Ah yes, the Commerce Clause. Sure, the Federal Government has the right to regulate trade between countries and oversee that between States. But where in the Commerce Clause - "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" - do you find anything at all about forcing a private entity to do the bidding of the Federal Government to reveal personal information of another private entity?
The Constitution, by design, is libertarian and based on personal freedom. It even explicitly states that anything - ANYTHING - not explictly granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the States, or the People. If it's not listed straight out - the FedGov doesn't get it. Now, 200+ years of "inferrence" and "implied" powers has slid down the slope a LONG way, but the Constitution was supposed to be explicit and direct.
Bingo. He was the one I was going to name. He specifically warned not just against the military and industry, but Government and education and "big science". What's interesting is the old General Eisenhower - the military man, born, bred, and raised - ended up being the most libertarian, personal freedom loving President we've had.
So what if, instead of putting the location of in my phone, I just keep the information in my mind. Does the Government have the right to force me to give that information up? Can they "break" my mental encryption?
We have a court system - why do we need another 3rd party to arbitrate this? I guess I'm not seeing the need for an additional layer in-between to handle the issue.
What is a subsidy? That definition alone could take forever. For example, the EU claims that Boeing gets a "subsidy" from the US Government because it sells military equipment to the Federal Government. No, free trade does not depend upon - or concern itself with - subsidies. Eliminate tariffs, and 90% of the issue has gone away.
Apparently you're not familiar with SF or LA traffic. I'd take 3 days of Austin over 1 day in either one of those places... Nothing like 2 hours to go 28 miles - and that's not even through the city, just the suburbs (Burbank to Westlake Village)!
Correct. And with capital gains taxes - you don't pay until you sell. Property taxes increasing on theoretical value (it hasn't be realized) is simply gouging. If the GP wants to be equivalent to capital gains taxes, there would be a hefty tax at the time the property was sold, not every year based on some supposed increase in potential value.
I know at least Washington State as a "prop 13" type thing where property tax rate increases are capped. I'm pretty sure Idaho and Arizona have the same kind of thing as well... It's probably not that uncommon to cap property tax increases for a single owner (resets when sold).
Who enforces the elimination of tariffs and all that go with it (ensuring no state gives aid to companies or fields in a way that upsets the competition)?
Really simple - we make an agreement, as existed well before the EU. I won't add tariffs to your products if you don't add them to mine. Done. Who enforces it? We both do. If I hear from my importers that your country is now adding a tariff/import tax on a product, then I do the same to you. Why on earth anyone would think it takes an extragovernmental body to do this is baffling...
You can have free trade and maintain different regulations. All free trade means is that you don't place tariffs on imported goods. You're free to import into a country as long as you meet their safety requirements. It works very well for the US with most of its trade partners - where different standards exist for safety/regulatory requirements, but tariffs are eliminated.
Uh, no. Let me explain this to you, so perhaps you can learn a bit. It's OK to admit your error - we are all wrong until we learn what is correct.
The measure of a deficit is how much you spend beyond your income. If you make $100,000, but spend $120,000 then you have a $20,000 deficit. Your debt - what you owe others - increases by $20,000. With me so far?
. What will you discover? Every year since Eisenhower, the national debt has gone up. Every Single Year.
Go back to my opening example - if you spend more than your income, you have to borrow money. Your debt goes up. So how can one "claim" to have a surplus whilst having your debt go up? It's simple! And I'll explain it to you:
You lie.
There are two ways to do this:
First, you simply don't count all your spending. Let's say of that $100,000 in spending, $30,000 of it was on a nice vacation. So you claim "that vacation is not part of my normal spending, so it's not part of my budget, so it doesn't count". You try to claim that your spending was "only $90,000" now, so you actually have a surplus of $10,000! But in reality, do you have a surplus? No - that vacation is still on your credit card, you still owe that $30,000. Your financial position is still the same - you have a $20,000 deficit. But your "budget" had a surplus, because that vacation wasn't part of your budget. It was spending, but since you didn't put it in a given column, you can claim a budget "surplus" even though you actually racked up more debt.
