In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 24 2013 21:03 RCMDVA wrote: In an article I'm seeing, crash investigators are looking into an oversize vehicle that struck an overhead span.
Meantime, the state Department of Transportation says its engineers looking into an oversized, overheight vehicle striking a critical portion of the bridge span, spokesman Travis Phelps said.
Gov. Jay Inslee headed to the scene to monitor the rescue efforts, and the National Transportation Safety Board said it was monitoring the situation as well.
Inslee later told a news conference that repairing the bridge is “job No. 1″ and that it’s unknown how long it will take to replace the bridge. I-5 is a main north-south arterial for northwestern Washington state.He said he will authorize the Transportation Department to establish detour routes to minimize impact on traffic and commerce.
“Witnesses say a truck hit the bridge and caused it to collapse, but an investigation has been launched to confirm that,” Inslee said. “Any witnesses or people with information should contact the State Patrol.
I would think that structurally sound bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, let alone a measly truck hitting it.
Some bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, some not, it depends on where you are.
There was a bridge that I used to travel all the time in Land Between the Lakes Kentucky, that got hit by the top of a boat or barge or something a year ago, and it collapsed. Some bridges can't take hits in the right spot.
It wasn't a big deal because it was in Kentucky and it wasn't the I5 (which is a major road for any of you guys that live in Oregon, Washington or California.
There are probably more bridges that have collapsed, had something bad happen to them lately, I just happened to hear about this because my family lives in Murray, KY.
Speaking of earthquakes, in Portland, if we have a major quake along the Cascadian subduction zone(not sure of the fault names), we could possibly have a 9.0(our last big quake was between 8.7 and 9.3 in 1700 (there is a major earthquake up here every 300-600 years).. and there was another one of similar size before that, etc. Supposedly none of our bridges are designed to withstand quakes of that kind of magnitude and most of the on ramps will collapse and the bridges will become structurally unsound. They will bring in inflatable bridges, could be months before we can use some of the real bridges again and some of them will be torn down possibly. All I hope is that me and my gf are on the same side of the willamette river if it happens. It's probably just cheaper to rebuild them then to make them withstand extreme circumstances/quakes.
The problem here is that people are pretending that only the truck is to blame. But the fact is, we know that many bridges in America are deficient and in poor shape. We know that repair and maintenance have been lacking due to government spending cuts.
But let's talk about this particular bridge. According to this news report here, this is a "functionally obsolete" and "fracture critical" bridge. It was inspected, but it should have been maintained, upgraded or replaced.
The proximate cause of this disaster was a truck hitting the bridge. But should a bridge collapse if it's hit by merely a truck? Is this acceptable? No. Bridges shouldn't collapse even in an earthquake, let alone by a truck.
There seems to be this indifference, that it's just a freak truck accident, so it's not a problem we should care about. This is pure negligence. The more of these old and deficient bridges there are, and the less they are adequately maintained and upgraded, the greater the chance that such accidents will cause bridges to collapse.
It sounds like you're grasping at straws. One bridge out of tens of thousand collapsed after being hit by a truck and this means we don't spend enough.
Shortly after the Big Dig in Boston opened a concrete slab fell on a car a killed a person. I guess that was also due to not spending enough?
From a Bloomberg article not long ago:
Is the quality of infrastructure worsening?
Just the opposite. Believe it or not, infrastructure has improved significantly over the last two decades. In its report for 2010, the Federal Highway Administration said that 57 percent of all vehicle-miles were traveled on federal highways with ratings of "good" or higher -- according to a measure of road quality pleasingly known as the International Roughness Index. That was up from 48 percent in 2000. The percentage of roads in bad condition has also declined: In 1989 6.6 percent of rural and urban interstates were rated "poor"; now only 1.9 percent of rural interstates and 5.4 percent of urban ones earn that grade.
Despite warnings from President Barack Obama, America's bridges have never been safer. The highway administration rated 21.9 percent of its bridges "deficient" in 2009, as compared to 37.8 percent in 1989. And contrary to Obama's implication, the word "deficient" does not mean unsafe, at least as the highway administration uses it. A bridge is "deficient" when it would benefit from expansion and renovation in line with usage.
Traffic congestion has diminished. In 1989, 52.6 percent of urban interstates were rated "congested" according to a comparison of peak volume to planned capacity. In 2009, the figure was 26.3 percent.
On May 24 2013 21:03 RCMDVA wrote: In an article I'm seeing, crash investigators are looking into an oversize vehicle that struck an overhead span.
Meantime, the state Department of Transportation says its engineers looking into an oversized, overheight vehicle striking a critical portion of the bridge span, spokesman Travis Phelps said.
Gov. Jay Inslee headed to the scene to monitor the rescue efforts, and the National Transportation Safety Board said it was monitoring the situation as well.
Inslee later told a news conference that repairing the bridge is “job No. 1″ and that it’s unknown how long it will take to replace the bridge. I-5 is a main north-south arterial for northwestern Washington state.He said he will authorize the Transportation Department to establish detour routes to minimize impact on traffic and commerce.
“Witnesses say a truck hit the bridge and caused it to collapse, but an investigation has been launched to confirm that,” Inslee said. “Any witnesses or people with information should contact the State Patrol.
I would think that structurally sound bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, let alone a measly truck hitting it.
Some bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, some not, it depends on where you are.
There was a bridge that I used to travel all the time in Land Between the Lakes Kentucky, that got hit by the top of a boat or barge or something a year ago, and it collapsed. Some bridges can't take hits in the right spot.
It wasn't a big deal because it was in Kentucky and it wasn't the I5 (which is a major road for any of you guys that live in Oregon, Washington or California.
There are probably more bridges that have collapsed, had something bad happen to them lately, I just happened to hear about this because my family lives in Murray, KY.
Speaking of earthquakes, in Portland, if we have a major quake along the Cascadian subduction zone(not sure of the fault names), we could possibly have a 9.0(our last big quake was between 8.7 and 9.3 in 1700 (there is a major earthquake up here every 300-600 years).. and there was another one of similar size before that, etc. Supposedly none of our bridges are designed to withstand quakes of that kind of magnitude and most of the on ramps will collapse and the bridges will become structurally unsound. They will bring in inflatable bridges, could be months before we can use some of the real bridges again and some of them will be torn down possibly. All I hope is that me and my gf are on the same side of the willamette river if it happens. It's probably just cheaper to rebuild them then to make them withstand extreme circumstances/quakes.
The problem here is that people are pretending that only the truck is to blame. But the fact is, we know that many bridges in America are deficient and in poor shape. We know that repair and maintenance have been lacking due to government spending cuts.
But let's talk about this particular bridge. According to this news report here, this is a "functionally obsolete" and "fracture critical" bridge. It was inspected, but it should have been maintained, upgraded or replaced.
The proximate cause of this disaster was a truck hitting the bridge. But should a bridge collapse if it's hit by merely a truck? Is this acceptable? No. Bridges shouldn't collapse even in an earthquake, let alone by a truck.
There seems to be this indifference, that it's just a freak truck accident, so it's not a problem we should care about. This is pure negligence. The more of these old and deficient bridges there are, and the less they are adequately maintained and upgraded, the greater the chance that such accidents will cause bridges to collapse.
The Government is spending trillions and trillions of dollars. This problem certainly isn't one of 'cuts' or 'lack of spending'. How much more does the Government have to spend until you say it is adequate? They're all ready taxing us cumulatively over 50% in the majority of the country. Serfs had it good compared to us - being taxed only 25%.
I want you to break down for me how any person is paying >50% effective tax rate.
Feel free to use worst-case scenarios (highest sales taxes, no deductions/credits, municipal/state/federal income taxes, any tax bracket). You can even mix-and-match using impossible combinations. I really don't think any single person in the U.S. pays a <50% effective tax rate, never mind a majority of the country.
Sure thing.
Let's take California for instance:
46k+ Income Tax bracket: 9.3% Sales tax ~ 9% (http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/pam71.htm) & gas tax is 46Cents a Gal which is at current prices about 14%+ effective rate Property Tax ~ 1,500$ per capita which is figuring 50k income is 3% not to mention the parcel tax
So state taxation alone is ~ 21-23% (there are all sorts of other taxes that add up to like communications tax fees, if you own a business you have additional taxes, etc.) This isn't even counting local taxes which can add an additional ~1-5% depending where you live.
Federal - Medicare/SS is ~8% (http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/social-security-and-medicare-tax-rates%3B-maximum-taxable-earnings) oh and if you are self-employed your rate is 15%. Income Tax for 46k - roughly 15% (http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/federal-income-tax-calculator;jsessionid=81B5CBD179B96BAC5506DEC172F4D2E1?skn=)
Federal unemployment tax is 6.2% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_unemployment_tax_act) which is taken from your pocket before you even see your wage.
That is roughly 50-52% right there, not including the other dozens and dozens and dozens of taxes levied (http://whatistaxed.com/other_taxes.htm). Of course some states have lower burdens like Florida and New Hampshire, but then some states have higher burdens like New York and Hawaii.
You cannot just add all these percentages together and then say that is how much money goes into tax. For example, that 9% sales tax is only 9% of what you spend and not 9% of your pre-tax income, so you cannot just add that 9% to the other percentages. I am not familiar enough with US tax law to know how all the other taxes are counted, but I'd be surprised if all those taxes were as percentages of the 46K.
On May 25 2013 16:45 Wegandi wrote: Yes, I am quite aware that the average income and standard of living has been decreasing over the last 50 years. I however, see the correlation between the growth of State and Business intertwining as such cause (esp. through monetization - Fed Reserve inflationary printing). Whereas this increase of power has led to those politically connected (like it always does) enjoying greater comforts while the rest of us mundanes and peons are stolen to pay for it. Yet, in light of this you want to give the Government even greater power, which will only exacerbate the problem. You simply fail to understand human nature. Of course a person is going to bribe a Government official with a pittance to them for plundering the treasury, and this not only goes for business interests, but also for bureaucratic and Government interests themselves.
I'm not sure how to quantify the intertwining of state and business but what makes you believe it has growing? I thought there had been a lot of deregulation over the last couple of decades, which would mean less intertwining. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by the intertwining of state and business.
Also, Bernanke has the credibility of a sociopath. How many times does one person have to be wrong over and over until they're laughed off the stage?
I'm not sure what being a sociopath would have to do with credibility when it comes to economic knowledge. Anyhoo, I've not seen any analysis on how often Bernanke was wrong/right. I did see the study by Hamilton College, which amongst other things found a positive correlation between how liberal a person's political views are and how accurate his/her predictions have been. (source) It's not completely pertinent but I found it interesting. Unfortunately they didn't look at Ben Bernanke.
PS. I also find it funny how you a so-called Progressive is now defending increased Military Industrial Complex spending. Military Keynesians are so funny trying to take both positions. You can't have your cake and eat it too. (Lest I remind folks of post-WWII military spending reductions and associative lowering of tax rates led to...) A priori...building bombs and tanks increasing my standard of living! Lol lol.
Building bombs and tanks does create jobs, and pump money into the economy. It is a form of stimulus. Maybe I am mis-reading your comment though; I am struggling to tell which part is sarcastic and which isn't.
If you look a little deeper on the political view correlation the authers are very sceptical about generalising their findings since most of the predictions were on the democratic primary 2008 and the following election. Since conservatives most likely hoped for other results of those (or had a less intimate knowledge about the democratic partys workings), it is understandable that their predictions were worse than their liberal counterparts.
That's a very good point. I hadn't noticed that, but it does make sense.
As for Wegandis general approach he is spouting controversial comments with some less common theories of causation more than actual political/economic facts. I do not know about Ben Bernankes predictions, but mr. liberal Keynes economist Krugman was found to be an excellent predicter in your source which is probably not completely in line with Wegandis opinion.
It was from Krugman's blog that I saw the study. He was quite proud of it. It does seem that Keynesian economics did well though, and Bernanke's current views seem to be along Keynesian lines.
Anyhoo, this was just a side note since Wegandi said Bernanke should be ignored, but Bernanke isn't alone in those views, and those theories seem to have performed well.
On May 24 2013 21:03 RCMDVA wrote: In an article I'm seeing, crash investigators are looking into an oversize vehicle that struck an overhead span.
Meantime, the state Department of Transportation says its engineers looking into an oversized, overheight vehicle striking a critical portion of the bridge span, spokesman Travis Phelps said.
Gov. Jay Inslee headed to the scene to monitor the rescue efforts, and the National Transportation Safety Board said it was monitoring the situation as well.
Inslee later told a news conference that repairing the bridge is “job No. 1″ and that it’s unknown how long it will take to replace the bridge. I-5 is a main north-south arterial for northwestern Washington state.He said he will authorize the Transportation Department to establish detour routes to minimize impact on traffic and commerce.
“Witnesses say a truck hit the bridge and caused it to collapse, but an investigation has been launched to confirm that,” Inslee said. “Any witnesses or people with information should contact the State Patrol.
I would think that structurally sound bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, let alone a measly truck hitting it.
Some bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, some not, it depends on where you are.
There was a bridge that I used to travel all the time in Land Between the Lakes Kentucky, that got hit by the top of a boat or barge or something a year ago, and it collapsed. Some bridges can't take hits in the right spot.
It wasn't a big deal because it was in Kentucky and it wasn't the I5 (which is a major road for any of you guys that live in Oregon, Washington or California.
There are probably more bridges that have collapsed, had something bad happen to them lately, I just happened to hear about this because my family lives in Murray, KY.
Speaking of earthquakes, in Portland, if we have a major quake along the Cascadian subduction zone(not sure of the fault names), we could possibly have a 9.0(our last big quake was between 8.7 and 9.3 in 1700 (there is a major earthquake up here every 300-600 years).. and there was another one of similar size before that, etc. Supposedly none of our bridges are designed to withstand quakes of that kind of magnitude and most of the on ramps will collapse and the bridges will become structurally unsound. They will bring in inflatable bridges, could be months before we can use some of the real bridges again and some of them will be torn down possibly. All I hope is that me and my gf are on the same side of the willamette river if it happens. It's probably just cheaper to rebuild them then to make them withstand extreme circumstances/quakes.
The problem here is that people are pretending that only the truck is to blame. But the fact is, we know that many bridges in America are deficient and in poor shape. We know that repair and maintenance have been lacking due to government spending cuts.
But let's talk about this particular bridge. According to this news report here, this is a "functionally obsolete" and "fracture critical" bridge. It was inspected, but it should have been maintained, upgraded or replaced.
The proximate cause of this disaster was a truck hitting the bridge. But should a bridge collapse if it's hit by merely a truck? Is this acceptable? No. Bridges shouldn't collapse even in an earthquake, let alone by a truck.
There seems to be this indifference, that it's just a freak truck accident, so it's not a problem we should care about. This is pure negligence. The more of these old and deficient bridges there are, and the less they are adequately maintained and upgraded, the greater the chance that such accidents will cause bridges to collapse.
It sounds like you're grasping at straws. One bridge out of tens of thousand collapsed after being hit by a truck and this means we don't spend enough.
Shortly after the Big Dig in Boston opened a concrete slab fell on a car a killed a person. I guess that was also due to not spending enough?
Just the opposite. Believe it or not, infrastructure has improved significantly over the last two decades. In its report for 2010, the Federal Highway Administration said that 57 percent of all vehicle-miles were traveled on federal highways with ratings of "good" or higher -- according to a measure of road quality pleasingly known as the International Roughness Index. That was up from 48 percent in 2000. The percentage of roads in bad condition has also declined: In 1989 6.6 percent of rural and urban interstates were rated "poor"; now only 1.9 percent of rural interstates and 5.4 percent of urban ones earn that grade.
Despite warnings from President Barack Obama, America's bridges have never been safer. The highway administration rated 21.9 percent of its bridges "deficient" in 2009, as compared to 37.8 percent in 1989. And contrary to Obama's implication, the word "deficient" does not mean unsafe, at least as the highway administration uses it. A bridge is "deficient" when it would benefit from expansion and renovation in line with usage.
Traffic congestion has diminished. In 1989, 52.6 percent of urban interstates were rated "congested" according to a comparison of peak volume to planned capacity. In 2009, the figure was 26.3 percent.
Seems like we spend roughly enough. I'd like the country to spend a bit more but not through some alarmist, big ticket spending plan.
Is your argument; "Things are better than they were before so we shouldn't do anything about it"? If only 57% of all vehicle-miles are on 'good' roads (or better) then why not try to make it more? Is a little over half acceptable? Similarly is saying only 1 in 5 bridges is deficient acceptable?
Keynesian economic theory suggests more stimulus from the government (in the current economic environment), and spending money on infrastructure is one form of stimulus.
On May 24 2013 21:03 RCMDVA wrote: In an article I'm seeing, crash investigators are looking into an oversize vehicle that struck an overhead span.
Meantime, the state Department of Transportation says its engineers looking into an oversized, overheight vehicle striking a critical portion of the bridge span, spokesman Travis Phelps said.
Gov. Jay Inslee headed to the scene to monitor the rescue efforts, and the National Transportation Safety Board said it was monitoring the situation as well.
Inslee later told a news conference that repairing the bridge is “job No. 1″ and that it’s unknown how long it will take to replace the bridge. I-5 is a main north-south arterial for northwestern Washington state.He said he will authorize the Transportation Department to establish detour routes to minimize impact on traffic and commerce.
“Witnesses say a truck hit the bridge and caused it to collapse, but an investigation has been launched to confirm that,” Inslee said. “Any witnesses or people with information should contact the State Patrol.
I would think that structurally sound bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, let alone a measly truck hitting it.
Some bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, some not, it depends on where you are.
There was a bridge that I used to travel all the time in Land Between the Lakes Kentucky, that got hit by the top of a boat or barge or something a year ago, and it collapsed. Some bridges can't take hits in the right spot.
It wasn't a big deal because it was in Kentucky and it wasn't the I5 (which is a major road for any of you guys that live in Oregon, Washington or California.
There are probably more bridges that have collapsed, had something bad happen to them lately, I just happened to hear about this because my family lives in Murray, KY.
Speaking of earthquakes, in Portland, if we have a major quake along the Cascadian subduction zone(not sure of the fault names), we could possibly have a 9.0(our last big quake was between 8.7 and 9.3 in 1700 (there is a major earthquake up here every 300-600 years).. and there was another one of similar size before that, etc. Supposedly none of our bridges are designed to withstand quakes of that kind of magnitude and most of the on ramps will collapse and the bridges will become structurally unsound. They will bring in inflatable bridges, could be months before we can use some of the real bridges again and some of them will be torn down possibly. All I hope is that me and my gf are on the same side of the willamette river if it happens. It's probably just cheaper to rebuild them then to make them withstand extreme circumstances/quakes.
The problem here is that people are pretending that only the truck is to blame. But the fact is, we know that many bridges in America are deficient and in poor shape. We know that repair and maintenance have been lacking due to government spending cuts.
But let's talk about this particular bridge. According to this news report here, this is a "functionally obsolete" and "fracture critical" bridge. It was inspected, but it should have been maintained, upgraded or replaced.
The proximate cause of this disaster was a truck hitting the bridge. But should a bridge collapse if it's hit by merely a truck? Is this acceptable? No. Bridges shouldn't collapse even in an earthquake, let alone by a truck.
There seems to be this indifference, that it's just a freak truck accident, so it's not a problem we should care about. This is pure negligence. The more of these old and deficient bridges there are, and the less they are adequately maintained and upgraded, the greater the chance that such accidents will cause bridges to collapse.
The Government is spending trillions and trillions of dollars. This problem certainly isn't one of 'cuts' or 'lack of spending'. How much more does the Government have to spend until you say it is adequate? They're all ready taxing us cumulatively over 50% in the majority of the country. Serfs had it good compared to us - being taxed only 25%.
Just be glad you don't live in France. They'll tax you over 100% there
On May 24 2013 21:03 RCMDVA wrote: In an article I'm seeing, crash investigators are looking into an oversize vehicle that struck an overhead span.
Meantime, the state Department of Transportation says its engineers looking into an oversized, overheight vehicle striking a critical portion of the bridge span, spokesman Travis Phelps said.
Gov. Jay Inslee headed to the scene to monitor the rescue efforts, and the National Transportation Safety Board said it was monitoring the situation as well.
Inslee later told a news conference that repairing the bridge is “job No. 1″ and that it’s unknown how long it will take to replace the bridge. I-5 is a main north-south arterial for northwestern Washington state.He said he will authorize the Transportation Department to establish detour routes to minimize impact on traffic and commerce.
“Witnesses say a truck hit the bridge and caused it to collapse, but an investigation has been launched to confirm that,” Inslee said. “Any witnesses or people with information should contact the State Patrol.
I would think that structurally sound bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, let alone a measly truck hitting it.
Some bridges are designed to withstand earthquakes, some not, it depends on where you are.
There was a bridge that I used to travel all the time in Land Between the Lakes Kentucky, that got hit by the top of a boat or barge or something a year ago, and it collapsed. Some bridges can't take hits in the right spot.
It wasn't a big deal because it was in Kentucky and it wasn't the I5 (which is a major road for any of you guys that live in Oregon, Washington or California.
There are probably more bridges that have collapsed, had something bad happen to them lately, I just happened to hear about this because my family lives in Murray, KY.
Speaking of earthquakes, in Portland, if we have a major quake along the Cascadian subduction zone(not sure of the fault names), we could possibly have a 9.0(our last big quake was between 8.7 and 9.3 in 1700 (there is a major earthquake up here every 300-600 years).. and there was another one of similar size before that, etc. Supposedly none of our bridges are designed to withstand quakes of that kind of magnitude and most of the on ramps will collapse and the bridges will become structurally unsound. They will bring in inflatable bridges, could be months before we can use some of the real bridges again and some of them will be torn down possibly. All I hope is that me and my gf are on the same side of the willamette river if it happens. It's probably just cheaper to rebuild them then to make them withstand extreme circumstances/quakes.
The problem here is that people are pretending that only the truck is to blame. But the fact is, we know that many bridges in America are deficient and in poor shape. We know that repair and maintenance have been lacking due to government spending cuts.
But let's talk about this particular bridge. According to this news report here, this is a "functionally obsolete" and "fracture critical" bridge. It was inspected, but it should have been maintained, upgraded or replaced.
The proximate cause of this disaster was a truck hitting the bridge. But should a bridge collapse if it's hit by merely a truck? Is this acceptable? No. Bridges shouldn't collapse even in an earthquake, let alone by a truck.
There seems to be this indifference, that it's just a freak truck accident, so it's not a problem we should care about. This is pure negligence. The more of these old and deficient bridges there are, and the less they are adequately maintained and upgraded, the greater the chance that such accidents will cause bridges to collapse.
It sounds like you're grasping at straws. One bridge out of tens of thousand collapsed after being hit by a truck and this means we don't spend enough.
Shortly after the Big Dig in Boston opened a concrete slab fell on a car a killed a person. I guess that was also due to not spending enough?
Just the opposite. Believe it or not, infrastructure has improved significantly over the last two decades. In its report for 2010, the Federal Highway Administration said that 57 percent of all vehicle-miles were traveled on federal highways with ratings of "good" or higher -- according to a measure of road quality pleasingly known as the International Roughness Index. That was up from 48 percent in 2000. The percentage of roads in bad condition has also declined: In 1989 6.6 percent of rural and urban interstates were rated "poor"; now only 1.9 percent of rural interstates and 5.4 percent of urban ones earn that grade.
Despite warnings from President Barack Obama, America's bridges have never been safer. The highway administration rated 21.9 percent of its bridges "deficient" in 2009, as compared to 37.8 percent in 1989. And contrary to Obama's implication, the word "deficient" does not mean unsafe, at least as the highway administration uses it. A bridge is "deficient" when it would benefit from expansion and renovation in line with usage.
Traffic congestion has diminished. In 1989, 52.6 percent of urban interstates were rated "congested" according to a comparison of peak volume to planned capacity. In 2009, the figure was 26.3 percent.
Seems like we spend roughly enough. I'd like the country to spend a bit more but not through some alarmist, big ticket spending plan.
The facts of personnel opinion on people rating good or higher, also the stat for congestion is again a subjective measure, I'm fine with the highway administration rating of the roads since it should be empirical, unless they lowered standards, but that's just me being pessimistic.
I would like a empirical account on everything, but that's just me. Every thing else is cool and I "enjoy" your posts in general (as much as I can agree with a conservative).
According to this, the amount of money spent trying to figure out how to comply with the tax code in a year is approximately 15% of the amount that is collected in tax every year. I knew that it was a mess but I guess I didn't realize it was this bad!
You're telling me that the tax accounting sector is as big as 15% of the total (as in federal, state and local) government spending of the United States? I can't believe that.
On May 26 2013 03:04 KwarK wrote: You're telling me that the tax accounting sector is as big as 15% of the total (as in federal, state and local) government spending of the United States? I can't believe that.
No because the US spends much much more then it makes in taxes ^^
That said the number still feels insanely high. Are they counting international company account spending as all being used for the US tax or something?
On May 26 2013 03:04 KwarK wrote: You're telling me that the tax accounting sector is as big as 15% of the total (as in federal, state and local) government spending of the United States? I can't believe that.
I believe it counts the implied cost of time spent completing one's own tax return.
If America should have spent more on infrastructure and still needs to do so, perhaps we shouldn't have spent ~900 billion dollars in 2009 on bullshit with a stimulus that didn't stimulate much of anything and certainly didn't stimulate infrastructure building. Maybe instead of that ~900 billion being giveaways to the banks and friends of Obama, it should have been spent on infrastructure?
Maybe ~1 trillion deficits a year would have been better spent on "shovel-ready jobs" and actually trying to remove red tape instead of whatever the fuck Barack Obama has been spending it on. It sure as hell hasn't been spent on anything to do with shovels, unless there are shovel derivatives and green energy powered Japanese automatic standing shovels out there.
IRS is boring at the moment, let's go to a different and probably far worse scandal that will hopefully put that jackass Eric Holder where he should be, in jail:
The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.
The new details are revealed in a court filing detailing a back and forth between the Justice Department and the federal judges who oversaw the request to search a Gmail account belonging to Rosen, a reporter for Fox News. A 2009 article Rosen had written about North Korea sparked an investigation; Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, insisted that the reporter should not be notified of the search and seizure of his e-mails, even after a lengthy delay.
E-mails, Machen wrote, “are commonly used by subjects or targets of the criminal investigation at issue, and the e-mail evidence derived from those compelled disclosures frequently forms the core of the Government’s evidence supporting criminal charges.”
He argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”
Machen insisted the investigation would be compromised if Rosen was informed of the warrant, and also asked the court to order Google not to notify Rosen that the company had handed over Rosen’s e-mails to the government. Rosen, according to recent reports, did not learn that the government seized his e-mail records until it was reported in the Washington Post last week.
The new details indicate that the government wanted the option to search Rosen’s e-mails repeatedly if the F.B.I. found further evidence implicating the reporter in what prosecutors argued was a conspiracy to commit espionage.
To the Holder Department of Justice, news-gathering is a "conspiracy to commit espionage."
Even if there isn't enough to charge a reporter with (since talking to sources isn't a crime no matter what the DOJ says), we should be able to snoop on him for indefinite amounts of time, because then we might find something to charge him with someday! Remember, this is still supposed to be the US of A, but Eric Holder was trying just as hard as he could to square that circle!
According to recently unsealed documents in the case, the Obama Justice Department sought an extensive amount of information from Rosen’s e-mail account. In addition to Rosen’s correspondence with Kim, the government wanted to know about Rosen’s contacts with other government officials, including “records or information relating to the Author’s communication with any other source or potential source of the information disclosed in the Article.”
Fishing expeditions against reporters? Not even George McChimpy Bushitlerburton or John Fascistcroft or Alberto Gon-Tyrant came anywhere close to that.
Yesterday, hours after President Obama said, in a speech at National Defense University, that he had asked Attorney General Eric Holder to review the Justice Department’s policies concerning investigations of the media, NBC News reported that the warrant to search Rosen’s e-mail account was personally approved by Holder.
Yes let's have Holder investigate Holder. That will surely get us the truth. Especially when Holder lied to Congress already about his involvement.
Holder: I was not and never have been involved in possible prosecutions of the press, I've never even heard of such a thing! Except when I put my signature to warrants that branded James Rosen as a co-conspirator and possible criminal, of course.
(Holder lies at 4:57 - 5:13).
This man is the biggest fascist in government since J. Edgar Hoover (not to mention that he's as an arrogant prick), he should have been behind bars for several years now and he still needs to go spend a decade or so at a Club Fed.
1. Holder has so many different scandal cases that he probably doesn't deserve to be in government. While he could hide behind underlings in some of them, more than 3 cases (even more if the bigger scandals are cut into specific constitutional questions and no, not even counting Bengazi here) in such a short time means that he is either incompetent, has a very problematic relation to peoples first and fourth amendment rights or there is a huge conspiracy between media, other politicians (even some democrats!) and his staff to punish him. Either way, he cannot stay!
2. As far as I know real periodic maintenance is on an "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"-basis in USA though it seems to have improved. The ratings improving is a very good sign, but instead of only repairing the worst damaged, it is seen as economically advantageous to maintain even small problems with bridges and roads before it becomes more expensive here. It will cost some more moneys on each budget, but it will extend the life of infrastructure to a point where it is cheaper than rebuilding. Unfortunately it is so much more effective for a politician to say that they give money for a new bridge as opposed to a boring increasing maintenance.
On May 26 2013 05:29 radiatoren wrote: 1. Holder has so many different scandal cases that he probably doesn't deserve to be in government. While he could hide behind underlings in some of them, more than 3 cases (even more if the bigger scandals are cut into specific constitutional questions and no, not even counting Bengazi here) in such a short time means that he is either incompetent, has a very problematic relation to peoples first and fourth amendment rights or there is a huge conspiracy between media, other politicians (even some democrats!) and his staff to punish him. Either way, he cannot stay!
2. As far as I know real periodic maintenance is on an "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"-basis in USA though it seems to have improved. The ratings improving is a very good sign, but instead of only repairing the worst damaged, it is seen as economically advantageous to maintain even small problems with bridges and roads before it becomes more expensive here. It will cost some more moneys on each budget, but it will extend the life of infrastructure to a point where it is cheaper than rebuilding. Unfortunately it is so much more effective for a politician to say that they give money for a new bridge as opposed to a boring increasing maintenance.
Edit: Just to be clear: I am advocating that increasing maintenance will be cheaper and thus require less funding for new projects!
It varies from state to state depending on their finances - most state governments are in horrible financial shape. But you are pretty much right, unless it is part of some huge project infrastructure in the US is usually given just enough or not quite enough spending to get by. State government spending is more important in the US since our state governments are more independent of the national government. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And yes, infrastructure spending is more aimed at big flashy projects than boring mundane "Vote for me because I spend a premium on maintaining infrastructure, because a premium's worth it there!"
Also it's a lot easier politically to favor big splashy projects in a particular area because usually there are businesses (not always large corporations by any means but they certainly play a prominent role) promising to move to the area if the infrastructure is updated and they get tax breaks and all that, it's par for the course for the relationship between local and state governments and business. "Bringing jobs to the community" beats "maintaining bridges" 10 out of 10 times when it comes election season.
So the new "business center" or whatever gets all the money it needs and more, and that bridge that's lasted sixty years just fine, well it's lasted sixty years just fine, hasn't it? Why does it need more money?
On May 26 2013 05:36 farvacola wrote: Holder needs to go, and it isn't even a partisan issue anymore.
I've thought that for several years now. He's a 'Yes Man' and a lot of his scandals did not start with just him, and shouldn't end with just him.
Swann continues to impress. Hey Cindy Thomas! sweating yet?. Lol, and what's up with asking applicants if they believe in the 'land of Isreal' Really? Numbs the brain.
On May 26 2013 03:04 KwarK wrote: You're telling me that the tax accounting sector is as big as 15% of the total (as in federal, state and local) government spending of the United States? I can't believe that.
It's hard to believe. Apparently 3 million people are employed full time in this field. I guess that includes accountants, lawyers, government bureaucrats, and so on. The number might still be high, who knows?
On May 26 2013 03:04 KwarK wrote: You're telling me that the tax accounting sector is as big as 15% of the total (as in federal, state and local) government spending of the United States? I can't believe that.
I believe it counts the implied cost of time spent completing one's own tax return.
It also notes that 90% pay someone else to do their taxes.
It would be interesting to see the numbers for other countries, if they are available. I don't think Canadian tax laws are anywhere near this complicated.
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services.
On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote: Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services.
except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners.
On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote: Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services.
except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners.
They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes.
The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class.
On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote: Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services.
except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners.
They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes.
The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class.
People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare.
EPT
