1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Taxing Online a Matter of Fairness?

Big_D_ Wrote: Oct 26, 2014 8:54 AM
For all of you dissing Paul, I note that he didn't really take a position on this issue. ...which is ridiculous. Maybe he really does support the money grab. The only thing I can think of that might justify this move (MIGHT) is that such a large percentage of brick-and-mortar sales taxes have been siphoned off by online sales. However, we do need to starve the beast. However, lack of sales tax is a huge incentive for online sales, who also incur shipping. However, the largest online sales outfits (Amazon, etc.) already pay sales tax based on their brick-and-mortar presences (warehouses in the case of Amazon). Thus, the biggest HOWEVER is that this is just more cronyism, the large fish trying to eat the small fish who can't afford to pay taxes in a zillion jurisdictions. If the justification supposedly is revenue for municipalities, reflect that most municipalities don't have a separate sales tax, and most sales taxes are collected by State governments.
I have experience with one American automaker, and I suspect that their situation is similar in the others. The automakers supporting this regulatory tyranny primarily are avoiding dealership ill-will. The dealers can cause major headache for the factory if they are unhappy. In years past, attempts were made to bypass the dealer network for several reasons, chief among them--more competitive pricing, and less dependence on individual dealer practices which often were damaging to brand image. These attempts ultimately were abandoned, where costs piled up trying to maintain dealer peace. (Perhaps there was some retail competence at issue, too) The dealer organizations are all powerful, and basically control their own regulation in most states. It's just another example of the fungus of political cronyism eating away at our whole society. How do you get politicians to act with integrity? I wish I knew. This problem is far more serious than their inveterate lying, which you can simply recognize ("their lips are moving").
So here's the deal...no AG nominee until after the election. You see...zero has to wait and see what sort of Senate he has to deal with. If the socialists keep the Senate, he can nominate Bill Ayers, for example. If the GOP should muddle through and wrest control of the Senate, he'll have to nominate someone who has respect for the Constitution, the Oath and America. ("Damn").
"Gross Output" may be a useful Hayekian metric, but it is also a larger number than GDP, thus we can start saying "Anyway, the national debt is still LESS than the Gross Output...." and continue to delude ourselves.
What resume'? There is so much that is concealed about this person, and the vast majority of our media don't want to know the truth. Whatever it is.
You're saying: "We misunderstand (or deny) what the Founders intended while operating within the constraints of their society, and choose to harp on that lie to distract people from the abysmal failure that our 'improvements' to the Constitution have been."
Peter, really good list!! Thought provoking and prescient. However you missed at least two: 6. Energy. Global civilzation/well-being/prosperity/peace will advance or recede based on the availability of energy. Unless the current impediments to energy production are resolved, this will overwhelm all other factors...the unnecessarily deprived will not let the well-off off. Some energy sources touted today are worthless in the big picture: Puny, expensive, intrusive...wind, biomass, current solar. Fossil fuels are required until we succeed in large-scale nuclear beyond outmoded PWR, and space-based solar power. 7. Exploration/colonization of the solar system. The new horizon will spark human initiative, creativity and resilience. There will be immense economic, social and biological development. This revolution will be led by capitalists, not by governments. Look to SpaceX, MarsOne, Planetary Resources, Deep Space Industries, Virgin, to name a few.
I don't think our society/culture has the ability now to do what we did in the 60's at JFK's inspiration. Too divided, too self-absorbed, too political.
In response to:

The Latest War Will Not Be Free

Big_D_ Wrote: Sep 28, 2014 11:52 AM
...at least it will be cheaper than Obamacare. [Note this is NOT a lie, as opposed to the lie used to "justify" the expense of Obamacare: "It will be cheaper than Bush's war."]
These lamebrains, if asked, "So we should really step up nuclear power development, because it is zero emission, cost-effective, safe and has a small footprint, right?", would recoil in horror, because they have also been duped into believeing that nuclear power is dangerous because of the "radiation". There are a few environmentalists that get it (e.g. Stewart Brand), but mostly they're clueless, and part of the problem.
1 - 10 Next