The second way is to defer payments to keep cash flow positive. Say instead of a vacation, you decide to not pay 6 months of your mortgage. Your mortgage is $4,000 per month. Your actual spending is now just $96,000 - that's less than your income! Hurray - you have a $4,000 surplus, no deficit! But do you really have surplus? No - you have at least $24,000 more in debt. But rather than pay your debt, you kept some cash in your pocket. Your actual financial position is a $20,000 hole - but you can "claim" you have a surplus because you still have some cash in your pocket.
The Clinton "surpluses" were a combination of these two - many items were taken "off budget", and others were deferred until later years. The debt still increased, even though the "budget" was in surplus. It was simply word and accounting gimmicks - and the fact that "Factcheck" fell for it says a LOT about their ability to read through the BS.
There, you've been educated, so hopefully you won't make the same mistake again of falling for it!
Deficit: 1. the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount.
Now, somehow the Federal Government claimed the deficit in 2014 was "just" $483 billion. Yet it had to borrow nearly $1.1 trillion to cover what it decided to spend. So which is correct? What was the actual shortage? HINT: it wasn't $483 billion.
So what's your definition for deficit? In fact, when have you EVER posted a link to anything? I've backed up what I've posted, and apparently that gets your panties in a bind. That's your problem, not mine. You're showing your failings here, not me.
Huh. Do we believe dywolf's ramblings, or the OASDI's trustees who state "Social Security’s cost exceeded its tax income in 2013, and also exceeded its non-interest income, as it has since 2010." Personally, I'll trust the SSI trustees over you - they have a bit better handle on the situation, and they legally put their own butts on the line with their annual reports (which have reported a negative income balance since 2010 - like their summary states).
Now, you may not be aware of the term "running in the red", but when your income is less than your expenditures, then your cash flow is negative - it's "in the red". SSSI is in the red, per standard GAAP. And if it continues, then the savings/trust fund will eventually run out - and you either cut benefits (meaning: change the promises you've made) or you close altogether. But it is, truly, running in the red. Ask any accountant if a business spending more than it takes in would be considered in the red...
But then again, you still believe that having a deficit of just $483 billion can equate with adding nearly $1100 billion in debt.
Huh, I posted a link to studies that counter what you stated. You posted nothing. So... Yeah. I'll ignore you... PS: have you figured out how to compare numbers yet?
I posted the proxies. But since you don't like them, you ignore them. That's OK I guess... BTW, what's the tolerance on the two estimates, and how do they line up with today's temperatures?
See my response to your moronic statement above. It's clear you don't have any understanding. The reported deficit is NOT the actual deficit. Time and again, you see the "deficit" being maybe 30-40% of the actual debt racked up annually. I gave you the numbers earlier; for 2014 the deficit was reported as $483 billion, but nearly $1.1 trillion was added in debt. You tell me what the real deficit is (HINT: it's NOT what the Federal Government reports). IF you choose to educate yourself about the actual numbers, AND if you had a bit of integrity, you'd apologize and admit I'm correct. We'll see...
I guess if you want to swallow what the Government is peddling, be my guest. But in any rational, thinking mind - adding $1.1 trillion in debt does not equate to only a $483 billion deficit. Those two numbers are not equal. Go ahead, continue to be the "f'ing moron" and take what your Federal leadership tries to sell you...
Teflon is not PFOA. Teflon is PTFE. PFOA is used during the creation of PTFE, but is completely burned off during PTFE manufacturing, leaving no PFOA. Of course, lots of toxic things are used during the manufacturing of safe things all the time - that stainless steel staple used to hold your surgery together, or your frying pan/cooking utensils contains chromium, a nice and toxic heavy metal.
False. Congress allocates what goes into the purse; the President decides what to spend of that purse. Both can limit the other (Congress can allocate less than the President desires, and the President can spend less than Congress desired).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, the Commerce Clause. Sure, the Federal Government has the right to regulate trade between countries and oversee that between States. But where in the Commerce Clause - "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" - do you find anything at all about forcing a private entity to do the bidding of the Federal Government to reveal personal information of another private entity?
