Mr. K, if you're Engineering/producing a "widget", a field test and/or beta is fine, but when you're dealing with a sixth of the economy, it's far too risky a proposition to roll it out prior to full trouble-shooting. But it's what Obama and the Left wants (gotta have something in the way of a legacy!), so it's to be implemented, even though the GOP doesn't want it, the people dont want it, and even some Democratic legislators don't want it.
Absolute apples and oranges Mr. K.. Banks are privately-owned (admittedly, sometimes by those with an extremely self-serving agenda), and "contributions" are made voluntarily, as are agreements to lending terms, mortgages, etc., while the govt. insists on mandatory compliance. Banks are productive because they provide a service to others by providing them with interest if they open a savings account, IRA, and such, or receiving interest to fund operations, pay wages, satisfy share-holders (if applicable), etc. when they lend money. If I choose to patronize a bank, or become a member of a credit union, it doesn't affect you or the general economy, but if I choose to withhold taxes from Uncle Sam, it lessens the overall pool of funds to allocate and distribute to everyone. There are many other differences, but I trust you sufficiently get the point?
According to Len Bentley, the current shutdown could not possibly affect productivity because the government does not produce anything. Which is much like saying massive bank failures do not reduce productivity because banks do not produce anything, they only collect interest on loans, making their profits “on the backs of those who actually do create and produce.” From this “logic” it follows that any bank failure “would actually be a savings to those who bear the burden of paying”--paying off their loans, that is.
thinker, you may be a thinker, but you are not an engineer. The time to fine tune a new machine or process is precisely when it is in operation. Before implementation the new design can be coarsely tuned using prototypes and test data, but nothing replaces the fine tuning that can only be performed on a working system.
I suspect there will not be much need for fine tuning on the ACA as Massachusetts has already done most of it for us in deploying Romneycare.
Jonathan H. Reilly, I present to you (from taxfoundation.org):
"...higher income states bear a larger fraction of the federal tax burden—an imbalance that is sharply amplified by the progressive structure of the federal income tax.
For whatever reason, so-called "blue states" tend to be high-income areas that pay the vast majority of federal taxes. Some 84 percent of federal individual income taxes—which account for over 40 percent of federal revenue—are paid by the those in the top 25 percent of the income distribution. The majority of these taxpayers live in wealthy, urban, politically "blue" areas like New York, California, and Massachusetts.
Even if federal spending were equal in all states, wealthy states would still send substantially more federal tax dollars to Washington than they received in spending, simply because they earn a majority of the nation's income. This disparity is greatly magnified by the progressive rate structure of the federal income tax, which taxes higher income states more heavily than low-income states, regardless of the level of spending received."
Yes, studies also exist that would support your claim, but to cite simplistic red/blue distinctions is pointless and myopic, and the time to "fine tune" the ACA is prior to implementation, not after. The govt. couldn't even predict and employ the logistics needed to roll it out, why we should trust them to successfully implement it as currently written?
Mr. Reilly is spot-on with his comments. The ACA is a great step forward.
Red state hatred of Obama is rooted in the South's perpetual family value: Racism.
"How are these peoples drinking water catching on fire again???"
If you do some research you will learn that had nothing to do with fracking.
Fracking causes no harm to aquifers??? How are these peoples drinking water catching on fire again??? So in your opinion one must give up everything if we want to limit pollution and environmental damage??? It is a rare occurrence so it doesn't matter... until your water catches fire. Another republican that doesn't give a rats butt about anyone but themselves and will only support big oil and big corps. Yoko Ono was all about love... obviously not what you are about.
Deborah George: Do you know where your drinking water comes from? You mention aquifers. Do you know what an aquifer is? Or where? Chemicals you say? Yours and everyone else' life revolves around chemicals. Can you tell us; where did you get all your knowledge about "fracking" since you seem to know very little about it. Or are you a former fracker ready to be a whistle blower? Drilling for natural gas is what most of us want because we need it to stay warm. Highly flammable, highly explosive but you use it and you also fill your automobile with gasoline which is pretty much a chemical and highly flammable as well. Those that oppose the methods used to supply the public with necessities really should just go and live off the land or at least stop driving or get rid of the toxic stuff under their sink or in the garage. The faucets that flame when opened whilst one holds a match to it is a rare occurrence and usually due to improperly drilling a water well. It is natural gas that ignites. Nothing to do with fracking. Yoko Ono is against fracking, does that tell you anything?
