×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

ArcherB Re:This is great news! (485 comments)

There is practically nothing in common between Korea and Japan on one hand, and Iraq on the other hand.
Yeah! We have troops in Korea and Japan. We have none in Iraq. One of these three countries is having problems. Guess which one.

Let's do another analogy:
You buy a crappy house. There are guys paid to keep up the place, but they are doing a crappy job so you fire them. You put a lot of your own money, blood, sweat and tears into fixing the house up. Sure, it's not the greatest house, but it's a whole lot better than it was. However, it will require maintenance to keep it that way until everything is in working order. But, you have to move because the contract at your job is up.

The guy that bought the house hated what you did to it so he does none of the required maintenance. So without him doing maintenance, and the without the guys who used to do the job doing it, the house falls into disrepair. So what does this new owner do? He blamed YOU for firing the guys who used to maintain the place.

But here's the thing I find really disgusting
When Saddam was in power and filling mass graves with the bodies of women and children, you didn't care. Don't know why you didn't care, but you just didn't. Guess you don't like brown people or something. Maybe you thought those mothers with toddlers should have fought back against the guys putting bullets into the backs of their heads. Fortunately, someone did care and put a stop to that shit. Then the next guy took over America.
Now, we have guys running through the country, cutting the heads off of women, and children, and, again, you don't care. You think it's more important to blame Bush than it is to actually fix the problem that wasn't a problem when Obama took office. Frankly, I think you are happy to see the atrocities over there because it gives you an excuse to hate Bush even more. Even though you know that Obama is the one responsible for pulling our troops out, you won't let yourself believe it because you love hating Bush more than you care about lives of brown infants.

about three weeks ago
top

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

ArcherB Re:This is great news! (485 comments)

Iraq was not in "free fall" when Obama took office. It was doing fine. Think it's not "maintainable"? Tell that to N. Korea and Japan, where we still have troops from the 1940s and 50s.

The guy who takes over the rudder cannot be blamed when the plane crashes into the ground.
Actually, it's more like the pilot got up to use the restroom and the co-pilot crashed the plane. Your response? Blame the pilot.

The clusterfuck that is Iraq is solely the fault of Bush and his team of gung-ho democracy cowboys
Like I said in another post:
When Bush took office, living in Iraq was a 3 on a 1-10 scale. When Bush left office, it was a 7.
Now, after six years of Obama, that ranking has gone from a 7 to a 1. And you're blaming Bush for not keeping it a 3?

about three weeks ago
top

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

ArcherB Re:This is great news! (485 comments)

Better yet, think of it this way.
When Bush took office, living in Iraq was a 3 on a 1-10 scale. When Bush left office, it was a 7.
Now, after six years of Obama, that ranking has gone from a 7 to a 1. And you're blaming Bush for not keeping it a 3?

about three weeks ago
top

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

ArcherB Re:This is great news! (485 comments)

Bush made Iraq a better place than it was when he took office. Obama made Iraq worse. That's the bottom line. You can't blame Bush for Obama being too incompetent to maintain the status quo Bush left.

about three weeks ago
top

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

ArcherB Re:This is great news! (485 comments)

Well, the last time Republicans were in charge was Jan 2007. At that time, the unemployment rate was 4.6% and falling, and the deficit was $161 billion.

Yes, they certainly built quite an extravagant house of cards. If only they'd held power for one more term it wouldn't have collapsed...or something.

Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years; six years with a Democrat president, six with a Republican. The highest unemployment seen during this entire 12 years was 6.3%, and it lasted only one month.
If Republicans were the problem, we shouldn't we have seen a problem before 14 years had passed?

Since 2009, for five years, we have not seen the unemployment rate drop below 5.9%.

about three weeks ago
top

Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

ArcherB Re:This is great news! (485 comments)

But I would really like to hear one person such as yourself explain, by the numbers, how this is not a time of relative peace and prosperity?

Well, the last time Republicans were in charge was Jan 2007. At that time, the unemployment rate was 4.6% and falling, and the deficit was $161 billion. Since a year after the Democrats have taken Congress, neither the unemployment rate nor the deficit has been this low.

