Global Warming News

[FallbrookFarmer]

Good Morning to all,
Wow I guess I shouldn't have gone to sleep. Let me attempt a couple of the responses:
Loren49;
I think that you agree with me in that GOOD teachers are underpaid. $49K is not adequate compensation for a teacher who actually motivates and teaches their students(If I may digress, Had a teacher back in High School in Chicago, Mr. Henry, that actually had us leather jacket wearing hoodlums listening to and actually enjoying classical music, Another wonderful teacher was an instructor at Northwestern whose day job was as editor for the local CBS affiliate, who would rip apart your work, but when you got an A on a paper, you were really proud, and you knew that really were doing good work) On the other hand we had teachers who told us "we dont care if you sleep , just try not to snore". And increasingly I see incompetent teachers being kept in jobs due to union rules
As to inflammatory language try this:
When governments become destructive of the rights of people, It is the DUTY of the people to alter or abolish it
Obvious paraphrasing, but you get the point
I think that I would just point you to what LMTC said in response to all lot of of the rest.
In terms of the current crisis, to be fair, IMHO has its roots further back, when the government began forcing banks to make loans to people who were not financially qualified to receive those loans.
Dave 49. Just a question, but do you know where the first oil well was? I think that we can innovate ourselves out of dependency of foreign oil. If we would just encourage people to do so by reducing the cost of doing business, a large part of which is tax and malpractice insurance/lawsuits.
Gator6X4 Sorry to hear about the lack of quality in your local VA facility. Now, that is an issue that I would like Congress investigate and correct .
As to insurance companies dropping patients, I would reiterate, if you introduce more market competition, you would not have a problem finding affordable quality insurance.
And why will you find the "majority of people in eemrgency rooms" lacking insurance is the fact that the government mandates that they must care for anyone who walks in the door.
I trust doctors more than I trust politicians. I would be fine if a hospital refused somebody who walked into an ER with a cold and wanted some free drugs/care. I believe me I saw plenty of that when I was a cop. People calling for an ambulance because they didn't want to pay for a taxi, etc.etc.etc. Ad naseum.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

LMTC - do you suggest that the States regulate the air waves - FCC- not mentioned in Constitution. How about internet regulation - or no regulation. How about interstate highways and airports? How about drug regulation? My point is things have changed since 1780. Certainly even this Supreme Court disagrees with much of your interpretation. Medical regulation by States only is unworkable and its clear that the framers of the constitution did not consider the issue as it basically did not exist in its current form. Few things government regulates are mentioned specifically in the Constitution as they did not exist but are covered under "general welfare" or "defence" statements.

I understand that small government seems better, but none doesn't work. What specific government programs can we decrease or eliminate. Who then regulates or should it be unregulated. I agree there a lots of wastes but the problem is in the details. Blanket statements seldom accomplish much. Its tough to actually pick something and work for a change.

Loren

Loren49:
Your throwing softballs this morning.
Internet, no government regulation=incredible growth, the ability for FREE speech, massive amounts of money being made,a forum for dummies like me to hyperventilate! What's the downside?

 

[dave1949]

FallbrookFarmer:
Dave 49. Just a question, but do you know where the first oil well was? I think that we can innovate ourselves out of dependency of foreign oil. If we would just encourage people to do so by reducing the cost of doing business, a large part of which is tax and malpractice insurance/lawsuits.


I think the first oil well may have been in PA, what I mean, obviously, is from the first oil well drilled in many foreign countries, the US/Brits/Dutch and others have been monkeying around in other peoples lives and countries. That costs something and has ongoing consequences.

I thought the US was one of the lower taxed business countries. When you look at what is actually paid, not the nominal rates. Isn't that true?

In your mind, what benefit does a business reap from paying tax?

As to malpractice insurance, we do need some sanity injected. Those awards are given generally by juries, not the government. Yes, we pay for them, but look to the real culprits - in the mirrors of America If the AMA was really fullfilling a useful role, many malpractice suits could be avoided because they would drum the incompetents out of the profession before they could maim somebody - again.

The AMA is a perfect example of how a profession could regulate itself and doesn't. So, the government and individual citizens get involved to a greater extent. They are not unique in this regard.

Some countries in Europe have defined loss charts, an eye is so much, an arm is so much, etc. That's what you get - period. They aren't particulary generous either. They are however, becoming more litigious over time.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrookFarmer:
Dave 49. Just a question, but do you know where the first oil well was? I think that we can innovate ourselves out of dependency of foreign oil. If we would just encourage people to do so by reducing the cost of doing business, a large part of which is tax and malpractice insurance/lawsuits.


I think the first oil well may have been in PA, what I mean, obviously, is from the first oil well drilled in many foreign countries, the US/Brits/Dutch and others have been monkeying around in other peoples lives and countries. That costs something and has ongoing consequences.

I thought the US was one of the lower taxed business countries. When you look at what is actually paid, not the nominal rates. Isn't that true?

In your mind, what benefit does a business reap from paying tax?

