Apparently about as hard as it is for Texaphobics to acknowledge that 12 is 50% higher than 8, and that the emphasis of the statement was that unemployment in California is one-and-a-half times as high as it is in Texas.I know, it was too hard to write that one was 12% and the other was 8%.
12 is 50% more than 8. But 12% is not 50% more than 8%. 58% is 50% more than 8%.Apparently about as hard as it is for Texaphobics to acknowledge that 12 is 50% higher than 8, and that the emphasis of the statement was that unemployment in California is one-and-a-half times as high as it is in Texas.
He's being oppressed, dontcha know?Texaphobe? Really?
Or maybe some people prefer clarity no matter who is saying it? Whatsa matter, feeling all Fox news and think you are being oppressed by the 'liberal media'?Remember folks. When you can't argue the substance argue the semantics! Sure he said he wants to spread the wealth around, but it was a republican who asked the question, so it doesn't matter.
just finding it amusing than rather than actually address the fact that California's unemployment rate is one and a half times higher than Texas's unemployment rate (clear enough for you), people would rather berate the semantics and accuse people of making up numbers.Or maybe some people prefer clarity no matter who is saying it? Whatsa matter, feeling all Fox news and think you are being oppressed by the 'liberal media'?
Yes it is. You can describe a percentage of a percentage.12 is 50% more than 8. But 12% is not 50% more than 8%. 58% is 50% more than 8%.
Those numbers can easily be countered by comparing the cost of living in California vs Texas. For example, I'm making less money in Texas than I was in Colorado, but I live in a nicer place and have more spending power.Want to argue the numbers between California and Texas?
Average household income in California 2009: $58k
Average household income in Texas 2009: $48k
That is with a 4% difference in unemployment.
Poverty level?
Texas in 2008: 15.8%, 2009 : 16%
California 2008: 13.3% 2009: 13.4%
Yeah, unemployment is high in California, which sucks and should get fixed. But don't pretend that Texas is the magical land of milk and honey. It's running itself into the crap pit California is in and eventually they won't have the Federal relief help to make up for their budget shortfall either.
I find it amusing myself that I just spent 5 minutes looking for this and added it here and expect nothing but to feel like I wasted my time.
Is wicket gonna have to spear a bitch?Yes, the trees in Texas are much like the ones on your native Endor...
What was that? This is not a charade. Now. Try it again. With FEEWING.Gates appreciated the platitude.
Send him to Detroit!!What was that? This is not a charade. Now. Try it again. With FEEWING.
I love when politicians state their policies are bad, admit that they need to be changed, and yet refuse for purely partisan reasons.Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and says lowering the rate should be a part of the deal in raising the debt ceiling.
Come on Gas... you can do better than posting from Fox News.Joe Biden tells union members that if they vote for a Republican, don’t expect any help from him or the administration.
You might want to re-read that Gas. While it's true that he suggests lowering the tax rate, it's only to a point slightly higher than we actually take in and it's contingent on getting rid of most of the deductions they can take. He then spends the rest of the article bashing Grover Norquist for acting like a mafia boss when it comes to tax policy, suggesting compromise only if the Republicans can start being realistic, and then this little gem about corporations...Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and says lowering the rate should be a part of the deal in raising the debt ceiling.
Bill Clinton said:“When I was young, we were taught in law school that corporations were creatures of the state and had responsibilities to all their stakeholders — their shareholders, their employees, their customers and the communities of which they were a part. Now, it’s only shareholders. I think that’s a pretty bad idea.”
Are you disputing the assertion?Come on Gas... you can do better than posting from Fox News.
I will say that corporate tax law does need to be revisited. If an individual makes money in the US but lives abroad, he still has to pay taxes on what he made here. But if a corporation "bases" itself abroad, suddenly it doesn't? (At least that's my understanding from listening to Money Talk but I might be wrong)... That and some other things need to be addressed, if we're going to accept that a corporation has the same first amendment rights as an individual (IE, can buy political advertising).You might want to re-read that Gas. While it's true that he suggests lowering the tax rate, it's only to a point slightly higher than we actually take in and it's contingent on getting rid of most of the deductions they can take. He then spends the rest of the article bashing Grover Norquist for acting like a mafia boss when it comes to tax policy, suggesting compromise only if the Republicans can start being realistic, and then this little gem about corporations...
Corporations aren't people who carry citizenship. You really can't prove one way or another if a company is based inside the US despite the company's assertions that it is not, short of adding easily avoided stipulations. You'd also have to fight with other governments over who gets to tax them and the last thing I want is a fucking US Navy Destroyer parked outside of Bermuda because a Holding Company wants to dodge it's taxes.I will say that corporate tax law does need to be revisited. If an individual makes money in the US but lives abroad, he still has to pay taxes on what he made here. But if a corporation "bases" itself abroad, suddenly it doesn't?
There'd be no need for a destroyer, in these days of electronic funds. In our brave new high-tech world, freezing/garnishing assets is just a mouse click away.Corporations aren't people who carry citizenship. You really can't prove one way or another if a company is based inside the US despite the company's assertions that it is not, short of adding easily avoided stipulations. You'd also have to fight with other governments over who gets to tax them and the last thing I want is a fucking US Navy Destroyer parked outside of Bermuda because a Holding Company wants to dodge it's taxes.
Like I said before, this is a surprise to no one that actually knows any American born Jews. They have always known they'd have to give it back and, while they understand why the native Israelis don't want to do it, are more than willing to give up the land if it means that the fighting would stop. They just aren't entirely convinced that it will.Despite his recent speech calling for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, Obama hasn’t seen a decline in Jewish support.
Well you know what semantics are for? (to influence connotation, and Gas was trying to make it sound worse then it was).Remember folks. When you can't argue the substance argue the semantics!
Oh man, and here me thinking investing in infrastructure for the future would be cheap, just like it never ever is...How much will it cost to go green? Trillions.
There's such thing as a necessary expense. Infrastructure expenses usually fall into that category.I don't think you guys are fully familiarized by just how much is in a trillion. This isn't "millions," which is already expensive and more than probably all three of us put together have seen.
1 million seconds is eleven and a half days.
1 Trillion seconds is 31 and a half THOUSAND years.
And last anybody looked, we've pretty much already trillioned ourselves to the brink.