Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: why is that the question? (Score 1) 355

by bondsbw (#49749621) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

Watch the videos I linked above, or at least the first one or two. Sure, third parties can and do win in a first-past-the-post system, but it gets more and more rare until it becomes practically impossible for them to have any chance of success.

When was the last time a third party had any real chance of winning the Presidency of the U.S.? Theodore Roosevelt took second place in the 1912 election running as the Progressive Party candidate. He was previously a very popular President of two terms, who decided not to run for a third immediately. Instead he tried to run for a third term later only to miss the Republican Party nomination. He formed his own party, and despite his popularity among Republicans, all he could do was spoil the election... he split the Republican vote, and Democrats walked away the victors with a relatively low plurality.

Comment: Re: More than PR (Score 1) 355

by bondsbw (#49748699) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

I wasn't thinking multiple governments that are sovereign over a small price of land, but rather multiple layers of government consisting of local representation and proper checks and balances.

The U.S. federal/state/local and executive/legislative/judicial partitioning is actually a pretty decent form of what I'm talking about (except that the state governments have de jure capability to place Constitutional restrictions over the federal government, but de facto the federal government always has the final say).

Comment: Re:More than PR (Score 3, Interesting) 355

by bondsbw (#49748423) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

The main reason I'm neither Democrat nor Libertarian: I don't believe in either a big government or a small government.

I believe in multiple small governments, who together provide the necessary defense from external forces but which do not have the ability to concentrate (and thus corrupt) power absolutely.

Comment: Re:Tolls? (Score 1) 825

by bondsbw (#49738661) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

Even poor people get double-paned windows

I highly doubt that. If they really are poor, meaning they only have enough money to provide the basic necessities, I doubt that energy efficient windows and HVAC units and such are higher priority than basic food, clothing, and shelter.

Sure, these things pay for themselves eventually, but the upfront cost is quite a bit of money that can better be used to eat this week.

Prius C costs all of $17K

A used gas guzzler might cost all of $1K, or less.

It used to be a 10% deduction for $500, up to the lifetime of the house. A drop in the bucket.

Not much for a rich person, but unattainable for a poor person.

Comment: Re:Numbers (Score 1) 825

by bondsbw (#49736389) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

The main problem here is forgetting why we do taxes the way we do.

Fairness takes a back seat to collection efficiency. If taxes were truly fair, the government would force you to pay on the spot for every tiny use of government services and infrastructure. Do the water pipes to your house go 90 ft. farther than your neighbor's? Then you have to pay for your share of wear on the common pipe, and additionally on the pipe that goes only to your house. Did your precinct need a recount in the last election? You need to come back and pay a little extra tax for that additional processing. Did you call the cops out because your car was broken into? You pay them on the spot for their services.

Similarly, driving distance and weight are fair ways to calculate road infrastructure taxes, but it's a lot easier to have people pay at the pump... which is one reason it's done that way.

Comment: Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1075

by bondsbw (#49735605) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

See my response to aepervius below, the chosen baseline year simply appears to be the first year provided in the data set.

Doing 1975 as a comparison, using current dollars for FY2009... 1975 = $1232.7B, 2014 = $3238.9B, the federal government is currently spending 2.63 times as much as in 1975, adjusted for inflation.

Comment: Re:That is STUPID : inflation (Score 1) 1075

by bondsbw (#49735571) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Actually I think I found the source of the data tompaulco used: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

Assuming that source is to be trusted*, his numbers are correct as he stated. $9.5 Billion in 1940 is equivalent to $135.8 Billion in FY2009, so the comparison between $135.8B and $3.2T ($3238.9B) is the proper comparison. That comes out to be 23.9 times as much spending in current dollars.

* if you believe the source is incorrect, feel free to find a reputable source that refutes it... as for me, I have to go to work

Comment: Re:Only Two Futures? (Score 1) 607

by bondsbw (#49732859) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

What does "so that her fruit depart from her" mean if not causing the child to be born prematurely?

Besides, I chose the NIV because it was the default on the website I happened to look up. If you don't like it, then look at some of the others. Young's Literal Translation (1862) for example uses the phrase "her children have come out".

Comment: Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1075

by bondsbw (#49732403) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

This is particularly the case today when most money is seating idle in bank accounts and treasury bonds.

Whose bank accounts and treasury bonds? I assume you are hinting at owners of companies who employ large numbers of minimum-wage workers, but what about the owners of companies who don't employ many minimum-wage workers? Increasing minimum wage doesn't make much of a difference for them, and certainly doesn't cause them to contribute more to the system that got them there.

This is one reason I don't care to jump on this bandwagon of raising the minimum wage. It puts the whole burden on low-skill industries.

Comment: Re:Only Two Futures? (Score 1) 607

by bondsbw (#49728695) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

As for abortion: an embryo or a fetus is not a person and it is not viable to live on its own. Even the Bible makes this clear since the punishment for striking a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage is not the same punishment as murder.

Oh really? Exodus 21 seems to disagree (emphasis mine):

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton

Working...