Yes, we're to trust the regime of Iran that for decades claimed they were not seeking nuclear weapons. And now they come out and say "yeah, we're looking for them" - so we negotiate to slow down their progress. What makes you think they're being honest about their progress, or that a 2/3rds reduction in the number of centrifuges will slow them down at all? We'll just ignore the past - and hope they tell the truth this time!
Take everything in the US that Bill Gates owns. He would still be a fabulously wealthy man. In fact, if he just escaped with only his Boeing Business Jet (a private 737), he'd be worth $50 million dollars. Now take the car or home of a person barely scraping by - they have nothing left. Yes, proportionately Bill Gates loses more - but he will still end up in a MUCH better position than the poor person.
Neville Chamberlain's hands were tied by the unwillingness of his people to go to war for Czechoslovakia. Condemn the man all you want; as the leader of a democracy his policy choices were constrained by public opinion, just as BHO's are.
At this point, BHO is legally barred from running again. Public opinion cannot influence his fate over the next 2 years. He has nothing tying his hands other than trying to work with the Senate in getting his foreign policy agenda pushed through. The difference between BHO at this point and Chamberlain in 1938 is night and day...
For most people in the US, it's not a $300-$400 phone, it's a free-to-$49 phone. Yes, you have to sign a contract for a few years of service - but you need service anyway to use the phone.
It's not so much the cost of making the product; as others have shown below, that's really a push. A few dollars one way or another on a $300 COGM product. The BIG difference is taxation. Sell that phone for $700 - that's $400 of profit. China's tax rate is about 60% of the US - meaning on that $400 profit, in the US you'll pay around $160 in taxes. In China, you'll pay around $100. That's a $60 difference - that's the big money.
Companies don't just look overseas because of lower labor costs (or lower manufacturing costs) - they look overseas for maximizing profit, and taxes can be a huge chunk of that. Add in 24/7 logistics support throughout China (ever have to do banking on the weekend? Simple in China - rather complex and onerous in the US) and you find the total costs involved are skewed against the US.
Worst of all, this is an area where we are 100% in control of the problem. Simply cut the corporate tax rate in the US down to the OECD average - 24% - and we'd have a tax rate slightly lower than China, and thus eliminate that penalty from discussion. Instead of building products overseas, and leaving the profits over there to be taxed there, companies might choose to build here and leave their profits in the US.
Bill Gates pays a lot more property tax than the poor person. That's how he's protected locally. And if China invaded, Bill would be on his plane flying out - and the poor person would be stuck behind, praying the soldiers protect them.
Yes, it includes intragovernmental debt. Are you implying that we don't have to pay back the debt we borrowed from the Social Security program, that which is promised to others? The Federal Government owes that money to the people it's promised, right?
Claiming it's not "real" debt means that when I take out a loan and guarantee it with money in my savings account, then the loan doesn't count as an outstanding debt. It's a debt and counts. Add up your debts, add up your assets, and you'll find your net worth.
Go to a bank, show them the above, and ask them if they will "ignore" your outstanding debt you backed with existing assets (bank account). They'll laugh you out of the bank. GAAP pretty much requires you to count that debt (of course, the Federal Government chooses to ignore GAAP because it's politically embarrassing - never mind that if you didn't use GAAP for your own tax reporting or public financial disclosure the same Federal Government will prosecute you and toss you into Federal PMITA Prison).0
In the case of the US Federal Government revenues, our debts piled up a little over $1 trillion more than our assets last year - and always piled up more than revenues, during the Clinton years.
You're 100% correct. The Federal Government should provide each State with a bill (based upon its population) and let the States decide how to collect the revenue.
Citation needed. I hear this a lot but never seem to hear any evidence of it.
The US used to have a maximum tax rate of over 90%, but fewer millionaires left the country than now when the tax rates are historically very low.
Deductions from income allowed the average person to pay, in inflation adjusted dollars, less than HALF of what they pay today in taxes. Sure, it was nominally a higher rate - but the Federal Government received a little less than half the dollars, per capita, than it did back in those days. Elimination of deductions, constant lowering of income brackets, addition of additional taxes all add up to more than doubling the Federal Government's revenue. Even with a nominally lower tax rate.
The Federal Government is planning to spend about $3.9 trillion dollars. There are about 320 million in the US. So hand every man, woman, and child a bill for $12,187 and be done with it. That's what the Federal Government is spending on your behalf, you should plan to provide it with that revenue.
