Amazon Rebels Against California Online Sales Tax
As
I understand it, California is trying to claim that an Amazon affiliate located
in the state is the same as Amazon having a store in the state, therefore the
state should be able to charge sales tax on sales to California residents
(that's what happens with companies that have both online and "brick and mortar"
stores). But they're just wasting their time. They won't get the sales tax
because online-only companies like Amazon will just terminate their affiliates
located in California. Not only won't they get the sales tax, they'll lose the
income taxes that would otherwise come from the income made by those former
affiliates.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
It actually doesn't help small businesses, especially small internet
businesses. The state will never collect a penny from Amazon because they've
eliminated affiliates (we got our letters yesterday), who are their presence
here, and once eliminated, mean that Amazon doesn't have to charge the tax given
no remaining nexus in the state.
So instead of them getting revenue for driving sales at Amazon while in
California, these folks have to move to other states or shut down and lay people
here off. Those people no longer pay taxes nor shop here - the estimate is
$150m+ lost from Amazon alone.
So a law that's supposed to bring in more revenue will actually bring in
dramatically less, cause a loss of jobs, and harm a material class of small
businesses.
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/California tells online retailers to start collecting sales taxes from customers
<>
I believe this should be a federal, not a state issue. Individual states that try
to collect for themselves are playing a dangerous game, and one that might just
backfire. some states (like Texas) will try to use this as another competitive
lever to attract business to their more friendly business climate, and the net
of it could be that states like California continue to lose jobs and businesses
to those states not trying to get at this source of revenue.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
Actually
John, under the U.S. Constitution, states are not allowed to regulate interstate
commerce; that right is reserved to the federal government. When a California
resident purchases goods from out of state, the Californian is engaging in
interstate commerce. Taxing the transaction amounts to regulation of interstate
commerce, which is unconstitutional. It has always been such, yet California
legislators continue to flaunt the Constitution because they are so hungry for
revenue. This law is DOA, and there is no reason Amazon shouldn't oppose
something so blatantly unconstitutional. I say go for it. First they try to ban
the sale of video games to minors, now this. For California Dems writing these
laws, the Constitution is really just a formality, and they need to be taught an
easy lesson
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
There
is a little thing called the Quill case that the Supreme Court decided in the
1970's. For a business to be subject to sales tax laws they have to have a
"nexus" or presence in the state. Amazon has no facilities in California
therefore they are not subject to California's sales tax laws.
The state
legislature thought they would be clever and change the definition of nexus to
include the affiliates thereby garnering more revenue for the state. They are
utterly clueless. Amazon has demonstrated in several other states that they will
end their affiliate programs if threatened in this way.
Way to shoot
yourself in the foot California!
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
First,
Amazon operated at a substantial loss for many difficult years (including
surviving the dot-com bust) until they sufficiently built up, at great expense
and ingenuity, all of the related elements for their specific business model to
eventually work above break-even. Amazon is not "shifting" as you contend, any
costs of their goods or services. It's simply a leaner business model, not
withstanding the significant logistic complexities they've
solved.
Second, taxation is always a "cost" to to end-users (consumers)
regardless of the mode of collection. Any cost incurred by the business will be
recovered in its prices, otherwise it ceases to exist.
Perhaps CA cannot
afford all of the goodies to all of the people - who voted for the politicians
who promised the most - regardless of common sense and economic
realities.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ California 0nline tax law pressures Amazon
<>
<>
I pay Washington State sales tax when I buy from Amazon. I still buy from Amazon, but they don't get an advantage over me going to a local brick and mortar store. They have to have the best sticker price, or the superior selection.
I don't see why Californians should get a better deal than I do when shopping from the same source.
And I don't see why Amazon should be given an advantage over the same chain store in California that they have to compete heads up with here.
Read the article SEATTLE TIMES/Amazon's next move unclear as California requires online sales tax
Supreme Court Limits Gender-Bias Suit Against Wal-Mart
I'm a woman and I side with Wal-Mart in this case. Women do get promoted in Wal-Mart to management. i don't see how all women can sue at the same time. This would not have been a victory for women. It would have made things harder for women to get employed if women were always playing the victim card and winning. This would have led to more discrimination against women. If you don't feel respected at your place of employment, do what everyone else does and make plans to do something more empowering for yourself.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Supreme Court blocks huge sex bias lawsuit by women who work at Wal-Mart
<>
How is it terrible a terrible decision? Explain why it was wrong ? The individual representatives can still pursue their claims. Class action lawsuits are designed to adjudicate questions that apply to all in the class.
