Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: It's pretty simple (Score 1) 269

So believing what Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison put in writing during the ratification debates about what the phrase meant is arguing the writers on the Constitution were unable to properly express themselves??? You obviously didn't bother to read the quotes from them in the link.

I'm not twisting anything. The real puzzle is why some people have created this myth that it somehow includes everything. Standard legal construction (for hundreds of years) is to read phrases as adding meaning to the text, not being superfluous. If it can cover any kind of spending, then there would have been no point in adding it to the Constitution. Only if it expresses a limitation on what kind of spending is allowed does it convey a meaning.

Comment Re:Poster does not understand Algebra (Score 1) 352

For a consumption tax, you don't have to track people's purchases. Instead, you track people's sales and the tax is collected by the seller.

In terms of privacy, this is much better, as you pretty much already know that Widget Corp. is a seller of Widgets and the government doesn't need to collect exactly _who_ they sold widgets to, just how much they sold them all for.

In terms of tracking, 90% of the States currently already track sales. It's how they collect State-level sales taxes. Piggybacking on an existing system is much cheaper/easier than running a completely different system, which is why most States currently piggy-back on the federal system for their income taxes.

In terms of black markets, even income made on the black market (currently untaxed due to the income tax system) gets taxed when used to consume things.

As for cheating, it's relatively simple to catch businesses cheating and they already have the structure and the . For the most part, individuals can't cheat because they're the buyers, not the sellers. You may get some used-market under the table cheating, but you can either call that a recycling incentive, or else create monetary incentives to catch it, i.e. a reward (no penalties) to any buyer who turns in a seller who sold them something without charging the tax.

Comment Re:Poster does not understand Algebra (Score 1) 352

It's funny how you respond to a post almost entirely about interest representing the compensation for the choice to defer consumption with no mention whatsoever of that point.

Just repeating your mistaken economic views over and over again while deriding the views of actual economists isn't very convincing. Try addressing the actual argument next time.

Comment Breaking News (Score 3, Insightful) 96

Dateline SAN JOSE: Special interests make dire predictions of the future to try to gain favorable government policy treatment. "Give us what we want or it will be just terrible," they said. "We'll all die of Silicon Valley ennui!" When asked how many startups would die anyway of unrealistic optimism and poor management, they just glared and sullenly shuffled away, whispering under their breath.

Sadly, we never got the chance to ask them how accurate their other predictions of the future were.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 1) 525

Do you think we should not have an air force because there were no planes when the constitution was written?

It's part of the "armies".

Do you think cybersecurity needed to be enumerated explicitly?

Cybersecurity isn't a federal issue beyond the general interstate or international commerce implications.

If you think that the air force and nuclear arsenal are far less important because they were not envisioned in 1787, then perhaps you can consistently believe that modern healthcare should also be considered far less important.

But that internal consistency would still not make you correct.

Healthcare existed in the late 1700s, it wasn't invented in the last 100 years like airplanes and nuclear weapons. The fact that the founders never talked about providing healthcare means they didn't see it as part of something the federal government should do. And, it's actually not. The federal government has no authority to do anything with healthcare unless the Constitution is amended.

You should read it sometime. It's really not as difficult as people such as yourself make it out to be.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 1) 525

In what way does "The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" not imply the power to promote the general welfare? The founders undoubtedly didn't see what was coming, but they explicitly made it possible. Courts do consider original intent, but not typically to override what's printed in black and white.

Because "general welfare" is well-known to mean the actual general welfare of the country itself. It's not the welfare of individual people. This is much the same way your local police have a duty to generally keep the peace, but numerous court cases have established that they have no legal responsibility to any individual person.

You cite items 12, 13, and 14 of the appropriate section to show that Congress can maintain armies and a navy. They say nothing about an Air Force. The only way that can be Constitutionally justified is by the provision of the common Defense in item 1.

Ironically, the Army has more airplanes than the air force. But the US Air Force would be considered part of the armies that the US may maintain (note the plural).

Comment Re: This needs to stay (Score 1) 269

you're dumb enough to esteem the judgment of a guy who hired someone dumb enough to take money from foreign sources and not report it

Oh, you're referring to the guy THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION gave a security clearance to in 2016, following a review of his business dealings in Russia? That guy? One of the reasons he didn't get even more scrutiny while being considered for that job was the fact that the previous administration had just vetted him post Russian involvement and considered him worthy of an unsponsored security clearance. Which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can spew your usual phony ad hominem. Thanks for tending so carefully to your ongoing hypocrisy display. Continue!

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.

Working...