TomAiello

It should be possible to pay for it without taxation. A number of alternatives come to mind, including; (a) make those sentenced to a crime pay for their proceedings (in whatever manner you desire--I can think of several options). (b) establish a justice system endowment from the outset, whereby the justice system (and whatever other elements of government you deem impossible to live without) are supported from their endowments, without the need to raise additional revenues. Note that this method ought to work for paying for all government, and naturally controlling it's growth. (c) require those seeking the benefit of the justice system to pay user fees (this may not be practical if the injustice they seek redress for is theft, of course), which could be implemented along with part (a), to provide restitution to the seeker of justice I'm sure there are many others--that's just what I came up with this 30 seconds. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

And also, a system could be taxless, but still have justice (and, separately, a functional justice system). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Also one in the moderators forum. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Taxation and justice are not moral (or functional) equivalents. Actually, there are other options available. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Some of that has to do with cost of living. 40k is lots for a teacher living in Burley, Idaho, but you can't even find a place to live for that in Cupertino, California. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

your dream-fu is weak today (where is your smiley face?

Yes, well, since we are in the process of invading oil producing nations, you should know that Norway is next on the target list. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Bah. Of course not. Without spoons (guns), there would be no more eating of ice cream (violent crime). Oh, wait, we'll have to ban those cone things (knives), too. And that's why I eat ice cream with chopsticks. Spoons are far too dangerous. Ack! No! Must ban chopsticks! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Bah. Of course not. Without spoons (guns), there would be no more eating of ice cream (violent crime). Oh, wait, we'll have to ban those cone things (knives), too. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Right. And we get an immense imperial military that is adequate to invade and occupy nations all over the globe. Personally, I'd prefer not to foot the bill for that. BTW, health "insurance" and healthcare are two very different things. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Which is an income group that includes most active duty military personnel, who have a huge incentive to vote for candidates promising higher military spending, which is the largest portion of the federal budget. War may be hell, but it sure buys a lot of votes. You'd have to increase pay rates in the military, as well as boosting welfare. Then you could tax the welfare benefits and military pay, and use that money to boost them some more, which would give you more taxes, which you could spend on increasing them further. I'm pretty sure this is what President Obama thinks the term "multiplier effect" means. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

47% of Households Owe No Tax When Work Doesn't Pay for the Middle Class This is totally unsustainable. Our tax burden is badly skewed, even by comparison with the far more socialist economies in Europe. With such a narrow tax base (far narrower than anywhere else in the first world), we have created a huge non-taxpaying voting class that just keeps demanding more and more tax dollars be spent on them, and an ever diminishing number of taxpayers to support them. Our politicians solution is to shift more people into the non-taxpaying group to appease them and buy their votes, which requires taxing the actual taxpayers even more heavily. It doesn't take a genius to see where we're headed. Yet no one in DC has the courage to stand up and make hard choices. How long before the whole system implodes? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's actually a very good point. If you really care about reducing gun accidents (and probably also gun violence) the very first, best step would be to implement mandatory firearm safety training in public schools. I suspect that the opposition of some to this very reasonable suggestion is more readily attributable to their unreasoning prejudice against firearms, which stems from an often willful ignorance. Of course, that's often the same place a desire to ban firearms comes from. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Oh my gosh! It's a national crisis! Immediate legislation to ban suicide is the only solution. The government must act! By simply banning suicide, we can cut gun deaths by more than half! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Argh, Mateys! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

California has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. (is it possible that the laws aren't working?)

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's pass a law requiring that every American purchase that industries overpriced health "insurance" or face criminal penalties! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

A poster sized photo of the crowd turnout is now available from Freedomworks.com. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

This is not about environmentalism. It's about BASE ethics. I'm not concerned about saving the planet--just the exit points. I'm PMing you my phone number. If you're going to be at Bridge Day, I'd love to have a beer and chat with you. If not, maybe we can talk on the phone. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Found this description on the BCS web site: It's at the bottom of this page. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The BCS determines which conferences get automatic BCS bids (i.e. the "BCS conferences") using a mathematical formula. I believe it's major components are the average ranking of the conferences teams, the ranking of the top team in the conference, and the number of teams in the top 25. I think they "re-select" (although to date it's never changed) the BCS conferences every 3 years or so. Since the three criteria are weighted about equally, USC (perennially ranked very highly) really pulls up the PAC-10 numbers. I read all this (and the calculation with the MW surpassing the PAC-9 (no USC) in an article on either ESPN.com or SI.com, I can't recall which, about a year ago. Let me see if I can find it. In that case, it would work to the advantage of the conferences who don't hold conference championships (because their two top teams would make it into the playoffs, where a loss in the SEC or Big-10 championship game could push a very good team down far enough to knock them out of the playoffs). I'm sure that would raise protests from the mid-grade schools in hard conferences (because they'd virtually never make the playoffs, although if they were in an easier conference they might). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hmmm. I wonder if this is why I just got a voicemail message from a reporter at the Indianapolis Star? I'm pretty sure that no one in Indy has ever made a BASE jump. That guy must have been imagining things. Or maybe a visiting jumper from Europe made a jump there. I know they have lots of BASE jumpers in Europe. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Utah, maybe? If you run the BCS formula for BCS/non-BCS conferences, it turns out that the Mountain West would be the next BCS conference, and that if USC left the Pac-10, it would no longer qualify as a BCS conference. I'd be curious to see how a playoff system would work. Would you seed the playoffs before or after the various conference championships? Would teams start petitioning their conferences to reduce conference games, so they could play weaker opponents, win more games, and have a better shot at the playoffs? Honestly, I think the real problem is the compulsive need to declare a "winner." The old bowl system, where everyone played their bowl games and then everyone spent the off season claiming they were the champions, was better than the current system, where the same thing still happens despite the BCS declaring a "real" winner. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Don't people hunt with slugs? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wow. That sucks. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com