For example, in a toxic tort case, the class action can determine if a company is responsible for the toxic contamination and if it is found liable, then all class members benefit by that ruling. The individuals don't have to prove liability for each case and each class member can individually prove their damages.
Obviously, the court, including the liberal justices, believed there were no common issues applicable to the entire class--i.e. just because Wal-Mart may have wrongfully discriminated against some doesn't mean they discriminated against all. Class actions also can rise to extortion against the defendant, because the consequences of losing are so great.
Thus, rather than fight them, they are forced to settle claims that may not be valid to save themselves from financial ruin. There is a time and place for class actions--this wasn't one of them. The extortion effect can happen to small companies and defendants as well, not just the Wal-Marts of the world.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Supreme Court blocks huge sex bias lawsuit by women who work at Wal-Mart
<>
Honestly, so many of the uninformed comments here highlight what is wrong with Americans today. Have any of you people actually read the opinion or even the opinion's syllabus? The Court did not find anything related to the alleged discrimination but ruled on whether this group of women could certify a class -- of 1.6 million people, for heaven's sake. Too many disparate facts for that many people to allow a class. Relax. Get a grip. This isn't about corporate America "buying" the Supreme Court. And I'm a lefty.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Supreme Court blocks huge sex bias lawsuit by women who work at Wal-Mart
Not being privy to the particulars of the case, I would think that a 5 to 4
split among the justices would be more suspicious than a unanimous decision.
Given the court's recent history, my first thought was, "Here we go again".
While I believe political and judicial corporate favoritism in America to be
self-evident and rampant, 1.6 million plaintiffs claiming discrimination based
on the opinion of one sociologist? C'mon now.
Read the article NPR/Supreme
Court Rejects Female Workers' Class-Action Suit Against Wal-Mart
<>
Mark Memmott forgot to add;
From AP;
The justices divided 5-4 on another
aspect of the ruling that could make it much harder to mount similar
class-action discrimination lawsuits against large employers.
Justice
Scalia's opinion for the court's conservative majority said there needs to be
common elements tying together "literally millions of employment decisions at
once."
But Scalia said that in the lawsuit against the nation's largest
private employer, "That is entirely absent here."
Justice Ginsberg
writing for the court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough
uniting the claims. "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions
is a policy uniform throughout all stores," Ginsburg said.
Business interests
lined up with Wal-Mart while civil rights, women's and consumer groups have
sided with the women plaintiffs."
Corporate America is getting all their
players in position, now if they can just get the government to become smaller
and less powerful...smile
Read the article NPR/Supreme
Court Rejects Female Workers' Class-Action Suit Against Wal-Mart
<>
First of all, the court never said that the class action suit against Wal-Mart had to be dismissed because Wal-Mart is too big. Nor did they say that the class certified by the N.D. Cal. was too big. What they did say was that Wal-Mart is too decentralized, with each store being run almost like a separate company, with hiring/firing/promotion decisions being made at the discretion of each store manager, etc., that a class action was inappropriate in this situation. In fact, the original trial judge in San Fransisco KNEW that his class certification decision was controversial, and he voluntarily certified it for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Everybody knew that this was a very controversial class certification.
An ideal class certification is where all the plaintiffs suffered a harm from the exact same source. For instance, if a factory blows up in a town and hurts thousands of people. It makes much better sense for the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the courts to just have one big lawsuit rather than thousands of individual lawsuits where the same facts (i.e. the factory blowing up) will have to be proved over and over again. Typically, corporate defendants prefer class actions because it's easier and cheaper for them to fight one large lawsuit.
In Wal-Mart's case, though, there was no evidence of one common action that hurt all the women who have ever worked at Wal-Mart. There was no action that Wal-Mart took (similar to a factory blowing up in my example above) that caused harm. If the company had a company-wide practice of discrimination, that would be grounds for a class action. But, again, Wal-Mart is very decentralized and there was no evidence of company-wide policies discriminating against women.
