Balta1701

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 09:03 AM) He isn't talking about those taxes, as was outlined in his post. There was a specific reference to federal income taxes, so I really didn't feel I needed to repeat federal income taxes to make it obvious that I was talking about federal income taxes. Then your point isn't an objection, because if they already have a negative income tax rate in this particular tax, what does it matter if the negative tax rate is made more sharply negative while being offset with a consumption tax?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) I would bet no one offered it. There would have been no reason for him to take a minor league deal if a major league one was out there. The other thing that makes me think that is how late in the process he signed. It really is surprising that he couldn't get a major league deal after last season, at least if he went to the NL. But yeah, there is zero reason to think he'd sign a minor league deal if a major league one is on the table.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) The lower two quintiles of American taxpayers have a negative tax rate. No they don't. They do on "the Federal Income tax". They don't if you count Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, State taxes, and local taxes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 08:56 AM) Or they realize that the cost of shutting them down, and finding someone else to do them in the next state over is cheaper than paying the local tax rate. Either way, it is a jobs consideration to some extent. It is no different than Wal-Mart opening up across the street from the Chicago city limits to save the four percentage points of sales tax, knowing that it will draw more customers, or operating in the next town over because they get a better incentive package from them. Tourism isn't the best thing for Michigan City, but it is something better than 20% unemployment. In the big picture this really isn't any different. if you aren't competitive, you lose. That is exactly what is happening to these states right now. No, what's happening is that a large company which has worldwide business and facilities in only a few locations has managed to do business with a lot of small operators, and in exchange that large company has in effect demanded huge state-level subsidies to keep the small operators in business.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) Except Amazon does have locations in state, or they wouldn't have locations to shutdown. So no, it isn't a bad example. But as Tex has pointed out, those "locations" do a small enough amount of business that Amazon doesn't hesitate to close down 10k of them. Nobody in their right mind is looking at Amazon's affiliates and thinking "Here's the next big thing for our state".

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 10:24 PM) Got another job interview...all these applications are finally starting to pay off, because this one is legitimate. I will be interviewing to be a salesman at a furniture store. Not sexy, but it's better than a part-time gig (which I did get, just have to fill out some paperwork, and it's a nice fallback option). My question is how should I prepare for the interview? I'm assuming they'll ask about my experience, so I'll tell them about any that I have, which is very little, and that there will be some sort of demonstration where I have to sell some fake furniture, but is there anything else I should be considering? I'd know a lot of details about the company. Know the brands they carry. Visit their website. Know if they're in one city, a lot of cities, etc. If you happen to be able to drop a random corporate detail during the interview, it can't hurt, as long as it's correct. If you can find out what selling points they use beforehand, learn them (i.e. if you go for an interview into an Ethan Allen store, don't spend your time focusing on price cuts, sell based on quality first and second).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 09:38 PM) Uhhhh... that's when he decided that spending didn't matter. And immigration. And... the list goes on... so I call bulls*** back. Bush decided that spending didn't matter in 2007?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 08:42 AM) None of it is "fair" The newest companies get the biggest subsidies as the older ones are weened off of their initial benefit package. A perfect example is that Michigan City's original mall was opened in 1966. In the late 80's they offered a 10 year tiered property tax abatement to what ended being the second outlet mall built in the country. Was it fair to the other mall? Not really. But it brought what ended up being about 100 stores worth of jobs, not to mention an assload of tourist dollars to the community. We lost in dollars up front, as we didnt' collect full property taxes for 10 years there, but we made up for it in other ways (keeping unemployment much lower, adding sales taxes, having more people come to MC etc). Like I said, I see this issue in the same light. Sure you would rather give it to a company that is there already, but that isn't how the system works. You know full well why that's a bad example...it doesn't take into account Tex's point about subsidizing jobs out of state, rather than in state. This is Michigan City paying a big tax abatement to build a mall in New Buffalo, MI.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 09:19 PM) But those are explosives that we have already paid for, there is no evidence that they would be used otherwise, and so far no one has provided any evidence that we are actually replacing every singe weapon we use with the exact same make and model. Almost all weapons become obsolete, Id rather that we use them for a good cause. Yeah. We replace them with the next model, which is 3x more expensive.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:53 PM) If we cut the Defense budget Id be the first one in line to agree. But since we are spending the money anyways, we might as well do some good with it. You say that as though we're not going to have to spend extra money because of this campaign, which is of course, wrong.