The Constitution, by design, is libertarian and based on personal freedom. It even explicitly states that anything - ANYTHING - not explictly granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the States, or the People. If it's not listed straight out - the FedGov doesn't get it. Now, 200+ years of "inferrence" and "implied" powers has slid down the slope a LONG way, but the Constitution was supposed to be explicit and direct.
Bingo. He was the one I was going to name. He specifically warned not just against the military and industry, but Government and education and "big science". What's interesting is the old General Eisenhower - the military man, born, bred, and raised - ended up being the most libertarian, personal freedom loving President we've had.
So what if, instead of putting the location of in my phone, I just keep the information in my mind. Does the Government have the right to force me to give that information up? Can they "break" my mental encryption?
To be honest, he's not really that interested in any of the amendments. Or even the original Constitution.
We have a court system - why do we need another 3rd party to arbitrate this? I guess I'm not seeing the need for an additional layer in-between to handle the issue.
What is a subsidy? That definition alone could take forever. For example, the EU claims that Boeing gets a "subsidy" from the US Government because it sells military equipment to the Federal Government. No, free trade does not depend upon - or concern itself with - subsidies. Eliminate tariffs, and 90% of the issue has gone away.
The best reason to be wary of Austin is traffic.
Apparently you're not familiar with SF or LA traffic. I'd take 3 days of Austin over 1 day in either one of those places... Nothing like 2 hours to go 28 miles - and that's not even through the city, just the suburbs (Burbank to Westlake Village)!
Correct. And with capital gains taxes - you don't pay until you sell. Property taxes increasing on theoretical value (it hasn't be realized) is simply gouging. If the GP wants to be equivalent to capital gains taxes, there would be a hefty tax at the time the property was sold, not every year based on some supposed increase in potential value.
I know at least Washington State as a "prop 13" type thing where property tax rate increases are capped. I'm pretty sure Idaho and Arizona have the same kind of thing as well... It's probably not that uncommon to cap property tax increases for a single owner (resets when sold).
Who enforces the elimination of tariffs and all that go with it (ensuring no state gives aid to companies or fields in a way that upsets the competition)?
Really simple - we make an agreement, as existed well before the EU. I won't add tariffs to your products if you don't add them to mine. Done. Who enforces it? We both do. If I hear from my importers that your country is now adding a tariff/import tax on a product, then I do the same to you. Why on earth anyone would think it takes an extragovernmental body to do this is baffling...
You can have free trade and maintain different regulations. All free trade means is that you don't place tariffs on imported goods. You're free to import into a country as long as you meet their safety requirements. It works very well for the US with most of its trade partners - where different standards exist for safety/regulatory requirements, but tariffs are eliminated.
Nobody wants Pease. Corn, maybe, but not pease!
Uh, no. Let me explain this to you, so perhaps you can learn a bit. It's OK to admit your error - we are all wrong until we learn what is correct.
The measure of a deficit is how much you spend beyond your income. If you make $100,000, but spend $120,000 then you have a $20,000 deficit. Your debt - what you owe others - increases by $20,000. With me so far?
Now, check the national debt records
. What will you discover? Every year since Eisenhower, the national debt has gone up. Every Single Year.
Go back to my opening example - if you spend more than your income, you have to borrow money. Your debt goes up. So how can one "claim" to have a surplus whilst having your debt go up? It's simple! And I'll explain it to you:
You lie.
There are two ways to do this:
First, you simply don't count all your spending. Let's say of that $100,000 in spending, $30,000 of it was on a nice vacation. So you claim "that vacation is not part of my normal spending, so it's not part of my budget, so it doesn't count". You try to claim that your spending was "only $90,000" now, so you actually have a surplus of $10,000! But in reality, do you have a surplus? No - that vacation is still on your credit card, you still owe that $30,000. Your financial position is still the same - you have a $20,000 deficit. But your "budget" had a surplus, because that vacation wasn't part of your budget. It was spending, but since you didn't put it in a given column, you can claim a budget "surplus" even though you actually racked up more debt.