Any woman who believes she has been discriminated against by Wal-Mart can still file a lawsuit. Nobody lost anything here - except for the sleazy plaintiffs atttorneys who filed this lawsuit (and who have filed an identical lawsuit against Costco and who have filed dozens of identical suits against other companies over the years).
Also: "Women make up more than 70 percent of Walmart’s employees but only a third of its salaried managers." That is just ignorant if you think that's caused by discrimination. Women are more likely to leave the workforce and then return. Women are more likely than men to only want to work part time. Many women will move to a new area if their husband gets a good job and re-enter the workforce at the entry level. There are TONS of cultural reasons why women make up a larger percentage of Wal-Mart's hourly workers than its managers. Even in the most liberal companies in the most liberal parts of the country, women earn less than men and hold less managerial positions - because women are more likely to work part time, leave the workforce to have children and then return, etc. You're doubtlessly aware of this, but you cite those abstract statistics in an attempt to mislead your readers.
Wal-Mart only cares about making money. They don't care what color you are or what gender you are. Their store managers are under relentless pressure to make as much money as possible. If you do a good job and work hard at Wal-Mart and show that you're capable of being manager, you will move up the ranks. All they care about is your ability to make them money. It's a near perfect meritocracy. Not only was class certification silly in this situation, there is simply no evidence to support the notion that Wal-Mart has a "culture of discrimination."
Read the article DAILY BEAST/Women Lose in Walmart Suit Ruling
Jobless Rate Casts Darkening Cloud Over U.S. Economy
Well, it now looks like the "recovery" is over. The best we can hope for, at least for the next few years, is a situation where the employed stay tenuously employed without any significant wage increases, the unemployed stay unemployed (and without benefits), Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security get cut to appease the deficit hawks, and the country staggers, while the Goldman Sachs class collects the big buck by betting against the rest of us.
How much of a stimulus package is required to end the Great Recession? Who knows, it never was tried.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Hiring in U.S. Slowed in May With 54,000 Jobs Added
<>
The stimulus, the tax cuts, the housing credits, etc. everything and the kitchen
sink is being thrown at this economy and nothing seems to be working.
Could it be that we've been facing a changing of the economic order for
some time and we can't face this new reality? Could it be that automation, and
efficiencies gained from technology are making human labor increasingly
redundant?
Take a look at the major industries that have cropped up over
the last 30 years. How many jobs have they created? Oracle, Microsoft, Apple,
pharmaceuticals, etc. have created hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs.
The problem is they generate enourmous profits with fewer people. Steel, car
manufacturing, widget making.....greater productivity with fewer people.
We can go on and on about about red vs blue, but at the end of the day,
Romney or Palin or Pawlenty will NOT make this change go away. The rest of the
world not only has cheaper labor, but are increasingly getting their educational
house in order. Not only will they be making the widgets, but they want to bid
for the design of it as well.
Go ahead and vote for the person that has
you believe America is exceptional and favored by GAWD for greatness. We're not.
We need to prepare for the real new world order and start thinking of truly new
and different ways of ording human affairs.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Jobless rate rises as pace of hiring slows
<>
"I couldn't wait to read the comments seeking to blame Obama for our weak
economy. Perhaps one of you could explain how he, or any president, has much
economic influence."
I don't recall cutting Bush any slack when Obama
first took office. Apparently what goes around comes around. However, you are
right about economic blame except for the fact that with this president a
redistributive, lack of leadership ideology is running contrary to what is
needed to invigorate a sagging economy. The perception is (rightfully so) that
the magnitude of this problem is well beyond Obama's experience level. Less
experience = more reliance on ideology. Unfortunately, his brand of ideology is
anathema to solid business growth.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Jobless rate rises as pace of hiring slows
<>
The economy is clearly showing the impact of the Republican determination to slash all government stimulus to the economy and move the US into default. They seem determined to apply all of the downturn aggravating programs that proved so effective under Herbert Hoover, including berating the unemployed for having not yet found any jobs. To the extent that this party's total ignorance continues to attract the support of American voters all sensible investors, at home and abroad, should be expected to proceed as fast as possible to extreme asset protection mode. Republican Hooverism is back from the grave scythe in hand.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Hiring in U.S. Slowed in May With 54,000 Jobs Added
<>
I really think our Government should come clean about real unemployment numbers. They say 9.1%, I say closer to double that at 18.2% or higher.