What Clinton surplus? If we had an actual surplus, would our national debt have increased every year (meaning we spent more than we brought in)? The fact is the "Clinton surplus" NEVER existed. It was a nicely crafted lie. The annual debt has increased EVERY YEAR since Ike was a President. Clinton's "surplus" was from the same set of lies that allowed President Obama to claim a $486 billion deficit in 2014 even though we added nearly $1.1 trillion in new debt. How the debt goes up when you supposedly have a surplus, or how a $486 billion deficit creates $1.1 trillion in debt is a mystery that can only be solved in Washington DC.
RO runs about $0.005 per gallon; we're paying a little more than that in Ventura, CA - and the Los Angeles basin is even higher. RO is the solution - and it's an economical one, given the price most people pay in California.
RO costs about $0.005 per gallon. I pay a little more than that right now for current water sources, here in Ventura, CA. RO would have a zero-cost increase (and probably a decrease) for all of Southern California, which constitutes about 75% of the population.
Your math is bad. I pay $3.80 per HCF in Ventura, CA - and that works out to $0.005 per gallon (748 gallons per HCF). And I know Ventura is about 70-80% of the cost of water in the LA basin, so they're paying even more.
Great! Would you love to pay my water bill? I pay $3.80 per HCF - which is a touch over $0.005 per gallon. I live in Ventura, CA. RO wouldn't affect my costs at all, nor most of the costs for the entire Southern CA region. RO would make great economic sense down here.
Please see Debt to the Penny - a Government (Treasury Department) site. Please find the last year that we had a year-over-year reduction in debt (meaning - a real, not paper, surplus). HINT: you'll have to go back about 60 years... After that, we added debt - meaning ran an actual deficit - every single year.
Slashdot Mirror
Global humanity fucked up when we let Isreal have nuclear weapons and shit all over the NPT.
BUT - I do see Iran! Curious how they're working out a deal to continue seeking nuclear weapons, even though they signed a treaty to not do so...
Because President Bush could so easily have stopped the North Koreans from buying Pakistani nuclear weapon technology in the 1990s... Bush's Fault!
Yes, we're to trust the regime of Iran that for decades claimed they were not seeking nuclear weapons. And now they come out and say "yeah, we're looking for them" - so we negotiate to slow down their progress. What makes you think they're being honest about their progress, or that a 2/3rds reduction in the number of centrifuges will slow them down at all? We'll just ignore the past - and hope they tell the truth this time!
Take everything in the US that Bill Gates owns. He would still be a fabulously wealthy man. In fact, if he just escaped with only his Boeing Business Jet (a private 737), he'd be worth $50 million dollars. Now take the car or home of a person barely scraping by - they have nothing left. Yes, proportionately Bill Gates loses more - but he will still end up in a MUCH better position than the poor person.
Neville Chamberlain's hands were tied by the unwillingness of his people to go to war for Czechoslovakia. Condemn the man all you want; as the leader of a democracy his policy choices were constrained by public opinion, just as BHO's are.
At this point, BHO is legally barred from running again. Public opinion cannot influence his fate over the next 2 years. He has nothing tying his hands other than trying to work with the Senate in getting his foreign policy agenda pushed through. The difference between BHO at this point and Chamberlain in 1938 is night and day...
For most people in the US, it's not a $300-$400 phone, it's a free-to-$49 phone. Yes, you have to sign a contract for a few years of service - but you need service anyway to use the phone.
It's not so much the cost of making the product; as others have shown below, that's really a push. A few dollars one way or another on a $300 COGM product. The BIG difference is taxation. Sell that phone for $700 - that's $400 of profit. China's tax rate is about 60% of the US - meaning on that $400 profit, in the US you'll pay around $160 in taxes. In China, you'll pay around $100. That's a $60 difference - that's the big money.
Companies don't just look overseas because of lower labor costs (or lower manufacturing costs) - they look overseas for maximizing profit, and taxes can be a huge chunk of that. Add in 24/7 logistics support throughout China (ever have to do banking on the weekend? Simple in China - rather complex and onerous in the US) and you find the total costs involved are skewed against the US.
Worst of all, this is an area where we are 100% in control of the problem. Simply cut the corporate tax rate in the US down to the OECD average - 24% - and we'd have a tax rate slightly lower than China, and thus eliminate that penalty from discussion. Instead of building products overseas, and leaving the profits over there to be taxed there, companies might choose to build here and leave their profits in the US.