As to malpractice insurance, we do need some sanity injected. Those awards are given generally by juries, not the government. Yes, we pay for them, but look to the real culprits - in the mirrors of America If the AMA was really fullfilling a useful role, many malpractice suits could be avoided because they would drum the incompetents out of the profession before they could maim somebody - again.

The AMA is a perfect example of how a profession could regulate itself and doesn't. So, the government and individual citizens get involved to a greater extent. They are not unique in this regard.

Some countries in Europe have defined loss charts, an eye is so much, an arm is so much, etc. That's what you get - period. They aren't particulary generous either. They are however, becoming more litigious over time.
Dave.

As to the benefits of a business paying taxes, somebody a lot smarter than me once said "The price we pay for living in a civilized society, are taxes"
My point is that I feel that there are waaaaay too many taxes imposed at the Federal level. If one looks at Original Intent, the Fed was prohibited from collecting taxes, only fees and stamp duties, Look at the monster the federal tax system has become in less than 100 years.(OH OH I think I see the black helicopters circling outside!!)
Don't think I'll get too much disagreement in calling for lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
But when you look at virtually any attempt to do that(off shore drilling, nuclear,bio diesel) who is attempting to stymie those efforts?

 

[LMTC]

LMTC - do you suggest that the States regulate the air waves - FCC- not mentioned in Constitution. How about internet regulation - or no regulation. How about interstate highways and airports? How about drug regulation? My point is things have changed since 1780. Certainly even this Supreme Court disagrees with much of your interpretation. Medical regulation by States only is unworkable and its clear that the framers of the constitution did not consider the issue as it basically did not exist in its current form. Few things government regulates are mentioned specifically in the Constitution as they did not exist but are covered under "general welfare" or "defence" statements.

I understand that small government seems better, but none doesn't work. What specific government programs can we decrease or eliminate. Who then regulates or should it be unregulated. I agree there a lots of wastes but the problem is in the details. Blanket statements seldom accomplish much. Its tough to actually pick something and work for a change.

Loren

Yes, I do; and so does the Constitution. And yes, each state should regulate that which takes place within itself, so long as it too doesn't violate the Constitution. I don't care where the road goes....the state should regulate it within it's own boundaries. Care to show me where that power is specifically delegated to the United States (fed gov) in the Constitution?

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer- I feel the same each morning but I turn in at about 830 eastern time and get up at about 5AM so I'm on early compared. I always was a little better at softball than baseball. Looks like your pinch hitting for LMTC. (just a little humor)

Not sure that internet was a great example but note from the site and quote below that law scholars, along with the Supreme Court, who are much better versed than we are seem to be allowing some Federal Regs. Maybe in the end it will go in your direction. Let me add banking to the list - I believe that none of my list is addressed specifically in the Constitution but interstate commerce may be where they feel that the Fed Gov has the authority. I would suggest that the things the CIA, NSA, and domestic spying do are not covered specifically in the Constitution but general authority for defence is stated in the preamble just as general welfare of the people is rationale for many other things. I do not claim that these things are listed in Constitution - I may be slow but most did not exist 230 years ago. I've tried to point out that the courts have decided, many times our highest court, that these things are constitutional. We can either whine, work for change, challenge in court or accept what we can and go on. (or any combination) I doubt if we'd find one person who agreed with all Federal Regulations but I'm sure we'd never agree on which should be eliminated.

Is Regulation of the Internet Explicitly a Federal Domain? | Venture Chronicles

Home About Venture Chronicles
Is Regulation of the Internet Explicitly a Federal Domain?
Posted on March 29, 2007
Filed Under Public Policy | Comments (1)
"Because material on a website may be viewed across the Internet, and thus in more than one state at a time, permitting the reach of any particular stateç—´ definition of intellectual property to dictate the contours of this federal immunity would be contrary to Congressç—´ expressed goal of insulating the development of the Internet from the various state-law regimes. See 47 U.S.C. ﾂｧﾂｧ 230(a) and (b); see also Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1027 (noting that "courts construing ﾂｧ 230 have recognized as critical in applying the statute the concern that lawsuits could threaten the ç´*reedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium?)."

"This does appear to be a pretty important decision regarding regulation of web sites, it would seem to suggest that web sites are by their nature viewable across the entire web and therefore subject to Federal regulation and immune from state regulation that conflicts with Federal law. In other words, if Federal law regulates a specific aspect of the web, then states are pre-empted from regulating them on their own. This case applies specifically to intellectual property but it would seem reasonable that this would be used in other cases involving regulation of the web"

Federal Taxes-the main reason the tax code is so complex in trying to clarify what is deductible as a business expense (or corporate) and taxation of investments. For every regulation there is a creative way for companies with enough attorneys to find a loophole which results in new regulations. Also for the no tax on business or investments - if they pay a billion less then either our national debt or personal income taxes go up. None of the complexity would change with the mythical "flat tax" (actually it might save 5 pages)


I believe that the doctors you trust more than government (I agree) were pretty clearly in favor of a public option last summer. I know that just because you have some trust in them doesn't mean you agree with them. As an aside - our number of doctors per capita is low compared to many countries who seem to be doing better at health care. We're way low on primary care physicians (preventative care).