Consider:
Many people work on a 1099 basis, they do not pay into their states unemployment funds therefore they cannot collect, but are unemployed none the less. (plumbers, electricians, consultants – they can’t afford to pay unemployment insurance)
Many people without jobs decided to start their Social Security at 62, they had no choice, they needed some kind of income. They are not considered unemployed but rather ‘retired’. They are willing and able to work if there were jobs.
Those that have never been employed: teens and recent college graduates. Since they were never on the books as employed, they do not show up as unemployed but they sure don’t have a job.
Then of course there are all those that have just plain given up and benefits have run out.
Why not give us the real numbers? Are you afraid there would be rioting in the streets? Do you think you might be kicked out of office and lose your big pay check?
Tell us the truth!
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Hiring in U.S. Slowed in May With 54,000 Jobs Added
<>
President Obama had two years to work with large Congressional majorities. He passed a huge stimulus program, and two massive overhauls of healthcare and financial services. He agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. These were his choices and they still may prove to have been the ones. Either way, this is Obama’s economy; he owns it, and his re-election chances rise or fall with it. If you honestly think “blame House Republicans” is a winning strategy for next year, you’re living in a fantasy world.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Hiring in U.S. Slowed in May With 54,000 Jobs Added
<>
Someone asked earlier, "so what do we do?" Here are a few ideas that will have
the left wing howling in disagreement. Well, their buddy Obama and his ideas
haven't worked. Therefore, sane, rational people would try something different.
Let's start by ending the ridiculous ethanol and biodiesel subsidies
--- both are mandated by law for crying out loud. Why do they also need
subsidies?
Drill for more oil --- HERE and NOW. That would create
high-paying jobs HERE that truly could not be exported, since the oil fields
physically are in US territory.
Shut down Depts of Energy, Education and
HUD. Give the mployees severance packages similar to those in the private
sector. What exactly do any of these agenices do, except waste tax dollars,
carry out the wishes of the radical left wing NEA and build housing that quickly
becomes infested with drug dealers and gangs? My private job has been at risk at
least 5 times the past 10 years, and i finally had to take my own severance
package. Why should we protect and coddle government employees?
Then,
freeze the remaining the non-military federal employee headcount and don't hire
anyone new for at least 10 years.
Stop subsidizing Amtrak. Raise the
ticket prices to the level needed to cover capital and operating expenses. Then
sell it, our shut it down.
Stop subsidizing the Postal Service, "Public"
Broadcasting, Planned Parenthood, and all the other left wing loon organizations
that currently receive tax dollars.
Fire the 34 "czars" that Obama
hired. They are nothing more than left wing loons.
Stop asking Jeff
Immelt (GE CEO) for ideas about job creation. Over the apst 5-6 years GE has
exported 18,000 jobs out of the US. Then they paid no US taxes this past year.
What good advice could this guy possibly give?
Remove the $1 trillion
"stimulus" (i.e. union payoff) from the budget NOW.
Tell our feckless
"allies" (except Britain --- they still have a military) that unless they start
paying us about $200 billlion a year for "national defense consulting services,"
We're shutting down our bases and bringing our people home.
Declare
victory in Afghanistan and bring our people home. But maintain a couple of
guided missille ships in the area to launch cruise missilles at the terrorist
thugs there and Puke-istan on an as needed basis. Include naval and helicopter
assets to suport SEALs / Ranger / Delta Force missions that might be needed.
Supplement that with remotely controlled weapon-carrying drones.
Any
other ideas, anyone?
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Jobless rate rises as pace of hiring slows
<>
The economy is clearly showing the impact of the Republican determination to slash all government stimulus to the economy and move the US into default. They seem determined to apply all of the downturn aggravating programs that proved so effective under Herbert Hoover, including berating the unemployed for having not yet found any jobs. To the extent that this party's total ignorance continues to attract the support of American voters all sensible investors, at home and abroad, should be expected to proceed as fast as possible to extreme asset protection mode. Republican Hooverism is back from the grave scythe in hand.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Hiring in U.S. Slowed in May With 54,000 Jobs Added
Air France Flight 447: Three and a Half Minutes of Terror
The people behind the Nova documentary on this flight seem to have gotten it mostly right. It likely that the autopilot reduced the engine thrust in anticipation of entering the thunderstorms. Shortly after this, the autopilot kicked off. It seems likely that the pilots did not realize that the autopilot reduced thrust, since they pulled the nose up and ascended. This caused a catastrophic reduction in airspeed that caused the wings to stall. The plane dipped to the side and entered an unrecoverable descent.