"No one wants to take your guns, or keep responsible citizens from buying a gun. Background checks for all gun sales are no more unreasonable than getting a credit check when applying for a loan, or obtaining a driver's license."
Actually Lois, there are people who want to take our firearms, though the numbers supporting a complete ban rarely total more than 10% of the population. There are, however, a great many who support taking some of our firearms.
As for the background checks for private sales, they are not reasonable as they are ineffective and not enforceable. I don't mean that the criminals will ignore the laws, I mean it is almost impossible for police to prove a background check was not done. And take a look at all the recent shootings in the news where the gunman PASSED the background checks and then tell me with a straight face that requiring universal checks would have somehow changed the outcome.
Finally, your analogy and the reasoning (or lack therefore) of your argument are horribly flawed.
@ Lois Maxwell: Ridiculous, I say, is your opinion judging certain "mentalities". I can easily and correctly judge yours: Diagnosis is "Full Blown Stupid and Chronic Idiocy".
Driving a vehicle requires 100% concentration on DRIVING! Texting is more dangerous than driving while impaired.
Your "comparison" is childish and just another lame yet constant attempt at gutting my Freedoms. I do not care about yours if you don't, Lois, but STAY AWAY from mine! Again I must stress, you are dangerously stupid.
Mark Rance: You sound like one of those people who, when a person is down, you sock them again to make sure that they are really down. When a football team loses a game, do they go out and totally change what they are and form a basketball team because they lost ONE game? John Morse does not change his principles with every "wind that blows" and that is what is known as having integrity; he does not change his principles just because you happen to believe "he doesn't get it". I can only imagine what you would have said if he capitulated to your "beliefs" in his concession speech and changed his position on the benign gun laws passed by members of the Colorado House and Senate. You don't even live in SD11, so what makes you an expert on the voters in SD11? Not even half of the voters in this district turned out to vote plus John Morse lost by only 344 votes.
The good father is absolutely right...and that is the position of the church and most Christian Churches, so of course it is right for him to express it
Carmody, that is one of your more ridiculous letters..... The morning after bill is not equivalent in any way, shape or form to the chemcal weapons unleashed on the Syrian people. Why is it that you fanatics cannot see that a microscopic fertilized egg is not the same as a live baby? Similarly, the suffering endured by live people gassed by poison chemcials is not even comparable with conception or use of the morning after bill. You should be ashamed of yourself to belittle their pain for your narrow anti-abortion agenda. Get a grip, Father.
Claus Singer, that is a really well thought out letter on meat inspection. However I believe your efforts are in vain, as the American Spirit smoking, Pabst Blue Ribbon drinking, overdosed on soy estrogen hipsters that read this paper do not eat meat.
No, he ignored us. Almost all the others at least had the courtesy to reply with a form letter. He did nothing. He even admitted that he was ignoring us. He did not tell his colleagues to ignore the emails that included violent threats. Read the statement he made again and pay attention to the statements around it. He said don't read more than you have to because people are claiming Second Amendment violations.
You cannot know if a letter or email has threats unless you read it. You cannot know if an email has important information in it or not unless you read it. IOW, he was saying read a few and ignore the rest.
If you truly believe that he was just saying to ignore the emails that included violent threats, then you are horribly mistaken.
It's also interesting that several of you just think I should move, effectively giving up this part of the ONE to the crazy students. Is that what you do in life, just let transient residents run you out of your neighborhood? This is our home and we won't stand for it. The school needs to have some repercussions for this behavior, or stop letting students live off-campus.
To those of you asking why I would choose to live on a college campus, the Old North End is not on campus - it's a historic neighborhood. Please get your facts straight if you want to add something of value to the discussion.
He didn't ignore you, Dave H. He disagreed with you. Big difference.
He told his colleagues to ignore the emails that included violent threats.
Morse listened to his constituents that voted for him, not these radical right wing gun nuts. 99% of these gun nuts who want Morse recalled neevr voted for him. These gun nuts want Morse to do what they want and ignore the majority of his constituents that voted for him. The gun nuts sent Morse many hate failed emails and death threats. John Morse is an american patriot unlike these cowardly right wing gun nuts.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation