Bertrand Encourages Thought

I stumbled across this type of work while browsing for a new position, and I'm interested but unsure about the specifics, like day-to-day duties and requirements.

...blacks and whites use drugs at rates basically proportionate to the population? Is this an example of the racism that rigs the system against blacks? Is it no wonder why George Zimmerman got away with manslaughter, then?

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_righ...

...had been armed, then this tragedy might have been prevented?

The sort of work I am most interested in doing is research and development related to engineering the human genome so we are more efficient. Genetic engineers modify crops so they can be more resistant to disease or use less water and nutrients but still grow just as big/strong. I'm interested in doing that for humans.

I've been researching but can't find an answer. Some places suggest I go into biomedical. Others suggest microbiology. And others yet ecological genetics.

Some here have said that homosexual marriage would lead to incestuous behavior, as if that's reason enough to deny homosexuals the same rights and privileges afforded to heterosexuals, which is forbidden by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Even if homosexual or interracial marriage did lead to incestuous behavior, it doesn't mean that we have the right to deny others their rights. That's the price you pay for living in a Republic which recognizes the importance and value of individual rights. In America we don't deny others their rights because of the consequences it may lead to. Look at guns. People die because of guns (well, because people shoot them, but guns make it much easier to hurt and kill others, and far too often for bad reasons such as revenge or theft). Do I get to take away your right to have a gun because the consequences that will come from everyone having the right to have guns? No. Same applies to marriage and a slew of other rights we have. For example, we don't get to deny Catholics the right to exercise their religion because of the rampant pedophilia of their clergy.

http://www.barneysbrandon.com/new_vehicle_detail.a...

Roughly speaking, a representative bureaucracy is one that represents its society -- that is, the percentage of each group in the government approximates the percentage of that group in the entire population.

ABC News reports: “A government official tells ABC News that the federal government is expecting and preparing for bond rating agency Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the rating of US debt from its current AAA value.” Among the reasons cited will be “Republicans saying that they refuse to accept any tax increases as part of a larger deal.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/go...

A new report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reveals that the Social Security trust fund is actually in better shape than previously thought. The CBO had previously projected that the popular entitlement program was solvent until 2037. CBO now projects the trust fund won’t run out until 2039. In the ongoing battle over deficit reduction, Republicans have insisted on deep cuts to Social Security, even though the program doesn’t contribute to the deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11943

Do they hire when they have more money in their pockets...or when they need additional help in operating the in's and out's of their business?

The proponents of trickle-down economics don't seem to realize one important fact: Business owners don't hire people just because they have money in their pockets. They hire people because they need additional help handling their customers. The way to increase jobs is to increase customers, and the best way to increase customers is to keep money in the pockets of the lower and middle class, the groups that spend most of their income.

Washington's spending has recently been higher as a percentage of the nation's economic output than at any time since World War II. But by the same measure, Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.

So does the U.S. have "a spending problem," as Republicans keep repeating in the current debate over how to reduce the nation's record deficits? Or is the problem that taxes are not high enough? Those questions frame a long-running partisan debate, and as usual we won't offer an opinion one way or the other. But for those seeking their own answers, we can offer some fiscal history and factual context.

Some key facts we think are worth considering:

Federal spending ("outlays" in budget jargon) is expected to equal 24.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal year 2009, highest since 1945.

On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.

These historically high rates of spending and low rates of taxation have combined to produce a chain of deficits that are also the highest since WWII. The deficit was 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009. It declined to 8.9 percent last year as the economy started to recover, but is projected to go up to over 9 percent this year. Each of these deficits is larger than in any year since 1945, measured as a percentage of GDP.

The U.S. is borrowing about 36 cents of every dollar spent so far this year. It borrowed 37 cents on the dollar last year, and 40 cents in fiscal 2009.

The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising.

The federal income tax accounted for 41.5 percent of federal receipts in 2010 (down from 49.6 percent prior to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 – 2003). Corporate taxes brought in only 8.9 percent, also down sharply since the recent recession. Payroll taxes and other "social insurance" payments accounted for 40 percent of total receipts in 2010.

The best information on that (link 1 below) comes from the Congressional Budget Office, which has tracked the tax burden for many years. The most recent complete data cover 2007. CBO figured in that year more than half of all federal taxes was paid by the top 10 percent of income earners. They paid 55 percent of all federal taxes in 2007 (link 2 below), CBO said.

That's a comprehensive figure, counting the income tax, payroll taxes, excise taxes and even the corporate income tax (borne by stockholders in the form of reduced dividends and appreciation). And perhaps surprisingly, the top 10 percent of earners pay a greater share of federal taxes now than they did before the Bush tax cuts, which Democrats constantly criticize as a giveaway to "the rich." The top 10 percent paid 50 percent of all federal taxes in 2001.

However, that comes in spite of lower tax rates at the top, not because of it. The reason the most affluent 10 percent pay a greater share of taxes is that they are getting a greater share of all income (link 3 below). Their share of all pre-tax income went from 37.5 percent in 2001 to 42 percent in 2007.

One figure that gets a lot of attention is the percentage of individuals and married couples who pay zero federal income taxes. Those figures come from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The TPC's most recent report (link 4 below) was released June 14, and it shows that this year 46.4 percent of "tax units" (individuals or married couples) had zero federal income tax liability. That's because of various exemptions and tax credits aimed at reducing the income-tax burden on lower-income workers and families with children. The figure is down from 2008 and 2009, when the percentage topped out at 50.8 percent.

But practically all workers (and their employers) pay Medicare taxes on every dollar of wages (link 5 below), and Social Security taxes on every dollar of wages up to $106,800. Consequently, those who pay no federal income or payroll taxes at all amount to only 18.1 percent this year, the Tax Policy Center figures.

Link 1:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collec...

Link 2:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/20...

Link 3:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/20...

Link 4:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab...

Link 5:

http://ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html

This morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) raised the partisan divide over the debt ceiling standoff to a whole new level when he said that any deal is unlikely as long as President Obama is in office. “I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. Yet in the same statement, McConnell also insisted that Republicans will “do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn’t default on its obligations.” The nation will default on Aug. 2 if the limit isn’t raised, with catastrophic consequences. McConnell recently reaffirmed that defeating Obama in 2012 is his party’s “single most important” goal.

I'm assuming that human ritual sacrifice like what was practiced in ancient civilizations isn't protected, right? What else, if any?

In opposing the Senate bill to repeal tax breaks for oil and gas companies, Paul claimed that the federal government makes more money in taxes on a gallon of gasoline than oil companies earn in profits. He presented a chart that carried the header "Regular Gasoline Tax v. Oil Company Profit, Per Gallon," showing 7 cents per gallon for the oil companies and 18.4 cents per gallon for the federal government. (In his May 17 speech (link 1 below), he said 7 cents and 18.4 cents per dollar, but it was clear from his chart that he meant per gallon.)

But the 7-cents-per-gallon figure grossly underestimates the industry's earnings. It includes only earnings from the sale of gasoline and not earnings on producing and selling crude oil. There are no independent figures on how much oil companies earn on a gallon of gasoline.

Paul's per-gallon figure is consistent with a claim ExxonMobil Vice President for Public and Government Affairs Ken Cohen wrote in his blog, "Perspectives (link 2 below)," when the company released its 2011 first quarter earnings in April.

"Cohen, April 28: During the first three months of this year, for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States, we earned about 7 cents."

I called ExxonMobil and asked how Cohen arrived at his figure. Spokeswoman Kristen Hellmer said it was determined by dividing ExxonMobil's "downstream earnings ($694 million) by the number of gallons of gasoline and other products refined and sold during the quarter in the U.S. (9,355 million gallons). The result is 7.4 cents per gallon." Downstream earnings are what the company earns from refining crude oil into gasoline and other petroleum products and then selling it. But that ignores "upstream earnings," which is how much Exxon earns in producing and selling crude oil. And the cost of oil exceeded $100 a barrel in the first quarter of 2011.

Oil industry analyst Kloza called the 7-cents-per-gallon figure "disingenuous," because it ignores high earnings from oil production. "Bringing crude oil to market has been incredibly profitable," Kloza said. "It is disingenuous to say in the downstream we are making only this much."

