How does this help the children? That's what RPi is all about, right?
If you think that the "women, minorities, veterans preference" means anything at all in the real world, please give some examples. Good luck.
You've obviously never worked on US Government contracts. Have a look at the 8(a) business development program.
Whatever you think you may have read, 8(a) is HUGE in the government services business. Many contracts are 8(a) set-aside, meaning only 8(a) companies can bid on them. Companies who acutally do the work often will "shop around for a prime" contractor, meaning they will look for an 8(a) company to take the prime contractor position (who they will then sub to) on a job they can execute. The 8(a) prime gets a percentage for management.
Once you get your 8(a) status, you keep it for ten years.
If you're an Alaskan Native-owned company, you're in even better shape.
So I can't say for sure about women and veterans, but for minorities, there is _huge_ advantage in the government services sector.
"And then a zealous believer named Paul turned the story into an organized religion based on guilt."
Paul taught that the Gospel brings _freedom_ from guilt. He even called himself the chief of sinners.
Have a read of Romans chapter 8 for a better idea of what the Gospel really means.
Reading it again, it's clear to me now that I misunderstood what you meant by "personal in-seat experience."
Nope, my experience with Delta has to do with personal in-seat experience.
I'm pretty sure in-seat experience is different than _SAFETY_. You said initailly:
and I don't feel unsafe except on a couple of carriers in the US. First, anything flown by Republic which is a contract carrier for US Airways and others and secondly, Delta.
Sorry your in-seat entertainment TV crashed, but that's no reason to say you feel unsafe on an airline. Seems like someone who flies "100 to 150 times a year" would know the difference.
Why aren't they making the world better the way I think it should be done?!
Because the industrial and economic policies of their governments are shifting them into increasingly valueless industries.
It's easy to throw stones and walk away. It's harder to propose solutions. What do you propose?
On an objective scale yes. But most of us here in America think that America's scale is complete, instead of starting in the middle and going right.
Says who? We have two parties who refuse to do anything but increase the size of government. I say we start in the middle and go left.
Who gets to define what "the middle" is anyway? In my experience, there's a basic human tendency to try to find equal and opposite in everything. For some it makes them feel like they're above (ie: superior to) the fray. Just read the comments here. The theme of "it's the same on both sides" is pervasive. Someone above suggests that Fox News and MSNBC are the same but opposite. Think objectively for a second. Can that possibly be true? Equal? Or is it more reasonable to think that one of them (whichever one) is _more_ biased than the other. It almost _has_ to be that way.
Fox news supporters say "right of the left is not the same thing as right of center." It's tautology. You can't dispute it. Everyone thinks they're in the middle and balanced and everyone else is nuts.
It's easier to hate everyone (in this case both sides) because if you don't support anything, you never have to defend anything; you can just throw rocks.
By the way, I'm a right-wing nutjob. I can admit it.
Yes, much of it is inflation, but we didn't go from inflation to deflation then back to inflation again right as the Bush tax cuts were passed.
Like you, I would like to see that graph normalized for inflation. You're right that it's not comparing the right kinds of terms, but I disagree that it means nothing. Revenue was coming down, then tax cuts, then it went up.
As far as inflation goes, the way we measure it now is a joke. If oil, food, and housing don't count, I'm not sure what the point of the quantity even is. Of course that's a different debate for a different day.
The first result from DuckDuckGo for me was this from Heritage Foundation:
Interesting that it's giving us different results. I've never used DDG before on this computer.
Do you have any economic papers or non mass media sources that back up your analysis?
Unfortunately not anymore. I looked this stuff up several years ago, getting federal revenue and tax rates from different sources. "Original research" I suppose. I don't remember which sites those were at exactly. It took me about half an hour, iirc.
Sorry I can't give you any better than that.
The Forbes link:
has a very clear graph, showing the slope changing significantly (from negative to positive) when Bush changed the rate of the top bracket.
The first result I got was this:
It has a pretty clear graph.
If the first two results for you were those two (particularly the first one, obamaftw.com, seems like it's going to be a bit partisan), I might questioning the biases of your search engine.
Of course search engines are smart, maybe each engine is giving each of us what it thinks we'll personally like
We blew the largest part of our budget surplus on the Bush Tax Cuts,
Revenue went up the year after the Bush tax cuts. Same for Reagan's tax cuts. People can debate why, and they can debate whether receipts would have been even higher without the tax cuts, but the idea that we "blew" or "spent" the surplus on tax cuts is simply false.
Google for "Bush Tax Cuts Increase Revenue," or look at the tables yourself. I've done both.
... the best forecasting system for predicting Sandy was not American, rather it was the model of the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) in Reading, England.
Yeah, every model has a different track, and some hurricanes follow one model and other hurricanes follow other models. Hurricanes are unpredictable. Just because this one lined up with a particular forecast doesn't mean that forecast is better in all (or necessarily any other) cases. It's like this for every single hurricane.
I know it's popular on here (and on the internet and media in general) to say that American stuff sucks and that Europe is better, but there isn't anyone pointing out the times when NOAA has the more accurate forecasts. It simply wouldn't be news that people would want to read.
If you have a better idea, please elaborate. For some reason completely oblivious to you, preparation against catastrophic events costs money.
The problem I have is that when times are good, governments spend the excess on crap, and then when it comes time to make cuts, they whine about how they'll have to cut essential services. We see it all the time with local governments as property taxes fluctuate. When revenues are down they say they have to cut police and fire departments and teachers, but there's never any talk about cutting what was _added_ during the fat years. We always had teachers and police and fire departments during the previous lean years, so what's the problem with going back to how it was?
We're seeing the same thing on the federal level, the difference being that there haven't been good times (ie: surplus) in over a decade. Replace "good times" with "when we're borrowing even more from China."
We had money to fund NOAA before the current people in charge borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, why can't we go back to that? I think that's what the GP is getting at.
The building is not only paid for in full but he could literally spend $50 million redoing the interior(the next ~two years of income) and then rent out the space for another 5-10 million a year.
Should we make that law then? As soon as your building is paid for, you shall renovate it and rent it out? What if that's one of many other buildings he owns, the rest of which _lose_ money. What then?
Liberals talk about how horrible it is to judge the social morality of others, but they have no problem doing it economically.
It is what is wrong with the Republican Piss Down Theory. This guy is literally sitting on his money.It isn't really doing him as good as it should. If he was actually investing in that property I could see it but he isn't.
The problem with your line of thinking is that if someone invests huge sums of money, time, and life, and makes a profit, they're evil and they should give that profit away, but if they take a loss, then well that's just their own fault for not being a better businessman.
In NYC that location? he could be doing 50-100% more income on that property.
I bet you could do 50-100% more on your own income. How many jobs do you have? Don't have your doctorate yet? That's what's wrong with personal liberty. Not everyone works up to their full potential.
See how ridiculous it sounds when you try to tell someone what they should and shouldn't be doing with their own money and their own life? Get your own life, and don't judge the actions of other people based on 5 sentences you read in a slashdot summary.