I've never sold any of my espp shares, either. I just reinvest half the dividends in new shares each quarter, and also get a couple of nice checks as well.
Maybe you've not been in a school recently?? Those signs say "DRUG free"
No sane or safety conscious hunter here would bring his gun into a school. It would be at home in his gun safe.
There are some background checks, sometimes. - but Just few enough background checks to allow any criminal or mentally ill person to buy exactly the gun he or she wants. Either you fight for the right of criminals to own a gun or you don't.
I certainly hope we are not out of money! There are more than 7,500 new Americans born each and every day. There will need to be some money somewhere if they are to earn themselves a weekly salary. And no more money, so no raises for anyone?? Are you sure we are out of money?? Or are you just planning on getting your raises by cutting the pay of the wealthiest 1%?
I think you are right. My small town sometimes pays the local grocery store to buy groceries for families in town who need the help. The town may be reimbursed by the state or feds for part of that, but certainly not all of it. The town also sometimes forgives or postpones the payment of property taxes for families who can't pay. This is often done for the elderly. Usually when the house is finally sold, the town gets the property taxes back, but maybe not every time. So, to get the total amount of welfare payments in the nation, you'd probably need to check the books of every city, town, county, and state in the nation.
Yes, uncle, and that's the part that's the most difficult to understand. Fixing the economy and putting 2 million people back to work would reduce the deficit by much more than the sequester, and any spending cuts being proposed or discussed now. Doing that would both cut spending, and increase tax revenues by tens or even hundreds of billions.
Yup, and that's the problem with a consumption tax. You's need to tax almost everything at a fairly high rate. I don't think any nation has been able to replace an income tax with a consumption or sales tax. But,if the income tax was ended, then you would have nothing withdrawn from your pay check every week (except social security, etc.), and you would not need to spend money and time collecting income and spending data, and putting it all on dozens of tax forms.
But with a consumption tax, then lots of other "opportunities" would open up, including spending money on untaxed items, rather than taxed ones, the use of barter instead of purchase of a lot of stuff, and and perhaps even mail order from overseas. And, also, i think every state that collects an income tax, bases their tax rates on the federal tax returns. They'd need to make some big changes in their tax collection methods..
I might be able to accept a consumption tax, if it included taxing the consumption - purchase - of things like stocks, bonds, and real estate. And what would be the impact of charging the same consumption tax on all corporations, as well as on individuals? Certainly a lot of accountants would lose their jobs.
And what percent of the total US GDP of about $16 trillion would actually be taxed? And at what rate to pay for the approximate $3 trillion current federal budget? As a rough guess if $6 trillion of the GDP is taxed, the tax rate would need to be 50% to fund the current federal budget...I would assume that at least salaries, interest, dividends, and government purchases would not be taxed. If only some consumer purchases were taxed, then the tax rate would probably need to be nearly 100% because consumer purchases are only a small part of the total $16 trillion GDP.
I find it interesting that you rightfully praise both Reagan and Thatcher for turning their countries around and for beginning decades of growth. But then you, yourself, turn around and complain about huge government spending and debt. You also need to point out that Reagan was the first of a series of presidents who each doubled the national debt under similar policies and programs. It appears that such Reagan style turnarounds cost a lot of money... If you want the turnaround, you've got to pay the price..
Yes, i left the details out. But the result of the NFA, (and even after the 1968 update, with weakened it), criminals, the mentally ill, and those who didn't use their guns safely, couldn't easily get one, so there were no more machine gun deaths in the country.
And also, for Springer, there is little difference between a machine gun and a modern semi-automatic with a big magazine. They both can be used to kill a room full of people in a minute.
And you waste your time listening to those sorts of talking heads? And then you repeat what they say, with no verification??
No need for another answer..
Uncle, in 1934 the National Firearms Act required that people who wanted to own a machine gun had to get a federal license to do so. Since then, criminals have not used machine guns. Instead now, technical changes have created guns that do the same thing that machine guns did, but they are, technically,not a machine gun.
It wasn't so much confiscation, but simple licensing that took machine guns out of criminal hands.
