Good luck Taco! You'll be missed.

I'd appreciate one too please

shanebush at gmail dot com

I'd like one too please...

shanebush at gmail dot com

Lets cut federally mandated services, while both increasing and decreasing taxes.
I'd love for some politician somewhere to run on this:

20% federal flat tax, no deductions/reductions
The problem with that is non-profits and such would no longer get funded through tax deductions.

Solution:
10% of said tax goes to fed gov't.
remaining 10% goes into a pool for the citizen/household to allocate percentages or dollar amounts to State registered non-profits

Most government services and social programs get privatized into heavily regulated non-profits and registered as "officially sanctioned" services. (open to competition by other startup "officially sanctioned" service providers) Citizens use the 10% pool to donate to registered non-profit organizations. Churches, schools, healthcare, social security, roads, bridges etc. People can choose to allocate, or not. If they choose not to, the other 10% goes to the fed. gov't as well. The federal gov't would be restricted from funding these services itself. (no bailouts)

Advantages: Non-profits and social programs that should die won't have funding, and will die. Popular programs useful to the people would flourish. In the end, the people would choose. The non-profits would be forced to compete for your allocation.

Disadvantages?

Hmm... I'll bite to this one.

What is interesting is that there is a great example of this type of industry in my hometown in South Alabama.

A few years ago an outsourcing company, now known as Client Logic came in and setup what is described here as a "Rural Outsourcing" center. It has infused the local economy with good quality jobs. Several members of my family and friends work there.

As for the lower wages, in that part of the world, you can make $10 an hour and live like a person making $30 an hour elsewhere. Average price of a 2500-3000 square foot house on one to two acres is under $100,000.

There's another aspect to this. Rural folk, no matter what part of the country you're from, if treated fairly will be extremely loyal and will do whatever it takes to help out.

Actually, my use of the term "paradigm shift" was a deliberate allusion to the fact that I had read Kuhn. You simply missed it. Even though later on in the same post, I discussed Kuhn specifically. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is not even a particularly difficult read.

Based on what you have written, though, I suspect you might find your views more closely aligned with Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner in physics (1979), and author of Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries. He considers Kuhn one of those adversaries.

That's the end of my part of this discussion. You haven't offered anything fresh, and some of it is nonsense. I also find your attempts at scientific homiletics to be tiresome. I'm moving on.