What I would like to see happen: income tax should be flattened, exemptions and credits eliminated so there is a single tax rate for all income. At the same time, the spending should be drastically cut: Close oversea military bases, increase minimum social security receiving age, sell off national parks (preferably to states to make state parks or to non-profits who will care for them), raise the interest rate on student loans, give all federal employees a 10% paycut, and whatever else can be cut. After the tax revenue rises above the spending, the surplus can be used to pay down the debt, eliminating that huge chunk of the budget that goes to debt servicing. After the debt is eliminated, taxes should be lowered (still keeping it as a flat income tax so everybody benefits from the lowering) and governemnt services can be expanded.
Why would you cut taxes for the rich (or punish horribly the middle class) while you are trying to balance the budget. The only balanced budget in recent memory came from a 39% tax rate for the upper bracket. It is simple, we have done it before, it WORKS. Combine the additional revenue with modest across the board cuts including defense and you can get a balanced budget. Leave student loans as they are, as the rate is ALREADY ABOVE PRIME. Education is a cost for a functioning society and pays dividends later. Changes need to be made to how colleges operate and to the very high costs but that is a separate issue. |
|
|
|
I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally.
You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted?
++ I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when: a) the country is getting too full b) immigrants come for a free lunch a isn't happening b is happening from mexico because of government handouts. get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore. M B is irrelevant. Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in. They are a net positive to the economy. We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave. Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work. I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. They might be a net positive for the near term, but what about the future. The slave owners 200 years ago also thought it was a net positive to own black slaves, they didn't think their sons and daughters will one day be wage slaves to support a 25% unemployed black population that rely on welfare/food stamps. racist much? Black unemployment is not 25%. It is not even 15%. For 2012 food stamps are less then 80 billion dollars (projected) , defense is 1000 to 1400 billion dollars. And while it is silly to break down into race, the 85% employees blacks are paying taxes to support those on the food stamps. Get over the race bullshit, that is not the problem with the budget. |
|
|
|
I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields.
Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Americans do not want to pick fields. The hourly price has exceeded $10 an hour here. Higher then that and it gets too expensive to farm. Mexicans=food security. There's something wrong with this picture. M Maybe so, but it is reality in many places. |
|
|
|
I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields.
Maryland is not unique. The same can be said about practically every state. What are Mexicans doing this job? If they can "make a living" from it, why can't Americans? What's different? M Americans do not want to pick fields. The hourly price has exceeded $10 an hour here. Higher then that and it gets too expensive to farm. Mexicans=food security. |
|
|
|
Everyone is missing the most ridiculous part of the article: The EU wants to cap MEMORY BANDWIDTH, not just power consumption. The commission wants to stop dedicated graphics cards of group G7 from going above 320 GB/s - that is in theory a memory bus at 384-bit connected to memory operating at 6667 MHz or 512-bit with 5001 MHz. This is definitely within reach for the next generation graphics cards. Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition currently has a bandwidth of 288 GB/s with a 384-bit memory bus and 6000 MHz memory. For notebooks the limit will be only 225 GB/s. No, they don't. In fact they EXEMPT cards with high memory bandwidths from this recommendation if they are in a high end system. "1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and 1.1.2: (a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing unit (CPU); and (b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths above 320 GB/s; and (c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and (d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W. " The whole idea of allowing politicians to determine computer specs is just ridiculous on a monumental level. Correct. Computers change too fast and politicians change too slowly. Also politicians are not computer experts. (well actually they are not experts in anything as far as I can tell) But again, the title of the orginal article is FUD. |
|
|
|
Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him.