As for now, 95% of the "recovery" has gone to the top 1% and the labor participation rate is at the lowest point since the '60s.

As for "peace", we've lost more soldiers in Afghanistan in six years under Obama than we lost in eight years of Bush. Iraq is on fire with women and children being sold into slavery or have their heads cut off and placed on stakes like the men. ISIS, a group that makes Al Qaeda look like alter boys, has taken over much of Iraq and is even making money from the oil sales. In Africa, school girls are being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves or wives, as if there is a difference.

Are these the numbers you were looking for?

about three weeks ago
top

To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

ArcherB Re:Solution (410 comments)

Exactly! Tax consumption, not wealth!

about 2 months ago
top

To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

ArcherB Re:Solution (410 comments)

As OP stated, and I already repeated, a 20% tax on a $20,000/yr income...
See, that's where your mistake lies. When 75% of your income is spent on tax free items, you're not paying 20% of your income in taxes. ...is a much larger chunk of income than a 20% tax hit on a $200,000 income.
So? Class envy much?
$3.50 a gallon fuel is much more of a burden on a person making $20,000/yr than a person making $200,000/yr. Should we charge poor people less for gas? For that matter every dime a rich person spends is going to be less of a burden to the rich than the poor, and we are doing nothing about it? Did you know that rich people can afford to have other people cook their food? I've heard they can keep their houses at 55 degrees in Florida year round, and it's no burden at all. That's not fair at all! Why should eating be more of a burden on the poor than the rich?

about 2 months ago
top

To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

ArcherB Re:Solution (410 comments)

gas is taxed.
repairs are taxed
registration is taxed.

Why wouldn't the sale of a car be taxed?

How about clothing? Need clothes to live, right?
Nope. If it makes you feel better, you could make school kids clothing tax free, or only make new clothing taxable. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy second hand.

Now Paris Hilton can buy 400 pairs of shoe tax-free!
So? Why do you care what Paris Hilton does? See, that's the problem. You are so damn worried that a rich person might save $80 on a pair of shoes that you want EVERYONE else to go through hell so a rich bitch won't save a buck.

Watch out for that slippery slope you're on.
Odd. Nearly everyone of the 50 states has programs like this and they don't have a problem. Were you referring to the "slippery slope" fallacy?

about 2 months ago
top

To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

ArcherB Re:Corporate taxes (410 comments)

Rich people spend less of their money and save more of it than poor people, simply because there's more left over after paying for the necessities.
All money is spent eventually. Also, what do you think the bank does with the money people "save"? Banks loan that money to someone else and charge them a higher interest rate than they are paying the savings account. That is how banks make money. So the person who takes the loan will spend it, meaning it will be taxed. When the savings account is cashed out, that too will be spent, plus all the interest earned.

So, in this case, the same money is taxed multiple times. Also, all the money is taxed at the same rate. Currently, loan income is not taxed as income. But under a sales tax, the when the person taking the loan buys new office furniture, it will be taxed.

So, it would be even more regressive than the current system.
Currently, interest income and capital gains are charged a lower rate the standard income. This is how wealthy people pay such a ridiculously low tax rate (Warren Buffet pays less than his secretary). This would not longer be an issue with a sales tax.

Finally, all money is spent eventually. It doesn't matter if it was saved or invested at one point. Even if the person who earned it dies, eventually, all money is spent, even if by his heirs.

about 2 months ago
top

To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

ArcherB Re:Solution (410 comments)

someone who makes $200,000 a year does not spend it all in a way that would be subject to a sales tax.
All money is spent eventually. Even if you die and leave it to someone else, it will get spent by them. When it is spent, it is taxed.

Savings / Investing is not subject to a sales tax.
Nope, but it will be spent eventually. All money is spent eventually. As a bonus, the capital gains/interest earned will be taxed at the same rate as the rest of the money. Currently, capital gains and interest income has a much lower rate. This is how Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary. This problem would be fixed.