What most people don't realize is that at altitude, a deviation in airspeed of plus or minus 5 knots will cause the wings to stall. It would take less than a minute of inattention to the engine thrust level to enter an unrecoverable stall. So is this pilot error? To me, it seems partially so. However, the design of Airbus planes would have made it difficult for the pilots to notice the engine thrust level changes made by the autopilot. On the Airbus, when the autopilot reduces engine thrust, the control levers don't physically move, unlike Boeing aircraft. The only reflection of engine thrust changes is on a small monitor. This seems to me to be a design shortcoming. In addition, the disappearance of airspeed data is also a fault in the airplane design...this should never happen.
This crash was likely caused by a series of unfortunate events.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Report Details Last Minutes of Doomed Air France Jet
<>
Misconceptions in the posted comments:
1) GPS speed indications could be used to replace "antiquated" pitot tubes
Of course airliners have a GPS speed readout. However, this indicates, and can only indicate, the aircraft's speed relative to the ground. This has no aerodynamic use. If an airplane is flying into a 50 mph headwind at 50 mph airspeed, the GPS speed readout over the ground will be 0 mph. Is the airplane flying 0? No. The wings, as far as they know, are flying at 50 mph. The AIR speed is what is important in control of maneuver of the airplane. This is what relates to speeds that the wing will stall and lose lift, maximum speeds for the structure, for extending the wheels, etc. The only way to measure airspeed is with a sensor that measures differential pressure--a pitot tube. They are amazingly accurate, and heated to prevent icing. Unfortunately, this design seems to have been defective in that regard.
2) An aerodynamic stall is related to the engines
It has nothing to do with the engines. Stall refers to a loss of lift from a reduced airflow over the wing, usually due to an excessively low speed. There is a reason you have to speed up on the runway before you take off into the air. This confusion has, amazingly, existed in almost every single piece of air-crash-related journalism ever recorded.
3) The pilots stalled the airplane because they didn't know the rules of a Cessna 172.
A large Airbus airliner is not the same as a Cessna. Actual stalls in heavy, swept-wing aircraft are not simple recoveries where you point the nose down, and in fact are often entirely unrecoverable. Therefore, all training is focused on imminent-stall or near-stall recovery, not on actual stall recovery. This often, and particularly since the simulated scenarios are almost always low-altitude, involves maintaining the nose at some nose-up attitude while applying maximum engine thrust. In Airbus airplanes, computers are designed to prevent the airplane from reaching a critical, stalling nose-up angle, and therefore the pilots are trained to raise the nose as much as the computer will allow while increasing the engine thrust. In addition, as some have pointed out, the envelope between minimum and maximum airspeeds at high altitudes is not tremendously wide. Having said that, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that having the nose at a 16 degree up angle in this case was fatal. Just keep in mind things that you don't know before you rush to judgment on pilots' actions in a terrifying, confusing situation with faulty and misleading indications in the cockpit, turbulence, and a suddenly disengaged autopilot.
4) Jet airliners sink like stones with no engine thrust.
This is not really related to this crash, but it's nonetheless been thrown out there a few times. Glide ratios in airliners are up to around 20-1, depending on loads and such... for every 1000 feet you lose, you glide 20000 feet (4 miles) forwards. Descent rates would probably be between 1000-2000 feet per minute with no engine power, leaving more than 15 minutes and quite a few miles before touching down.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Report Details Last Minutes of Doomed Air France Jet
<>
To the comments here claiming that "any pilot knows" to put the nose down in a stall, this isn't a Cessna 172 at 9500 ft. At the altitude this plane is flying, small deviations in airspeed stall the wing. Pushing the nose down here can result in a stall and possibly structural failure.
The problem was that the pilots didn't know their airspeed because the pitot tubes were iced over. So, how were they supposed to know which side of their 10 kt flight envelope they were at?