This post highlights the problem with politics in America. Ideas on how to fix the country cannot be stolen. If it is a good idea I do not care of Ron Paul, Romney or Obama it. There is no secret sauce, there is no secret idea that Romney has to fix the country. The problem is not the ideas, it is the resolve of getting them done. This requires BOTH sides to co-operate. So far they do not seem to be able to do that. Sure it can be. In business, people steal ideas all the time, and Romney is 100% aware of it, this is why he don't want to give specifics. I disagree that idea is not important, idea is very important, it differentiates between the right way and the wrong way, if ideas are not important, then it's like saying being right or wrong is not important. Also even if everyone agrees on the right idea, it's still important who implements it. If Obama just steals Romney's idea and try to implement, I would say it'll probably fail, because Obama simply don't have the business sense, experience and intelligence to successfully implement Romney's ideas. Sorry. The only magic that Romney has is magic underwear. Romney is lying when he says he can do this without more taxes and without defense cuts. It IS possible to balance the budget and not kill the economy but cuts need to be across the board including defense. And you can not do it while keeping both the middle class tax cut Obama gave us (the 2% off of fica) AND keeping the Regan cuts for the rich (top rate at 35% vs 39%). Math is math. This can only be done if both sides give in SUBSTANTIALLY. |
|
|
|
I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally.
You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted?
++ I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is only a problem when: a) the country is getting too full b) immigrants come for a free lunch a isn't happening b is happening from mexico because of government handouts. get rid of the handouts "stealing from peter to pay paul" and you won't have this problem anymore. M B is irrelevant. Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in. They are a net positive to the economy. We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave. Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work. I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them. On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. |
|
|
|
Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him.
This post highlights the problem with politics in America. Ideas on how to fix the country cannot be stolen. If it is a good idea I do not care of Ron Paul, Romney or Obama it. There is no secret sauce, there is no secret idea that Romney has to fix the country. The problem is not the ideas, it is the resolve of getting them done. This requires BOTH sides to co-operate. So far they do not seem to be able to do that. |
|
|
|
Everyone is missing the most ridiculous part of the article: The EU wants to cap MEMORY BANDWIDTH, not just power consumption. The commission wants to stop dedicated graphics cards of group G7 from going above 320 GB/s - that is in theory a memory bus at 384-bit connected to memory operating at 6667 MHz or 512-bit with 5001 MHz. This is definitely within reach for the next generation graphics cards. Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition currently has a bandwidth of 288 GB/s with a 384-bit memory bus and 6000 MHz memory. For notebooks the limit will be only 225 GB/s. No, they don't. In fact they EXEMPT cards with high memory bandwidths from this recommendation if they are in a high end system. "1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and 1.1.2: (a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing unit (CPU); and (b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths above 320 GB/s; and (c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and (d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W. " |
|
|
|
I find it interesting that nobody has mentioned the toxicity of CFL bulbs, especially when compared to standard incandescent. Who'd have thunk that much mercury would be "green"?
I do not recommend eating CFL's. That is enough information for 99% of the population. I think Snopes (as usual) does a fine job of examining the dangers (and relative lack thereof) of CFL bulbs: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.aspBottom line, they need special disposal procedures, unlike incandescent bulbs. How much mercury is there in a CFL? Once you answer this question, put that answer in the context of other sources of mercury around you. Coal plants and fish, for example. Correct for the toxicity factor of organomercury vs. elemental mercury. Come back to us.
4-5 milligrams. How much is in an incandescent bulb? Yes, it's less than living next to a coal plant. Yes, the risk factor of having a CFL bulb is minimal. I have two burning in my bedroom right now, and 5 more in the living room. I'm just suggesting that maybe power consumption isn't the only factor we should be looking at to determine the "green-ness" of a bulb. I usually agree with snopes but they have let their lawyers alter their good judgement on this one. They are still making people fear a broken CFL. A broken CFL has less mercury then a TUNA SANDWICH. If you break one, clean it up manually not with a vacuum. Open the windows if you can, but do not fear.... If you ate 100% of the mercury in the bulb it is less then that sandwich. |
|
|
|
I find it interesting that nobody has mentioned the toxicity of CFL bulbs, especially when compared to standard incandescent. Who'd have thunk that much mercury would be "green"?
I do not recommend eating CFL's. That is enough information for 99% of the population. |
|
|
|
Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?
