TomAiello

I'm not sure of anything aside from the articles statement that the cars themselves are provided by private charities. That makes me wonder why the charities aren't the one's deciding who to give them to. If this whole government program went away tomorrow, isn't it likely that the charities would take up the slack to keep things going? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Its a thing with JR and his multitude of threads about Ye Olde Englande Maybe. I tend to think that John is trying to use the English experiences as a tool to argue about US policies, which is reasonable, since he lives in the US, and is a citizen. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

We already have a doctor shortage in this country. And you'd be shocked at the number of doctors I know who are already starting to ask themselves "Who is John Galt?" -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I wonder how you would feel if some Americans started pushing for changes in your government over there? Wouldn't that be arrogant and imperialistic? Why the double standard? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Honestly, I think the main issue here is why the government has taken it upon themselves to take over a private charity that appears perfectly capable of doing this by itself. Is our government now so paranoid of private action that they've moved on from taking over banks and auto companies to taking over charities? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Why? They're not forcing me to follow their particular brand of mystical mumbo jumbo. I'm just living my life how I want. I could care less how they live their lives. Now, if they come and force me to support their worldview, that's different. But just lecturing me about it? Whatever. They're are dozens of other folks with various other ideologies doing the same thing constantly, and it's easy for me to change the channel. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I know people have asked this before, but given your location, what the heck do you care about politics in the USA? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Perhaps this is just one of the costs you pay for the relative benefits of living in San Francisco instead of Detroit? We are all willing to accept that it costs more (in real estate) to live in desirable places. Is it such a stretch to accept that it costs more (in relative taxation) as well? In fact, haven't we already accepted that fact (by accepting higher property taxes, and higher state/city tax rates in the more desirable places)? Further, one of the big reasons that people "desire" those places (leaving aside the weather, which is the other one), is because they can earn more money by living there. Salaries for the same position are much higher in some places than others. How's that fair? Well, one of the things that makes it fair is the higher cost of living in the place with the higher salaries. Higher taxes are part of that higher cost of living (ever compared tax rates in New York City and Twin Falls, Idaho, for example?). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm a proponent of gay marriage, generally (I'd prefer that marriage not be government sponsored at all, but given the current menu of options I lean toward just allowing marriage between any two consenting adults). I totally disagree with Miss Prejean's opinion on the matter, which appears religiously based (I'm an atheist). However, I think that she's getting screwed by the political correctness machine here. I believe that we all have a right to our own views, no matter how unpopular they may be. I also generally believe that you should evaluate people on their job performance, personal interactions with you, and such, and, especially in a professional circumstance, hold their political views aside from your judgments. I disagree with her, but I really sympathize, and I think she's being treated with exceptional unfairness simply because she is brave enough to state her convictions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Why is it necessary to have a state-run program to hand out the cars? The article says they're being donated by private charities. Why aren't the charities just handing the cars out themselves? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I totally agree with you. If spending is low enough, no one is going to care much how the (low) tax burden is apportioned. When the income tax was first created (when the funding needed was very low), the top 1% of taxpayers payed 7%, the next 1% payed 6%, and so on down until the 93 percentile of earners payed 1%, and anyone at 92% or below in the income rankings payed no tax. Then again, it was also a "temporary" measure that was only necessary because of wartime spending, and would be eliminated as soon as the threat to national security ended. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In Canada we are required to have a license to possess a firearm, do you need one in some states as well? In some states, yes. Long guns or just sidearms? It depends on the state, and also the type of long gun (scary looking ones are more likely to be more heavily regulated). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