The second way is to defer payments to keep cash flow positive. Say instead of a vacation, you decide to not pay 6 months of your mortgage. Your mortgage is $4,000 per month. Your actual spending is now just $96,000 - that's less than your income! Hurray - you have a $4,000 surplus, no deficit! But do you really have surplus? No - you have at least $24,000 more in debt. But rather than pay your debt, you kept some cash in your pocket. Your actual financial position is a $20,000 hole - but you can "claim" you have a surplus because you still have some cash in your pocket.
The Clinton "surpluses" were a combination of these two - many items were taken "off budget", and others were deferred until later years. The debt still increased, even though the "budget" was in surplus. It was simply word and accounting gimmicks - and the fact that "Factcheck" fell for it says a LOT about their ability to read through the BS.
There, you've been educated, so hopefully you won't make the same mistake again of falling for it!
Deficit: 1. the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount.
Now, somehow the Federal Government claimed the deficit in 2014 was "just" $483 billion. Yet it had to borrow nearly $1.1 trillion to cover what it decided to spend. So which is correct? What was the actual shortage? HINT: it wasn't $483 billion.
So what's your definition for deficit? In fact, when have you EVER posted a link to anything? I've backed up what I've posted, and apparently that gets your panties in a bind. That's your problem, not mine. You're showing your failings here, not me.
Huh. Do we believe dywolf's ramblings, or the OASDI's trustees who state "Social Security’s cost exceeded its tax income in 2013, and also exceeded its non-interest income, as it has since 2010." Personally, I'll trust the SSI trustees over you - they have a bit better handle on the situation, and they legally put their own butts on the line with their annual reports (which have reported a negative income balance since 2010 - like their summary states).
Now, you may not be aware of the term "running in the red", but when your income is less than your expenditures, then your cash flow is negative - it's "in the red". SSSI is in the red, per standard GAAP. And if it continues, then the savings/trust fund will eventually run out - and you either cut benefits (meaning: change the promises you've made) or you close altogether. But it is, truly, running in the red. Ask any accountant if a business spending more than it takes in would be considered in the red...
But then again, you still believe that having a deficit of just $483 billion can equate with adding nearly $1100 billion in debt.
Huh, I posted a link to studies that counter what you stated. You posted nothing. So... Yeah. I'll ignore you... PS: have you figured out how to compare numbers yet?
I posted the proxies. But since you don't like them, you ignore them. That's OK I guess... BTW, what's the tolerance on the two estimates, and how do they line up with today's temperatures?
See my response to your moronic statement above. It's clear you don't have any understanding. The reported deficit is NOT the actual deficit. Time and again, you see the "deficit" being maybe 30-40% of the actual debt racked up annually. I gave you the numbers earlier; for 2014 the deficit was reported as $483 billion, but nearly $1.1 trillion was added in debt. You tell me what the real deficit is (HINT: it's NOT what the Federal Government reports). IF you choose to educate yourself about the actual numbers, AND if you had a bit of integrity, you'd apologize and admit I'm correct. We'll see...
No, you "f'ing moron", the reported deficit is NOT the change in the debt every year. The reported deficit is for the ON-BUDGET items only, not all items. For example, the 2014 budget deficit was reported as $483 billion. Yet if you look at the debt added, it was nearly $1.1 trillion.
I guess if you want to swallow what the Government is peddling, be my guest. But in any rational, thinking mind - adding $1.1 trillion in debt does not equate to only a $483 billion deficit. Those two numbers are not equal. Go ahead, continue to be the "f'ing moron" and take what your Federal leadership tries to sell you...
It's 10 nanometers. A 10mm thick layer of PTFE would be massive.
Teflon is not PFOA. Teflon is PTFE. PFOA is used during the creation of PTFE, but is completely burned off during PTFE manufacturing, leaving no PFOA. Of course, lots of toxic things are used during the manufacturing of safe things all the time - that stainless steel staple used to hold your surgery together, or your frying pan/cooking utensils contains chromium, a nice and toxic heavy metal.
Yes, Michael "Hockey Stick!" Mann.... Others say it was global. And if you dig, you'll also find the Little Ice Age was generally global as well.
And about 1000 years ago it was about as warm as today - the medieval warm period.
False. Congress allocates what goes into the purse; the President decides what to spend of that purse. Both can limit the other (Congress can allocate less than the President desires, and the President can spend less than Congress desired).