It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them. For the vast majority of uses you are correct. I am still not for a total ban. There are some outlier uses where the incandescent bulb is the best choice. It is a shame that people will purchase them because of impressions of early or cheap CFL's that are no longer true. An education campaign would be a better idea then a ban. Someone earlier said that CFL's don't work well in the extreme cold. That is sort of true, but almost all of the quality ones will start in -40. They can take 5-10 mins to warm up to full brightness in extreme cold. If you only intermittently use the bulb then go incandescent but that is an extreme outlier use. Even in that use, if you had the CFL bulb on 24/7 it would use less power then an incandescent on 1/3 of the time and the CFL would be at full brightness as it was always on. |
|
|
|
The fact that you identify easily verifiable facts as 'things that simply couldn't be true' should give you some insight into the fact that you've been marketed into liking Obama. Please think about it. Then perhaps you can tell me which loopholes Romney could possibly close that would make his proposed tax cut revenue neutral. I don't think Romney said closing loopholes is the only method to achieve his goal. Though he does have a record of closing loopholes in MA, he closed 22 state tax loopholes while he's governor of MA, as a result MA has a rather balanced budget while most other states were doing quite poorly in terms of budget. Romney is a business genius, I'd rather believe he has a few tricks up his sleeves. He has said he will not raise taxes for anyone, even the high earners. He has said what he will not cut in terms of the budget, leaving no room to balance the budget. Getting rid of big bird is not going to be enough. Obama has not outlined a plan that will do it either. A combination of taxing higher earners 39% , a 10% defense cut, stopping subsidy money to oil and farming interests as well as moderate cuts throughout the budget could do it. Neither side has the balls to do it. |
|
|
|
|
Chinese solar panels sold below manufacturing cost...
According to the government it is a technique to put US panel makers out of business. But the free market is a complex beast. Due to these cheap panels a number of companies have flourished installing panels on American roofs. This has created jobs and lessened the dependence on fossil fuels.
So the government views these panels as an economic attack, I view them as a GIFT. If they want to sell them below cost, let them. Solar panel makers will still exist in the US and some of them may even come up with better lower cost manufacturing due to the pressure. In addition the American panel makers have less transportation costs and may have more long term trust as well.
|
|
|
|
I won about 100 BTC on satoshidice so far. The house edge doesn't mean you won't win, it's just that out of 100 people, 50% will walk away losers, 48% will walk away winners, and
2% goes to the house. You just hope to be the 48%.
That is exactly why I don't like the expression "98% breakeven odds". It leads people to believe what you just said. The 2% house edge doesn't mean that 48% of people will be winners. It means that in the long term everyone will lose 2% of everything they bet. ie. there is 0% chance that you will break even if you play long enough. In the short term, the percentage of people who will be winners depends on what game they're playing. For example if 100 people play "lessthan 64000" once each then the vast majority of them will be small winners. And a few will be big losers. And if the same 100 people play "lessthan 1" once each then it's very likely that all 100 of them will lose their bet. Whatever the house edge is. In other words, "98% breakeven odds" is just plain wrong and misleading. The correct terminology is: "98% payout ratio" |
|
|
|
|
A land tax that replaces all or many of the other taxes would be much higher then property tax. It would change all kinds of behaviors, some for the positive and some for the negative. People would have trouble passing down large amounts of land within the family and many people would stop owning second homes. Anyone who had a lot of land (non working farm or just a mountain lodge) and did nothing with it would have to consider how much it would cost them.
Nobody wants to pay taxes but a good tax plan would be simpler and not discourage good activities or alter behavior that is not negative (such as having a moderate income and a large plot of land).
|
|
|
|
The level of Illegals we have are good for the economy (we may not have enough right now) and contrary to media reports commit fewer crimes then average.
I live on a border state and yes they do commit the majority of crimes. There is no state in the US where illegals commit the majority of crimes. |
|
|
|
There are several issues that makes Obama a deal breaker for me, not that I really like Romney, but right now, Romney looks a million times better than Obama:
* Obama supports AA, Romney is against
* Obama supports legalizing tens of millions of illegals, Romney is against
* Obama increased the national debt by 6T in 4 years, I don't think anyone else in the Republican party can top that. I mean even the supposedly bad president GWB only increased the debt by 4.4T in 8 years, and he fought 2 wars.
What the heck is AA? Alcoholics Anonymous? The level of Illegals we have are good for the economy (we may not have enough right now) and contrary to media reports commit fewer crimes then average. The debt should be cut. Neither has a realistic plan for dealing with it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
