The idea that corporations shy away from long term research is simply absurd, they fund long term/blue sky research all the time.
For the same reason you have to have a horn and seat belt and all that other crap in your car. Because some people will use it.,
I live in a state where I don't have to wear a seat belt, have a horn or even working turn signals, those riding motorcycles don't have to wear helmets and those learning to drive don't need a permit. The state road mortality rate is significantly lower than the national average (6th lowest) so your assertion that these rules have an impact on mortality rates is provably false.
People wear seat belts because it's safe to not because the law tells them they have to, over regulation acts as a revenue measure and makes it seem like our political masters are doing something worthwhile when they are treating us like children. I am quite capable of putting on my seatbelt without being told to and the idiot who doesn't deserves precisely what he gets.
Regulations such as this seek to penalize everyone at the expense of a minority who are idiots (it doesn't matter if that expense is $2 or $2000) and surprisingly those who will drive drunk will do so irrespective of what a breathalyzer tells them so the measure will be entirely ineffective anyway.
Its none of your, or anyone else's, business what I have in my car or what I have had to drink unless I am driving dangerously.
As I said before, there is no point in trying to have a rational argument with conservatives
I am about as far from a conservative as you can get. The fact you put stock in an absurd concept of all ideas belonging to one of two poles instead of coming to rational decision on the source and quality of data you are presented speaks volumes about who you are. If you are incapable of critical thought and rationality why do you even bother reading?
Charter schools are not self-selecting, they have to accept everyone who applies up to the number of places available, if more people apply then there are places available then they are required to have a lottery to select students for places.
You have to apply and pay and jump through hoops to get your kids into them
Charter schools are not permitted to charge an entrance or application fee.
the children who have mental, emotional or learning handicaps.
To cite one example Harlem Success Academy actually has higher than the average special needs students compared to surrounding public schools. In any case they must accept special needs students to get a charter, again this idea they somehow get to pick and choose students is just FUD organizations like ACORN, AFT and NEA publish.
Lastly, flight from public schools weakens the resolve to do something about it. For example, if the kids of politicians aren't in public schools then there's little incentive for them to seriously work to improve the situation.
There is no resolve to fix the system, they have had decades to do something about it and haven't. Asking us to continue sacrificing children to a system that fails them on the hopes that maybe someone will fix it is both repugnant and the opposite is suggested based on the history of attempted reform.
Also on the issue of vouchers and private schools I consider it hugely advantageous to provide a mechanism for highly performing students to have a curriculum and environment that nurtures their abilities instead of one that seeks merely mediocrity. While it might make us feel all warm and fuzzy dedicating more resources to students who are failing is insane, teach everyone up to a base but provide a mechanism for those who can go beyond that base to do so.
I guess, if the upper class wants the lower classes to pay more in taxes, it seems like the first thing that needs to change is that the upper classes need to pay the lower classes more in wages.
Yes, because the evil rich people want the poor workers to work for pennies a day. Wages are set by the market, if you don't like what a job pays then improve your skills to move up. Ultimately it doesn't matter what happens with the tax system, to close the deficit you would need to impose a 100% tax on incomes over $276k and this doesn't even begin to account for the extra $500b we need to find for medicare & social security over the next 8 years. Either the programs will be fixed and tax rates go down for everyone or the tax rates on the wealthy will increase so much that they will be driven out of the country,
Of course that 47% includes the retired on Social Security, students, unemployed people, etc
Its based on filers, returns with AGI's lower then $8,500 account for 0.77% of the total so the unemployed, students and those existing only on SS are not significantly distorting to the total.
Of course that 47% includes the retired on Social Security, students, unemployed people, etc. Also, those numbers do not include social security taxes which are a federal tax.
Yes, then the number moves up to 49%. Total effective rate for the bottom 50% is 1.85% which accounts for income, capital gains and payroll.
Also, a fair system is not necessarily linear with wealth and income. It is not unacceptable for the very rich to pay a proportionally unfair amount of taxes.
There is no number which suggests this, feel free to check the data yourself http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=98123,00.html
On effective rates bottom 50% pay 1.85% from all sources (income taxes, capital gains, payroll) while the top 1% pag 24.01%.
On share of taxes the bottom 50% pay 2.3% of the burden (on an income share of 13.5%) while the top 1% pay 36.7% of the burden (on an income share of 16.9%).
On dollar amounts the bottom 50% contribute $19.5b while the top 1% contribute $318b.
How are they paying proportionally unfairly from any number?
After all, above a certain wealth having more money is less useful than a similar amount spread among people that will spend it.
This is false, trickle up is as economically unsound as trickle town. Unless they keep the additional wealth as cash then its invested somewhere, this extra capital is what provides liquidity for corporate and consumer credit. Suggesting it is "wasted" or not as productive is pure ignorance.
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr