jcd11235

You forgot to mention 52 weeks each year, every year. Don't forget that. (I support the estate tax, but I'm fully aware of how difficult life on a farm is.) uphill, both ways, in a snow storm with one pair of shoes shared between all 7 kids I was actually being serious. Of all the farmers in my family, I've never known or heard about any of them taking a vacation. Ever. Livestock and crops don't stop needing attention just because a farmer might want a break for a week. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I would be surprised if the estate tax is supposed to be applied to anything other than equity, in cases where inherited property was not owned free and clear by the deceased. If the tax does apply to property yet to be paid for, less equity, then I would support correcting that. However, the estate tax, generally speaking, is not unfair. It has nothing to do with whether or not I understand the plight of farmers and ranchers (something I'm actually familiar with). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Incorrect. Latter amendments supersede previous amendments and the original wording of the Constitution when there is conflict among them. I think you will find that Article V of the Constitution provides the ability to modify the document. Furthermore, it is quite a stretch of the imagination to consider the sixteenth to conflict with the fifth. We give tacit consent for taxation when we utilize the benefits of government (e.g. driving on roads, walking on sidewalks, utilizing law enforcement, etc.). In other words, tax monies are owed to the government, as the price for living here. They are not private property being seized by the government. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Again, that's a naive view. Some undocumented workers pay income taxes each pay period by using someone else's social security number (with employers assistance), but cannot collect the refund for their over payments, since they lack sufficient documentation. Likewise, some undocumented workers pay into Social Security, but lack the documentation to receive any benefits. The same goes for unemployment insurance. Undocumented workers also pay sales tax on money they spend, but do not have access to all of the benefits that they are paying for with those taxes. In other words, in some ways, undocumented workers pay more into the system than they receive. In other ways, they receive more than they pay. Whether or not they provide a net credit or net debit to the local, state and federal revenue books is a topic of debate. Quite simply, no one knows for sure, due to the fact that they are undocumented. If replaced by legal, documented workers, the only thing known with certainty is that benefits paid for will be collected. There won't be money collected for Social Security taxes that can be expected to never be claimed in benefits. Any extra income taxes paid will be claimed for a refund with a filed tax return. All the while, the benefits that the undocumented immigrants were receiving as workers will be still be received by the now unemployed undocumented immigrants. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You forgot to mention 52 weeks each year, every year. Don't forget that. (I support the estate tax, but I'm fully aware of how difficult life on a farm is.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Agreed. In my opinion, anyone who wants to be President should be disqualified from the position. I don't think that. I think quite a few politicians do abuse their power to whatever extent they can get away with. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers saw fit to limit the extent of the power of any single person in office. I think they were quite wise in doing so. Line item veto would substantially reduce the limitation of power of the President. The person occupying that particular office is already the most powerful single person in government. That is the last office for which we should be expanding power. I'm quite certain we would have some Presidents who would have enough respect for the principles of the government that they could use line item veto constructively, without abusing it. I'm equally certain that there would be some that would abuse the expanded power, effectively eliminating the power of the Congress to check and balance the power of the executive. Given his experience as a Constitutional law professor, I would be reluctantly inclined to trust the current President with line item veto. Likewise, former President Carter was principled enough to be trusted with such power. There's no way in hell that I would trust any of the four Presidents that held the office during the intervening period with that power. Not one of them. It only takes one future President to abuse the power of a line item veto to a disastrous end. We need to limit executive powers with the worst case scenario in mind, not the best case, because sooner or later, the worst case scenario will be the reality. Power can be too intoxicating. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes That's what that book you read told you? Chuck See my edited post above, please. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes Edit to add: Do you trust all future Presidents to not abuse such power if they had it? As the number of Presidents with line item veto power increases, the probability of abuse of the line item veto approaches 1. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Well, as long as you are sure, I guess there's no need to consult with reasonable people who might rely on evidence to support their assertions. How much in taxes do you think those illegal immigrants paid into the system. Surely you're not naive enough to believe that they don't pay taxes, right? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why is that difficult to believe? He is, for lack of a better word, old. (No offense intended masterrig, but I didn't think you'd want me to use some newfangled PC term. ) At one time 50¢ per hour was a reasonable wage. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Oh, you foolish boy. 15% of your neighbors are already Cylons. Fixed it for ya! You are so living in the 90's! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Because it creates the possibility of unchecked abuse of power. If that possibility exists, sooner or later an executive will get into office and exploit it. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Well, if Rush said it … I think the last time I agreed with RL was when he said something about Snapple being a tasty beverage on a hot day when one is rather thirsty. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Have you any evidence to support that assertion? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That statement has yet to be demonstrated to be true or false by either side of the argument. It is hypothesis, not established fact. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think you'll find that is due to large chains trying to get by with as little labor and training costs as possible, not from lazy employees who don't want to work. WalMart is especially bad about being understaffed to the point of terrible customer service or inability to offer customer service in a timely manner. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think you will find that Amendment XVI supersedes every part of the Constitution you listed if it actually conflicted. Having said that, there doesn't appear to be any conflict of interest with Article VI or Amendments I, IV, V or VIII. It's interesting that you failed to list Article I, which is really the only part of the Constitution with which Amendment XVI does conflict. From Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." However, Amendment XVI clarifies/supersedes that clause, maintaining consistency within the Constitution. Now you can sleep better at night, understanding that the tin-foil hatters were wrong about income taxes being unConstitutional. Edit to add: "The inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not listed in the Constitution. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Conversely - the article doesn't mention is the tone, manner, and maturity level of the questions and responses of the professor during the presentation - as well as those students who are brainwashed by PC nonsense or were just kissing up to the prof during the preso. No, it doesn't. My experience is quite different. Of the professors that offer clues w/r/t what their own political ideology is (most do not), I've had far more conservative professors than liberal ones. The only professor I've had that I would consider a nutjob was WAY right of center, and she was all too happy to try to promote her political ideology in class. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Where it conflicts with the rest of the Constitution, up to and including Amendment XV, Amendment XVI supersedes the other parts. If it conflicts with with Amendments XVII (inclusive) or later, the newer amendments supersede Amendment XVI. Where, specifically, do you believe Amendment XVI confllcts with the Constitution? So what happens then when the majority votes to take away the property of the wealthy minority, depriving them of their property? Do you have an example of such occurring? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

An overly ambitious sandbar? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Let them go through their entire spiel, then ask them if you have to pay the full price yourself, or if it can be divided among all the passengers on the bus. The call won't cost any less, but you may get a certain satisfaction out of messing with them. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Proprietary format attachments (e.g. .doc, .docx, .mht, etc.) (often, but not necessarily MS formats) Professors who assume everyone has/uses Windows Professors who insist on using expensive, proprietary software when free, similarly/equally/more powerful open source alternatives are readily available (e.g. $8500 SAS versus $0 R) Website designers the write code to specific browsers instead of to standards, especially when they won't work using a different browser with the same rendering engine (e.g. WebKit) as a supported browser WinGeeks (not to be confused with real geeks who include Windows among the operating systems in which they are fluent), because when the only tool one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail Drivers who don't look right prior to turning right on red or turning right out of a parking lot People who don't know what the word theory means, w/r/t science, but claim to know more about biology, cosmology, and climatology than scientists who have spent their entire careers doing research in those subjects People who find the spot most likely to bottleneck foot traffic and then stop there to carry on a conversation Most drunk people (A very small proportion of people can be entertaining, or at least tolerable, when they are drunk; the rest are just annoying.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

One thing the article doesn't mention is the tone, manner, and maturity level of the presentation given by the student. On on hand it could have been quite professional, offering and objective view of the potential benefits of carrying concealed weapons on campus. At the other extreme, it could have been something akin to the opening post of the recent thread about how to stop gang violence. In the first case, calling the police may well have been an overreaction. In the second case, calling the police may well have been the only responsible option for the professor. If the presentation fell somewhere in between the two extremes, as it probably did, it comes down to a judgement call on the professor's part. While I seriously doubt that I'd have contacted the police myself in her case (provided the presentation was made in a reasonably mature and responsible manner), I certainly can't fault the professor for making the decision she made, at least not given only the information provided in the article to which the OP linked. If we justify keeping and carrying weapons by arguing that they help keep us safe from armed criminals, then we tacitly acknowledge that some people who carry guns are criminals who mean to do us harm. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

According to Dr. Rob Brown, since inception, Social Security has averaged a ~7% annual return for everyone. (Sorry, no link, I have the data from the notes from a lecture I attended that Dr. Brown gave last spring in Orlando.) I'm sure you noticed the 10.02% figure from the Cato Institute article applies to "a [single] female with income of $10,000." Certainly, you recognize that most of us do not fit into that category. Furthermore, that figure comes from the period of 1945 to 1989, not since Social Security's inception to the present (actually ~2008). Are you suggesting that only the riskiest common stock can provide returns that exceed 7%? Or are you relying on the red herring claim of 10.02% for single 65 year old (now 75 year old) females with an annual income of $10,000? I would suggest you try doing some actual research on the topic before making such disingenuous comparisons, lest you come across as a shady lawyer who is pissing on our legs while claiming that it's raining. You're better than that. Social Security offers an excellent return on investment in comparison to other long term, low risk investments. It is not the shady ponzi scheme that you try to paint it as. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

A person not paying their taxes is no different than a thief. They are nothing like a victim fighting off a mugger. If you want to live in the USA, then you have to meet certain responsibilities, among which is paying taxes. If you don't believe the government has a right to collect taxes from you, then you should read the Constitution, particularly Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. You do recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land in the USA, right? Regardless of what you may read on some tin-foil hatter libertarian website, there is nothing unConstitutional about the government collecting income taxes. (Just ask Wesley Snipes.) If you don't want to pay taxes, then have the courage to stand up for your convictions and relocate to a country with a tax structure that you agree with. But, if you choose to remain in the USA, then you are obligated to pay taxes. Failure to do so is a crime. If you commit a crime, don't be surprised if agents of the government use unpleasant means to collect their property from you. A democracy in which the majority votes away the rights of minorities would indeed be an unjust system. That, however, is not the situation in this case. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!