ExxonMobil reported (link 3 below) that its upstream earnings were $8.7 billion in the first quarter — up $2.9 billion, or 49 percent, compared with a year ago. As of August 2010, it was the third largest (link 4 below) oil refiner in the U.S.

In a February 2011 report called "What's Up with Gas Prices?" the American Petroleum Institute reported that on average oil and gas companies earned about "6 cents for every dollar of sales" — not every gallon — in the third quarter of 2010. Rayola Dougher, API’s senior economist, said she arrived at that figure by dividing net income by total revenues for about two dozen integrated oil companies and independent producers. By her unofficial calculations, Dougher said, the average so far in the first quarter of this year is 7.6 cents per dollar of sales. “If you are a producer and getting more money for a barrel your profits go up,” she said.

But energy experts say the API method is also flawed, as was detailed in a 2008 article (link 5 below) on this very topic. As was said at that time, the Energy Information Administration does not attempt to calculate how much oil companies earn on a gallon of gasoline. EIA economist Neal Davis told us in 2008 that trying to calculate a per-gallon average profit for gasoline would be "heroic at best" and "sadly misinformed … at worst."

1) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-05-17/pdf/C...

2) http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/28/e...

3) http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_rel...

4) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41478.pdf

5) http://back.factcheck.org/2008/04/gasoline-tax-pro...

According to the source of all knowledge (wikipedia lol), a person with type O- blood can donate whole blood to anyone, but can only receive blood of type O-. A person with type AB blood can donate plasma to anyone, but can only receive plasma of type AB.

So, if I have a unit of type O- blood, I (a person with AB+ blood) can accept it. However, if I take the blood cells out, it suddenly becomes incompatible. What gives?

According to the source of all knowledge (wikipedia lol), a person with type O- blood can donate whole blood to anyone, but can only receive blood of type O-. A person with type AB blood can donate plasma to anyone, but can only receive plasma of type AB.

So, if I have a unit of type O- blood, I (a person with AB+ blood) can accept it. However, if I take the blood cells out, it suddenly becomes incompatible. What gives?

In the “Debt Q&A,” Ryan’s website asks: “I heard that this budget actually increases deficits and debts. Is that true?” He answers it by saying, “No.” In fact, the debt still rises substantially. Furthermore, Ryan’s claim in the same Q&A that his plan will “bring deficits below $1 trillion immediately” is just barely true, even by his own projections.

Let’s take the debt first. Table S-1 in Ryan’s plan shows that the debt held by the public would increase from $10 trillion to $16 trillion from 2011 to 2021. That’s less than the increase projected under Obama’s budget. But the fact is the debt still increases under Ryan’s plan, though at a slower rate.

As for the deficit “immediately” dropping below $1 trillion. That may be true, but only barely. The 2012 deficit, according to his plan, would be $995 billion. That could easily go over $1 trillion if Ryan’s projections are even slightly off. The deficit would drop to $698 billion by fiscal year 2013, under Ryan’s projections. But that’s what the president’s budget projects, too. In fact, the president projects a slightly smaller deficit in fiscal year 2013 ($692 billion). It’s true that Obama’s projections are optimistic: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last month released an analysis (link below) of the president’s budget that found his deficit would actually be $901 billion in 2013, not $692 billion. But Ryan’s projections may also be too optimistic. CBO has not done a similar analysis for his plan.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12130/04-15-An...

Senator Kyl is off by about 87%. This is just another case of a ill-principled politician pandering for political support. Shame on him. And shame on all of you who bought it and continue to cite it even though it's demonstrably false.

"Contraception (including reversible contraception, emergency contraception, vasectomies and tubal sterilizations): 4,009,549 services

Sexually transmitted infections testing and treatment: 3,955,916 services

Cancer screening and prevention: 1,830,811 services

Other women’s health services (including pregnancy tests and prenatal care): 1,178,369 services

Abortions: 332,278 procedures

Miscellaneous (including primary care and adoption referrals): 76,977

Total services: 11,383,900

By this tally, abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, which is the most recent year for which the group is reporting statistics. And that would make Kyl’s statement way off."