I feel terrible for these pilots, who were trying to fly out of trouble right to the end. The fact is, the airplane they were piloting can enter conditions where a human can't fly it safely. If the autopilot can't handle it because the measuring instruments fail, what chance do they have?
Even worse, these pitot tubes were known to be susceptible to icing problems. Air France apparently took their time replacing them with a new model that was proven to perform better. Instead of blaming the pilots, blame the accountant who decided to save a few euros.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Report Details Last Minutes of Doomed Air France Jet
<>
I am a pilot of over 40 years flying experience, much of that in aircraft with
highly advanced avionics similar to this Airbus. The Air France pilots
demonstrated a shocking lack of basic airmanship. They still had attitude
reference instruments and engine power indications. In this situation you fly
the airplane to wings level, nose on the horizon, and reduce power slightly to
take about 50 knots off the cruise speed. You let the airplane find its own
speed and hold altitude, using GPS altitude reference if necessary. ABSOLUTELY
DO NOT make any abrupt control inputs. Only when the situation is stable do you
try to isolate the problem.
Contrary to others' thoughts, GPS speed is
very useful in this situation. The pilots would have been noting their
groundspeed off the GPS, and could have used that as a rough indicator of
airspeed.
What likely happened was that the pilots let all the advanced
avionics and warning systems distract them from their basic task of simply
flying straight and level. Task saturation is a terrible thing. I have
experienced it in simulated emergencies more than once, and I can see how it
happened here.
Think back to what Sullenberger did when he put that
Airbus in the Hudson. He stayed calm, focused on flying what he had left, kept
the wings level, and made a remarkable landing on water. That's how a real pro
handles a major malfunction. These Air France pilots could have saved that
airplane.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ Crash report shows confused cockpit
<>
Most crash investigators will tell you that there is never any one single cause for an accident of this nature. A "speed sensor" failure did not cause this aircraft to crash into the ocean from 38,000 feet.
It seems asinine to conclude that one of the most modern aircraft in the world would not have, say, redundancies in the form of GPS feeds to the FMS and even an inertial guidance system to indicate velocity. It's further silly to think that a single sensor failure -- a "single fault condition" -- would inevitably lead to a crash.
This does sound a lot like Birgenair 301 but ultimately blame for that crash was placed at the feet of the pilots for failing to understand and react properly to a stick-shaker (indicating a stall...) In other words, a blocked pitot tube did not cause that aircraft to crash into the ocean, rather, failure to fly the aircraft on the part of the pilots did.
I think there will be additional findings coming out of this investigation. This reporting strikes me as premature and incomplete.
Read the article CNN/Air France crash pilots lost vital speed data, say investigators
<>
Something a lot of people seem to be forgetting is the situation around the pilots. This was not a clear, sunny day. This was night, in the middle of a massive storm, with no outside visual frame of reference. Outside the windows would have been pitch black. There would be constant pressure changes and shifting lateral and vertical wind speeds, possibly in excess of 100 mph, all around the aircraft. The instrument readings very likely would have been bouncing all over.
If the pitot tubes were iced over, airspeed could have read very low would could result in a stall warning.
If other airspeed systems were reporting regular airspeed, lets say 300 knots, the pilots might not have wanted to use max thrust to counter the stall warning and instead pull the aircraft up.
If the actual speed of the plane was below stall speed, given the weather conditions and turbulence, it's quite possible the pilots could not feel the plane descending and the definitely could not look out the windows and see it.
So it's possible to get a situation where they are pulling up on the nose, throttle set low, conflicting airspeed readings, low actual airspeed, plane buffeted on all sides by greatly varying winds and up drafts, high turbulence, leading to a belly flop into the ocean
Read the article CNN/Air France crash pilots lost vital speed data, say investigators
U.S. Debt Limit Hits the Ceiling
How to Get a Clean Bill Raising the Debt Limit
If Republicans want to play a game of Hostage, President Obama should call their bluff.
Two or three weeks before Secretary Geithner runs out of tricks to extend the drop-dead date for raising the debt limit, President Obama should go on the teevee and explain to the American people what's going on. Right now most Americans think raising the debt ceiling is increasing spending -- thanks to Republican flimflam. The public doesn't understand raising the debt limit is just providing a means of paying for what Congress has already authorized in the past -- like Social Security payments and military salaries.