Last I saw, Apple and it's leadership are heavily Democratic, not Republican.
Bill Gates pays a lot more property tax than the poor person. That's how he's protected locally. And if China invaded, Bill would be on his plane flying out - and the poor person would be stuck behind, praying the soldiers protect them.
Correct. The lower end tends to receive more from the Government than the upper end. So in a way, it's still progressive...
Yes, it includes intragovernmental debt. Are you implying that we don't have to pay back the debt we borrowed from the Social Security program, that which is promised to others? The Federal Government owes that money to the people it's promised, right?
Claiming it's not "real" debt means that when I take out a loan and guarantee it with money in my savings account, then the loan doesn't count as an outstanding debt. It's a debt and counts. Add up your debts, add up your assets, and you'll find your net worth.
Go to a bank, show them the above, and ask them if they will "ignore" your outstanding debt you backed with existing assets (bank account). They'll laugh you out of the bank. GAAP pretty much requires you to count that debt (of course, the Federal Government chooses to ignore GAAP because it's politically embarrassing - never mind that if you didn't use GAAP for your own tax reporting or public financial disclosure the same Federal Government will prosecute you and toss you into Federal PMITA Prison).0
In the case of the US Federal Government revenues, our debts piled up a little over $1 trillion more than our assets last year - and always piled up more than revenues, during the Clinton years.
You're 100% correct. The Federal Government should provide each State with a bill (based upon its population) and let the States decide how to collect the revenue.
Citation needed. I hear this a lot but never seem to hear any evidence of it.
The US used to have a maximum tax rate of over 90%, but fewer millionaires left the country than now when the tax rates are historically very low.
Deductions from income allowed the average person to pay, in inflation adjusted dollars, less than HALF of what they pay today in taxes. Sure, it was nominally a higher rate - but the Federal Government received a little less than half the dollars, per capita, than it did back in those days. Elimination of deductions, constant lowering of income brackets, addition of additional taxes all add up to more than doubling the Federal Government's revenue. Even with a nominally lower tax rate.
The Federal Government is planning to spend about $3.9 trillion dollars. There are about 320 million in the US. So hand every man, woman, and child a bill for $12,187 and be done with it. That's what the Federal Government is spending on your behalf, you should plan to provide it with that revenue.
What Clinton surplus? If we had an actual surplus, would our national debt have increased every year (meaning we spent more than we brought in)? The fact is the "Clinton surplus" NEVER existed. It was a nicely crafted lie. The annual debt has increased EVERY YEAR since Ike was a President. Clinton's "surplus" was from the same set of lies that allowed President Obama to claim a $486 billion deficit in 2014 even though we added nearly $1.1 trillion in new debt. How the debt goes up when you supposedly have a surplus, or how a $486 billion deficit creates $1.1 trillion in debt is a mystery that can only be solved in Washington DC.
RO runs about $0.005 per gallon; we're paying a little more than that in Ventura, CA - and the Los Angeles basin is even higher. RO is the solution - and it's an economical one, given the price most people pay in California.
RO costs about $0.005 per gallon. I pay a little more than that right now for current water sources, here in Ventura, CA. RO would have a zero-cost increase (and probably a decrease) for all of Southern California, which constitutes about 75% of the population.
Your math is bad. I pay $3.80 per HCF in Ventura, CA - and that works out to $0.005 per gallon (748 gallons per HCF). And I know Ventura is about 70-80% of the cost of water in the LA basin, so they're paying even more.
Great! Would you love to pay my water bill? I pay $3.80 per HCF - which is a touch over $0.005 per gallon. I live in Ventura, CA. RO wouldn't affect my costs at all, nor most of the costs for the entire Southern CA region. RO would make great economic sense down here.
The adjusted (not raw) warming data clearly indicates that rate of temperature of last 50 years is far higher than any other period in history
FTFY.
When you can't do the former, you do the latter.
What does the cost of the Iraq war, ExxonMobil's profits, and the Army R&D budget have to do with spending regarding climate science?
Don't worry, that's what the precincts with more than 100% turnout are there for - to cover those who don't vote!
Cut the plans, give back the money, and I bet you won't see the rebellions...
Please see Debt to the Penny - a Government (Treasury Department) site. Please find the last year that we had a year-over-year reduction in debt (meaning - a real, not paper, surplus). HINT: you'll have to go back about 60 years... After that, we added debt - meaning ran an actual deficit - every single year.