Mortgage payments are not subject to a sales tax, etc.
Why not? Is buying a house not a sale, subject to a sales tax? If you wanted to tweak it, you could put a limit on how much a home is taxed. For example, allow one home to be tax free or only tax on every dollar over a certain amount.

about 2 months ago
top

To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

ArcherB Re:Solution (410 comments)

Most states do this. Back when I was a checker at a grocery store about 30 years ago, we had to learn what food is taxed and what food is not. For example:
"Juice" products, those that contain nothing but fruit or vegetable juice, are tax free.
Products labeled "drink" or "punch" are taxable.
All non-processed food was non-taxable.
Anything you cook at home was non-taxable. This includes frozen meals such as TV Dinners or frozen pizza.
Canned goods were non-taxed.
Potato chips, candy, and other "junk" food is taxable, (I think).
Anything served cooked and ready to eat, such as a hamburger or bucket of chicken is taxable.

Not that we worry about it much as it is all handled by the computer anyway.

about 2 months ago
top

To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

ArcherB Re:Solution (410 comments)

Except that the government will just increase taxes on other common goods to make up for the shortfall.
So? Low income people still spend a lower percentage on their income on those "common goods" than the wealthy.
You are also missing out on the idea that capital gains will be taxed at the same rate as income. For that matter, all income will taxed at the same rate, so even if you work "under the table", you will still pay taxes.

With a "flat tax," there isn't any way around that issue.
There are lots of ways around the issue.
You could tweak the system further. For example, allow a person to own one home tax free. All additional homes will have a sales tax levied on the sale. You could also charge a different rate on luxury items such as yachts and luxury cars.

about 2 months ago
top

To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

ArcherB Re:Solution (410 comments)

Think of it this way; if you make $24,000 a year, a 20% tax that reduces your income to $18,000 a year is a much greater burden than it is to someone who makes $200,000 a year and has their income reduced to $150,000 a year.

Good! Those making $24,000/yr will finally understand that government money is not free. Then you won't have the problem of people who don't pay taxes voting to raise the tax rate on those that do. Also, if you make $24,000/yr, most of your money is going to food and rent, both of which can be made to be non-taxable.

A sales tax is still going to a progressive tax since things like food, school supplies, and other absolute necessities won't be taxed at all. See, people only spend so much money on necessities, no matter how much they make. Sure, a billionaire might spend $5 million on a house, but his grocery budget is not going to be 50x more than the guy who spent $100K on a house. So low income people will spend a larger percentage of their income on non-taxed products, meaning they will pay a lower tax rate than the guy who eats out twice a day.

about 2 months ago
top

To Fight $5.2B In Identity Theft, IRS May Need To Change the Way You File Taxes

ArcherB Re:Corporate taxes (410 comments)

Or you could just do a federal sales tax. Everyone pays, including corporations, so everyone has skin in the game. No loopholes. No moving out of the country to avoid paying your share. No April 15. No tax forms. No deductions or credits. Everyone knows exactly what they are paying. Everything purchased is taxed, period.

about 2 months ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

ArcherB Re:What will it take? (302 comments)

(sigh)
This is the comment I was responding to:
Think of it this way: Imagine the entire planet heated up by 20C, we wouldn't expect to see any permanent ice outside of Antarctica. (The North Pole might get some seasonal ice, but the much warmer oceans would melt it fairly quickly.) Now, with all of the oceans that much warmer, think how much additional water vapor would make it into the atmosphere. When the additional water vapor ends up over the South Pole, it will be cold enough for it to freeze and fall as snow. As the snow accumulates, it compacts into ice and we end up with a LOT more ice at the South Pole.

So: Less ice everywhere but Antarctica due to global warming, but a lot more ice in Antarctica due to global warming.

But the point is, when there was LESS ice, it was because of global warming. Now that there is MORE ice, it's because of global warming, per the original comment I replied to.

about 3 months ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

ArcherB Re:What will it take? (302 comments)

Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global warming.