why should you lifestyle choice have ANY bearing on it one way or the other? I actually agree with you (I assume) that it should not, but you could easily make the argument that some lifestyle choices are better for society as a whole (in fact, this argument drives a great deal of government policy, especially tax policy). For example, if you thought that home ownership was "good" you could deduct mortgage interest paid from taxable income. Or if you wanted people to buy American cars, you could offer tax deductions for the interest paid on car loans. For more far-fetched examples, if you wanted people to save, you could offer a tax deduction equal to the amount saved. You could also recognize that some people have put themselves hugely into debt in order to provide services that society values (doctors are a prime example of this at the present moment), and realize that if you tax the heck out of them while they are still trying to pay off their educational loans, you're likely to discourage others from entering into those sorts of professions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wow. I didn't realize there were people young enough to be alive who still called it that. My wife calls it that, or else "The War for Southern Independence." You should travel more. There are historical markers all over the south using that nomenclature. I used to walk by this one several times a week, and given it's location I'm certain that several tens of thousands of people still pass by it every day. Hm. Maybe my point was a bit too subtle. Then again, maybe not. Maybe I didn't get it. But it sure seemed to me like you just didn't understand the culture under discussion. Broadening your horizons to learn about more cultures is always enlightening. Cultures aren't "good" or "bad" per se--they're just diverse, and diversity is good. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In the 90's, I was a single guy making in the range of 40-50k. Now, I've got a higher income and a family, as well as a bunch more educational debt to pay off. I felt a lot "richer" in terms of the luxuries I could afford and the things I could do, then, than I do now. That's because I had a lot more discretionary income then--I got to play with virtually all of my money. That's simply not the case now. Why should I be paying more taxes now, again? Because I'm "rich"? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The one I like is basically the one proposed by Jerry Brown (Governor Moonbeam) back in the 90's. Create an income "floor" below which you pay no income tax at all--something like 25k or 30k dollars per year. Then tax all income above that floor at a flat rate. Create a national VAT (sales tax) at a very similar rate (I think Brown wanted something like 13% rates on each tax, but I can't recall his details). This sort of tax system encourages saving over consumption, eliminates loopholes and leaves the poor (and even the not-so-poor) with either zero or near-zero income tax burden. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You could easily substitute "far left" or "Islamic terrorists" or "those 4 guys in Miami" or even "those two dudes in their mom's basement." That doesn't make it any more (or less--I do realize there are a few wackos out there really thinking that way) real, nor does it make it something that's likely to have any real effect. Honestly, the writing you quoted seems a heck of a lot more paranoid than those guys at the gun show. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, that depends quite a lot on individual circumstances. I'm guessing that very few people making 40k have to pay off a few hundred thousand in school loans, for example. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Are you saying that's the only other option? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Maybe I'm confused about the facts. Was it someone else's lawsuit? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I found it! There's an announcement here at the top of the AR15.com equipment exchange, that refers to dark skin. The full text reads: It's pretty racist to call the skin "dark," and doing it on a gun web site, with the current president is pretty conclusive. And that bit about "user preferences" is obviously some kind of code referring to a white supremacist agenda. And what about the "behind the scenes bug fixes"? Sounds to me like they're probably planning some kind of campaign of assassination and terror, most likely ending in a military coup. Clearly, racism is rampant in the on-line gun sales community, and the firearms industry is blatantly using racism to induce panic and fear. It's high time we organize a boycott of these web sites. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Seriously? Maybe I missed something (quite possible), but I didn't see anything that justified removing him from the profession of teaching permanently. I would imagine this lawsuit was enough to change his behavior, but if not, then yeah, maybe he should go. Given that he was discussing his own lawsuit against the school from more than 10 years previously, I'd bet money that he's been going on about it constantly, and has done this to every student who's flowed through his classroom since that time. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The courts have ruled that any act of government is covered by the first amendment. Otherwise, the executive branch (for example) could blatantly ignore Constitutional rights by simply saying "hey, we're not Congress." The public schools are government entities--hence the rules apply to them, too. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't think he should be a teacher. I think we've got professional misconduct there on a scale to easily justify removing him from the profession of teaching permanently. I just don't think the first amendment reasoning is the way to find a resolution here. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

When business and government are in each other's pockets (or more accurately, both in the pockets of a set of oligarchs) you don't have capitalism. I think it was Benito Mussolini who described Fascism as the union of business and the state. The fix here is to get the government out of the business world, and keep the business world off their corporate welfare. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com