Where the he!! did this slavery stuff come from? I don't know your kids and I probably never will. Certainly if they attended the schools where I volunteer my time, I will do all I can to make sure that they get the best education possible. Do you really think that a teacher who asks students to read a book or to do mathematics is making a slave of him or her?
General, you are right that every school is different. I suspect that you probably went to a small rural school similar to the one that I attended. My grammar school, grades 1 to 8, had about 100 students when I went there, and still has about the same number of students. There were 11 kids in my first grade class, and the same 11 kids when I graduated form 8th grade. Some classes were a little smaller, while others were a little bigger. We had one teacher for our 11 students in each grade - and there were 8 teachers at the school, one for each grade.
My cousin is now on the school board for that school. He says that one teacher for just 11 students is no longer possible there, so they combine grades under a single teacher in order to reduce costs. Students are certainly not getting as good an education now when the teachers must split his or her time between teaching the 5th graders and teaching the 6th graders, for example. But, if you get a good teacher, then the result is still probably better than what would be available in a big city school.
Perhaps they do have some sort of teachers' union at your rural school, but there is seldom any union presence at most small rural schools here. The unions are found in the big urban schools, though.
I still live in a rural area, although in a bigger town, and with bigger schools. Kids are certainly asked to do as much or more than I was asked to do when I was in school. And it is clear that when they graduate, they are better prepared than my classmates and I were. for a number of reason.
But, as you said, every school is different..
Uncle, he's partly right, but the single 6 year term for everything would do just the opposite of what he wants. The single 6 year terms would deliver a whole new collection of neophytes to Washington after even election. They won't know how the government works, and may not have even read the Constitution. Who do they ask for directions? It'll be the only ones left in Washington, the cronies of capitalism and their K Street lobbyists. The lobbyists already write a lot of the legislation. A change like that will have them writing it all.
As I said in another thread, you get what you pay for!
If you pay $25K/year to send your kids to a fine private school, then you will get a very good education.
If you must send you kid to a poor rural or inner city school that can only pay $8K/student, then you not get nearly as good an education.
It all depends on what we expect and hope our kids will do after they graduate.
Sigh! Alaska is a special case because stuff is expensive up there. (A gallon of milk in most places in Alaska ranges between $5 and $8).
The states with the highest family income are Maryland, Alaska, New Jersey, Connecticut, DC, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, Hawaii, Delaware, and California. These state have a median family income of about $62,000.
At the other end of the scale are the states with the lowest family incomes, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, New Mexico, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Mississippi, with a median family income of about $40,000.
I hope you are not really saying that states with large populations should subsidize states with low populations?
You get what you pay for!
If you send you kid to a private school for $25K/year, your kid will get a very good education.
If you send your kid to a poor rural or inner city school that can only spend $8K per student, then the education will not be nearly as good.
It all depends on what we expect and want our American kids to do after they graduate.
Springer, You are right California is not a player in the grain markets, but Texas isn't much of a player there either. The tables that I'm looking at show Texas to be 9th in the production of wheat, 12th in corn, 2nd in sorghum, 26th in soy beans, and 5th in rice. The big grain producers are to the north of Texas. I'm sure the numbers will change depending on which year you are looking at.
Texas leads in the production of beef cattle, cotton, and nothing else that I see. Texas is a big agricultural player, but still only produces half what California does. Texas just doesn't have enough water to grown many grains, or other agricultural crops. Lack of water also is a big problem for Texas livestock farmers.
First, a note on my list above. The table is available from the US Dept.. of Agriculture web site. Also, I misses one state as I copied the numbers:
Nebraska - 3.61
Now you ask about meat and dairy production?
Here are the top US dairy producers, with the value of their annual dairy products in Billions of dollars:
California - 5.37
Wisconsin - 3.69
New York - 1.95
Pennsylvania - 1.77
For beef cattle and calves, it's a different list:
Texas - 7.99
Nebraska - 6.20
Kansas - 5.64
Colorado - 3.34
Oklahoma - 2.36
And the lists is again different for chickens, eggs, hogs, and more. I don't see California or Texas in the top 5 of any of those lists. But in lots of other categories, from hay, to fruits and vegetables, and even potatoes and rice, California is at or near the top, and Texas is almost no where in sight.