Seems like if your company is losing money, the last thing you want to do is cancel deals that are making you money.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I can attest to this type of scenario. As a hobbyist genealogist I've encountered records of burial grounds plowed over by highways or used as fill dirt for highways. Sometimes everyone looked the other way, sometimes the foreman stopped them halfway through when they realized what was going on.
FFS someone please mod parent up for understanding this. Once the gold standard was cut we started doing all kinds of little accounting tricks that allowed us to claim we ran a surplus while simultaneously increasing our debt. It was done by spending money that wasn't budgeted. Doesn't much matter if your budget has a surplus if you spend more than you budget to spend, especially when you do it on purpose.
The problem since 1980, is that those with the most money have voted that they pay a lower share of taxes than their share of wealth.
You *do* realize that if the top 1% were taxed a whopping 67% of their income, we would still be running a deficit, correct? Knowing this, how can you state that the level of taxes paid by the 2% is THE problem?
We've lowered the deficit this year to about 1.1 trillion dollars (usdebtclock.org). In 2009, the top 1% of earners paid 37% of all income taxes collected, while earning 17% of all income. Since income taxes collected are about 1.1 trillion, this means the top 1% paid a ballpark 340 billion. Since total US Personal Income was 11.8 trillion that year (http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm), that means the top 1% earned about 2 trillion. Thus if you took 2/3 of this as taxes, or about 1.3 trillion dollars, or about a 1 trillion dollar increase over what it already was, we would still be in the red.
Forgive my inadequate use of html for references, but quite simply, taxes on the rich aren't the problem. You could take every fucking dime from everyone making over a quarter million and we'd find a way to spend it all plus more.
A long time ago I was given a sage piece of advice by an elder gentleman. He said "If at any time you determine that you are in a hole that you need to get out of, the very first thing you should do is STOP DIGGING".
Now why wouldn't the Supreme Court make provision to service a larger case load over time? Is there some magic logic behind this?
The real answer behind this is that interpreting the constitution itself is not the only thing the justices do. Thats all they really did in 1800 but somewhere along the way (I can't quote where at the moment) they determined that their previous decisions on cases set precedent and carry just as much weight as the constitution itself (though they can reverse their previous decisions, it's just rare). They also determined that they should not be a court of first impression.
They generally only hear cases where there is a circuit split on very similar cases (i.e. 4th circuit of appeals found in John Jones's favor against RIAA but 7th circuit of appeals found in RIAA's favor against Randy Smith in very similar cases), or if there is no circuit split, in cases where a very narrow question of law can be asked that will not have wide ranging effects (i.e. they aren't going to listed to a case where someone is fined $500 and overturning it would overturn 40 million court cases), or cases where the the effects are VERY wide ranging (ACA) or ESPECIALLY egregious (think if JT was being fined 40 trillion dollars for copyright infringement).
Because I thought that the Legislative branch could still pass legislation contrary to whatever decision SCOTUS makes. Sure, depending on what it is that SCOTUS ruled on, to properly overturn it may require an amendment, but SCOTUS is not the be all, end all, "What We Say Goes And There's No Changing It Ever" decision maker that it kind of sounds like you are saying they are.
Well, in all probability, you are correct. However, by definition, the judicial branch judges what is and is not lawful. If they say it ain't lawful, it ain't lawful. You could pass an amendment to make it lawful, but if they really wanted to, they could "interpret" it differently than you meant it, and declare it unlawful still. The supreme court has the supreme power to determine what is and is not lawful, and even if blatantly wrong, there is nothing that can done short of attempted impeachment for not being in "good behavior". Let me know how that works out for you.
A rather large amount of us don't have a problem with them; we simply don't give a fuck. If in a hurry and I happen to type their instead of they're, I also don't give a fuck. Out of so many things on a daily basis that are actually important, and so many other things that are not important at all but I still feel like spending my time on (it IS my time, after all), [']'s simply do not always make the list.
Furthermore, if you took a random sample of 1000 people, I would think you would probably come to this realization.
People. Don't. Care.
It's not a big deal. We really don't care.
You do realize, however, that even if he has insurance, and gets a $50,000 bill, he pays his $2k deductible, and then 20% of the remaining 48k ($9,600) that he still has to pay $11,600 even though he has insurance? Then whats the fucking point?
Why would a person who makes $20k or $30k give a flying fuck about reducing their bill from $50k to $11.6k? Whats the difference? Even after ponying up for the insurance that they feel they cannot afford, they still get hit with a bill equal to 2 years worth of rent payments, or more. Paying off 11.6k at $50 a month (which they probably can't afford, since they couldn't afford insurance to begin with) at 0% interest would still take 20 years to pay off. And thats assuming that you stay in perfect health the next 20 years and never have to add onto that debt.
Insurance is worthless to these people until something is done about the underlying cost of healthcare to begin with.
In some states, writing in a candidate for president is LITERALLY throwing your vote away, as some states only count write in votes for cadidates who have filed letters of intent and discard other write in votes.
That being said, Libertarian in every race that has a libertarian candidate as a big fuck you to the Repub party that I am registered with.
I understand your post, however, they do have mayors. Just not very much any higher than that.
I hope Texas and the red states do secede. For some children, one spanking isn't enough.
Assuming the states take control of federal military bases on their turf, methinks you may want to reconsider who would spank who if the red states seceded.
Not only that, but it would be a tremendous black eye of epic proportions in the current day and and age if one or more states declared independence and the remainder invaded to keep them in line. After what we have done and who we have supported the last decade? It would turn the US into such a hypocritical laughing stock...i don't even know how to finish the comparison.
i.e. it doesn't say "judge not, period", it says "judge not, unless you want to be subject to similar judgement". Thats why it goes on to say beam in the eye, mote in the eye, and all that.
Its not telling me not to call you out for stealing the candy bar, its telling me IF I call you out for stealing the candy bar, I better not be pulling money straight out of the register while others aren't looking.
In other words, given the bible calls out both homosexuality as well as adultery and stealing, you have no right to call out a person for homosexuality if you are committing adultery or theft.
It does not simply mean "do not judge, EVAR" as due to other passages such as:
John 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
1 Cor 6 “Do you not know the Saints will judge the world?”
1 Cor 5:3 "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed"
Forgive me if you were just being overly broad, I just get tired of people who regurgitate a phrase of 2 words every time someone calls them out, like its an excuse for them to ignore their "holy book" when it suits them .
The parent said "religions are always false". There was no need for me to hash through the possible definitions that may lend it credence, it was only necessary for me to provide a single definition which proved it inaccurate. That is why I chose that definition. That and because it was the very first one listed, not much use to keep going after I got what I came for.
As to your second sentence, you are saying if the what you are describing matches up with the very first definition of a word in the dictionary, then we definitely do NOT want to use that word, we want to use some other word. Religion need not involve a deity, and your very argument flies in the face of what you are trying to say. I have proven to you that the dictionary backs up my position, evidence backs up my position, and yet you declare my position is invalid because if my position were valid, it would be backed up by evidence.
My point is that anyone who says "religions are false" is generally either trolling, flaiming, or not thinking logically. I've never been able to figure out why, but intelligent, logical people somehow suspend all logic when someone enters the room talking about religion. I should have known better than to point out this bias on
So now you also make baseless accusations that the dictionary itself is wrong?
Faith is a requirement for religion, because religions are always false.
Not only is your assertion not provable as true, it can be proven false. Furthermore, it is flamebait and should be modded as such.
There are over 4,200 religions in the world. Do you know them all? Have you proven each one false? HAve you read a peer reviewed journal for each one where it was proven false?
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,