" as well for their taxes. Add in health insurance spending in the US to the tax burden and re-run the numbers - you'll find the US is right up there, next to you.
The US used to have the highest statutory rate, and was near the top in average and effective rates for corporate income taxes. We've now just moved to the middle of the pack, closer down to what German companies pay.
Except that online ads are reaching fewer people and there is evidence that online marketing is failing. It's why big companies are cutting digital advertising. Ads have become so pervasive on the Internet that most consumers just tune them out. Advertisers spend more and more trying to chase fewer and fewer people...
Essentially its local Governments granting monopolies to companies in exchange for money and promises. This isn't an issue that can be solved at the Federal level, since it does not cross State lines. This is a local Government issue, with the Government having too much control.
I have a choice of exactly ONE broadband provider - Spectrum (cable). It is good and affordable (400 Mbps down, ~35 Mbps up, 3 TVs, wife has ~200 cable channels, for about $160 per month) but my other alternative is Windstream ADSL at 1.5 Mbps symmetric. That's it, unless I want poor satellite coverage (Frontier is around, but it's a patchwork and they do not service my area). And it's because the local Governments (Ventura County, Oxnard, Ventura, Port Hueneme, Camarillo) granted monopolies to the providers.
It's not so much a free market when the Government picks who can even participate in that free market, and then restricts your options to essentially one. It's more of a fascist thing - Government deciding for you what's best, then enforcing its will via regulation and the power of law to shape the market.
We've had the capability to do this for quite a while, at least on the military side.
Can you point to a single electric plane that can carry at least 70 people? The Embraer 175 series is really the airplane of choice for short hop/short-haul planes, and it seats 75 to 85, depending upon configuration. What is out there, electric, that does that?
Remember, without massive tax subsidies and tax exemptions, fossil fuels aren't that cost effective.
Oh, so fossil fuels now get tax exemptions, not just tax subsidies? And solar and wind do not? Wind and solar are massively subsidized, especially when you take into account the much lower amount of energy we get from them. Without the much-more massive subsidies for wind and solar, they would be DOA.
People are just fearful of change: suppliers, operators, capital loans providers, and so on.
Some love change simply because they want to "stick it to the man" and want to "change things up" for no reason other than change. Forcing adoption of electric commercial planes - when there isn't a single, viable plane in existence or even planned - is extremely short sighted. But hey - it gets the no-nukes/hate-fossil-fuel crowd all motivated!