The pressure and expense of health insurance is a huge challenge to small business. (maybe worse than taxes - if 100% is paid its about 6-7 thousand per single employee and almost double that for family) Its killing business growth.


Loren

 

[dave1949]

As to the benefits of a business paying taxes, somebody a lot smarter than me once said "The price we pay for living in a civilized society, are taxes"
My point is that I feel that there are waaaaay too many taxes imposed at the Federal level. If one looks at Original Intent, the Fed was prohibited from collecting taxes, only fees and stamp duties, Look at the monster the federal tax system has become in less than 100 years.(OH OH I think I see the black helicopters circling outside!!)
Don't think I'll get too much disagreement in calling for lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
But when you look at virtually any attempt to do that(off shore drilling, nuclear,bio diesel) who is attempting to stymie those efforts?

The price for civilization can be quite high, and don't forget about inflation That is a good, pithy saying.

Didn't Pres. G. Washington have to get out the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion? Supposedly the taxes on whiskey were needed to pay off debt accumulated during the revolution. BTW, Pres. G.W. was one of the larger whiskey distillers at the time.

Call it a fee or stamp if you will , but it quacks like a tax

Is the gov't wasteful? Sure, but then so is about every other human enterprise of any complexity. To the extent that tax dollars need to be spent inorder to enforce laws and regulations, that certainly isn't the gov't's fault. People and companies could just stop doing dumb things and save us all some money.

Did any mobs show up and burn down Bernie Madoffs' penthouse apartment? No, they did not. Maybe a poor example since the SEC was apparently not only asleep at the switch, you could say they were in a vegetative state. The point is, many tax expenditures are directly related to the honesty of the nation as a whole - which seems to be lacking. There is very little social approbation directed at most of these clowns. We haven't mastered the practice of shunning someone who is three states away yet.

I doubt if the framers could foresee the complexity and far reaching nature of the business world today, or the concurrent government requirements and level of involvement. If government keeps getting more expensive while accomplishing less, from a purely 'system operations' perspective, we might suspect we have outgrown some our original government models to some degree. If that is the case, then trying ever harder to adhere to the original model will not produce a successful outcome IMO.

Dave.

 

[MikePA]

I doubt if the framers could foresee the complexity and far reaching nature of the business world today, or the concurrent government requirements and level of involvement.

The lure of contemporaneous arrogance, i.e., we've outgrown our original government model and it must 'adapt' to modern society. A euphemism for the federal government must get bigger, more powerful, take more in taxes and take away more freedom. Our problems are just so big only a big government can solve them. Pitiful and saddening. Some citizens of a once self reliant population is willing to sell their vote in order to trade independence for a spot at the government trough. A statist's view of perfection is every citizen standing, like Oliver Twist, with bowl in hand, pleading, "Please, sir, I want some more."

 

[IH3444]

"As to malpractice insurance, we do need some sanity injected. Those awards are given generally by juries, not the government. Yes, we pay for them, but look to the real culprits - in the mirrors of America If the AMA was really fullfilling a useful role, many malpractice suits could be avoided because they would drum the incompetents out of the profession before they could maim somebody - again."

Dave, part of the tort reform would also be that doctors should be protected by people who file false claims against them which may not be entirely true. Therefore the person filing, if case ruled against them, would then be liabel for the doctor's court fees, as well as their time.

I remember putting myself through college, working as a mechanic. A person whom I had done a brake job on their car, was asking how the brake job affected their turn signals. I told them that relining their brakes, and adjusting them had nothing to do with their lights. They were convinced in their own mind that I somehow was responsible for their turn signals not working a few months later. Given of course the human body is much more complicated, the same logic still applies with some people. You operated on me to remove my gall bladder, but now my liver hurts. What did you do to me in the operating room. Never, the admitance, " I've been drinking hard for 25 years, and shoveling loads of fat goo down my gullet", and now my spleen, and liver aches.

 

[dave1949]

"As to malpractice insurance, we do need some sanity injected. Those awards are given generally by juries, not the government. Yes, we pay for them, but look to the real culprits - in the mirrors of America If the AMA was really fullfilling a useful role, many malpractice suits could be avoided because they would drum the incompetents out of the profession before they could maim somebody - again."

Dave, part of the tort reform would also be that doctors should be protected by people who file false claims against them which may not be entirely true. Therefore the person filing, if case ruled against them, would then be liabel for the doctor's court fees, as well as their time.

I remember putting myself through college, working as a mechanic. A person whom I had done a brake job on their car, was asking how the brake job affected their turn signals. I told them that relining their brakes, and adjusting them had nothing to do with their lights. They were convinced in their own mind that I somehow was responsible for their turn signals not working a few months later. Given of course the human body is much more complicated, the same logic still applies with some people. You operated on me to remove my gall bladder, but now my liver hurts. What did you do to me in the operating room. Never, the admitance, " I've been drinking hard for 25 years, and shoveling loads of fat goo down my gullet", and now my spleen, and liver aches.

Good points. Probably, if you had the 'right' haircut, they would have trusted you more People do get strange ideas in their heads and nothing will dislodge them.
Dave.