OK. Maybe you should tell all the scientist this. Be sure to copy Algore as well.
See, they seem to think that the first thing to go is the polar ice. That's why they keep measuring it. See, a few years ago, a lot of the ice melted, and we were told that it was because of global warming. Now the ice is back and growing, and we are told it's because of global warming.

And that is my entire point. No matter what the symptoms are, it's always a symptom of global warming.

Also, if it's colder in Antarctica and warmer in Hawaii, that's not really a sign of global warming. That's a sign of global nothing because the average temperature remains constant.

about 3 months ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

ArcherB Re:What will it take? (302 comments)

But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

citation needed.

That would be comment I was responding to:
So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

about 3 months ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

ArcherB Re:What will it take? (302 comments)

So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

Just curious, if global warming were not a thing, what would the ice caps be doing?

about 3 months ago

Submissions

top

Ready for global taxes?

ArcherB ArcherB writes  |  more than 6 years ago

ArcherB (796902) writes "According to InfoWars and several other sites, the true goal of Global Warming Alarmism has come to light: Global redistribution of wealth.

Following a discussion entitled "A Global CO2 Tax," a UN panel yesterday urged the adoption of "a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations," to impose a tax on plant food (CO2).
Othmar Schwank, one of the participants, said that the U.S. and other wealthy nations need to "contribute significantly more to this global fund." He also added, "It is very essential to tax coal."
The bounty from this $40 billion dollars a year windfall will go straight into the coffers of a UN controlled "Multilateral Adaptation Fund".
Of course, if passed, it will be without the need for those pesky elections."

Link to Original Source
top

No consensus view on man-made global warming?

ArcherB ArcherB writes  |  more than 7 years ago

ArcherB (796902) writes "DailyTech took a look at peer reviewed scientific papers to see if there really was a consensus view, concerning whether humans were having at least some effect on global climate change.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
and goes on to say

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" — the only portion usually quoted in the media — is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters — the only text actually written by scientists — are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
"

Link to Original Source
top

Bush Orders No Cruel Treatment of Terror Suspects

ArcherB ArcherB writes  |  more than 7 years ago

ArcherB (796902) writes "President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Read the whole executive order HERE."

Link to Original Source
top

Cheney to be President (for a few hours)

ArcherB ArcherB writes  |  more than 7 years ago

ArcherB (796902) writes "From HERE:

US President George W. Bush will undergo a "routine colonoscopy" at the Camp David retreat on Saturday, temporarily ceding his powers to Vice President Dick Cheney, the White House said Friday. Cheney will serve as acting president until such time as Bush, who will be under anesthesia, says he is ready to resume his duties, presidential spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. "The president has had no symptoms" of cancer, said Snow, who noted that Bush had been scheduled for such an examination since undergoing a colonoscopy in June 2002.
Please, no colonoscopy jokes."

Journals

top

Yes, Fire collapses steel structures

ArcherB ArcherB writes  |  more than 7 years ago

"9-11 Truthers" say that there is no possible way that fire could cause the support beams in The World Trade Center to weaken, causing the buildings to collapse. On April 29, 2007 in Oakland California, a tanker truck hauling gasoline wrecked and burst into flames. Fortunately, no one was killed, but the resulting fire weakened the support structure of an overpass causing it to collapse. This, according the the truther argument, is impossible.

Of course, jet fuel is not gasoline. Jet fuel is much like diesel, it burns much hotter and slower than gasoline. Also, the Boeing 767 has a capacity of up to 24,000 US gallons of jet fuel. The tanker that crashed in Oakland had 8,600 gallons capacity.

Any truthers (other than Rosie, of course) care to take a stab at this one? Is this enough to make them say, "Hey, maybe planes did take down the WTC", or did the government secretly blow up the overpass to prove the truthers wrong?

top

Moderator Guidelines

ArcherB ArcherB writes  |  more than 7 years ago

From HERE:

Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find needles. And to keep the children who like to spam Slashdot in check.

I only bring this up because it seems that SlashDot is turning into more of a DailyKOS than a TomsHardware or an Engadget.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?