President Obama should further explain that Congress isn't doing its job. Congress passed laws to authorize spending of the money; now it's refusing to sign the checks to cover the expenditures it approved. Obama should also explain that one of the reasons the government can't meet its debt obligations is that Republicans insisted on extending the Bush tax cuts for rich people, so there's just not enough money coming in. And he can toss in any other little thing he can think of to place the blame where it ought to rest.
Then -- in view of the emergency created by the Congress -- he should sign an executive order to initiate a rolling default. And the very first thing he should default on is salary payments to members of Congress.
I think that would get him a clean bill raising the debt ceiling. Right quick.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman: America held hostage
<>
We need to raise the ridiculously low 2.6% tax rate on the lowest 50%, 70
million taxpayers, and go after the 47% who pay no fed income taxes on wages
they earn. When true "fairness" is returned we will no longer have a problem.
We'll be amazed what skin in the game does to demands for handouts when
freeloaders actually must pay for them. Having 14 million taxpayers, top 10%,
paying 70% of fed income taxes and supporting over 300 million people is not
fair under any reasonable person's view.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/As debt limit reached, agreement still far off
<>
"The U.S. government is expected to hit the $14.294 trillion debt ceiling
Monday, setting in motion an uncertain, 11-week political scramble to avoid a
default"
Whatever. Political melodrama, nobobdy believes default is
possible, and even if a technical default happened, the market would see it as a
good thing provided Republicans stand firm on cutting spending.
"And
taxes remain a roadblock. Republican leaders say tax increases can't be part of
any deficit plan, but White House officials have said any plan must include
revenue increases."
We can pay for a tax increase by decreasing
transactional costs of the tax code. Americans will pay less total cost for tax
compliance and taxes combined if real tax simplification is part of the deal. www.SUNSETtheIRS.org/please-raise-my-taxes
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/As debt limit reached, agreement still far off
<>
Finally someone has come up with a solution to our debt problems. First, sell
all the gold in Fort Knox. I am sure Glenn Beck could help market it. Then sell
the national parks. Think of all the neat rides Disney could put into
Yellowstone Park. And the Washington Monument could become the Washington
Monument presented by Donald Trump or just Trump Tower II.
Then sell the
national forests--who needs trees and wild animals? Then privatize the armed
forces, something we have already begun to do. Then a really big yard sale. I
bet we could pay off the whole national debt.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/As debt limit reached, agreement still far off
<>
It takes great courage to say what must be said, Professor - you're a hero.
Our situation was not not not created by the people who have lost jobs, houses, and are now being threatened over a debt which has been increased by 40% due to Wall Street's de-regulatory nosedive.
The people who created the problem, benefitted from being bailed out, and got their taxes lowered in December are tne same ones threatening us again.
It would be wrong to not deal with the black-mailers now; to not deal with them now, to let them weaken us with one more of a thousand cuts, is to leave them to devour the next generation(s).
It matters not whether they realize what they are doing - it matters that we who see it stop it to preserve the future; at this point it is up to them whether the cease and desist will be accomplished in an orderly manner or in chaos.
The Democrats can't surrender the country's soul in black-mail.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman: America held hostage
<>
We have a spending problem, but equally we have a revenue problem brought about by a failure to pay as we go and failure to raise revenue strategically with long term goals in mind, e.g. capital gains taxes vs. business taxes have different results.
As things stand, for 30-40 years now the public has been in favor of big government programs--social security, medicare, defense--while the political leadership has consistently used trickle-down voodoo to pretend that tax cuts can be used to pay for...See More spending increases; e.g. 2 - 2 = 4!
The Democrats are ignoring the writing on the wall, but the Republicans are equally in fantasy land with continued adherence to supply-side gibberish.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Treaasury to tap pensions to help fund government
READ MORE COMMENTS: MAY 2011
The people losing money are people like me. I'm a syndicated newspaper columnist and author (most recent book, I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society,"McGraw-Hill) who is enduring tough times in the newspaper biz and and book biz and who makes a nice little sum every month that helps me make ends meet.
Losing that will be a blow. I've cut back on everything, but I'm at the point where I can no longer cut back any further
Read the article CNN/FORTUNE/ Will California's 'Amazon tax' cause an affiliate exodus?