While we're on the subject of the international community, has it occurred to you that a significant chunk of that community is also playing to domestic political audiences? France and the UK absolutely. There's a reason why they let Sarkozy out front. The quickest example, FWIW, is the UK, where there is still an ongoing scandal over the fact that the last government allowed the Lockerbie bomber out of jail in no small part to secure oil revenues. The next government is now supporting an anti-Quadaffi military campaign.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:29 PM) The appropriate interpretation is whatever the C-i-C decides it is. And when Barack Obama campaigned against Bush's excessive, poorly planned military operations, he felt it politically convenient to use a War Powers Act interpretation against those efforts. When I'm opposed to an Obama military operation, I feel it appropriate to use the exact same standard.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:26 PM) You mean Gaddafi troops who were going to kill civilians were massacred after they were ordered by the UN to impose a cease fire? After Gaddafi stated there was a cease fire and kept his troops marching? I dont call that a massacre, I call that saving innocent civilians from a massacre. Considering that the people of Benghazi had taken up arms against those soldiers, I call it choosing sides in a civil war.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:28 PM) I was just following orders! The Tragic Tale of the Humanitarian Disaster Inflicted on German Concentration Camp Soldiers by the Allied Forces Well, at least by the textbook definition of Godwin's law, you just lost.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:22 PM) Im sure as you are aware, Clinton's actions were not found unconstitutional. Now wait a second, that's complete B.S. Clinton's actions were not found unconstitutional...but they were also NOT found to be constitutional. The legal challenge that was launched was found not to have standing because Congress had not explicitly voted to end the military campaign, it had only failed to vote to authorize it. As far as I know the only case where Congress explicitly voted to end a military campaign was Somalia...and at the time of the vote, the U.S. forces had already been withdrawn so no court case was ever made of it. To this day, the Court has never once litigated the War Powers act to determine its constitutionality or the appropriate interpretation of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:22 PM) Because they were on their way to shell a city? And probably massacre a bunch of people? And now they were massacred. My point exactly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:19 PM) At what point, if ever, do you think it'd be appropriate for the US to step in with military action to prevent a humanitarian disaster? Rwanda. Anything less than a complete and total genocide and the military campaign itself is going to cause a humanitarian catastrophe on the level of the catastrophe it is trying to prevent.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:18 PM) You need to provide a source that civilians have been killed by UN forces. Because it seems pretty clear that they've prevented at least some deaths at the hands of Gaddafi. Otherwise you're just flailing around a bunch. No, read my words. I didn't say that civilians had been killed by U.S. forces (although the idea that they haven't been killed by a couple hundred missile strikes is just ludicrous). I said people. Why do the people fighting in the Libyan army and dying now count less than the people who rose up against Qadaffi?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:12 PM) You can keep going on and on here...but you are still failing to see why I maintain that unless it's done in every state, it doesn't hurt amazon. EVERY STATE CAN'T PASS THE SAME LAW SIMULTANEOUSLY.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:13 PM) Source? I need to provide a source that says when a bomb hits something and explodes, people die?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:14 PM) When your military expenditures dwarf a good chunk of the rest of the world combined, you'll probably have to step up your game for international operations. So if we cut the defense budget we wouldn't get suckered into this type of campaign as often? I'm game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:09 PM) It's pretty convenient to pretend this hasn't already had a measurable impact on lowering civilian deaths. Except for the people hit by the bombs. But they don't count since we're not selling arms to them.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:07 PM) You don't realize why California stuck that down, either. Amazon is located in Seattle, not in California...and told California that they will yank all 11,000+ affiliates from them if they pass it. So, when they do pass it, they will do the same thing to CA that they just did to IL. Once again bringing us back to my original point...it cant be a few states...it cant even be 25 states...it has to be so many states that amazon cannot avoid it anymore. California struck it down because the last governor followed the "I can't approve any new taxes" policy. The flaw of course is that every other state can say the same thing. You still can't get around this.

That was clearly a War Powers act question. Doesn't matter if it's Iran, doesn't matter if the U.N. approves, that is a War Powers Act question, and he answered it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:04 PM) It's more convenient to pretend they didn't, and merely did a few night time flyovers. I'd say it's pretty convenient to consider a handful of tank kills to be significant participation.