Why doesn't everyone make a forum avatar?

Awesome ! Glad your playing again.

Happy New Year !

Uhu….

10410276_426508350839601_7511936324842547195_n.jpg

There’s been a Lucas McCain sighting!

Great share it is actually. My father has been waiting for this information.

Yes and no, Stuka.  It would only make vetoing a budget a thing of the past, in other words, it would streamline the budget process.  But ONLY if the Congress decides to spend MORE then they get in taxes.  Bear in mind, if Congress decides to actually, don’t faint now, spend ONLY what it has without a deficit, then it only needs a simple majority and a signature instead of a super majority AND a signature.  Likewise, if the budget has no deficit, then a veto can still be over-ridden by a super majority.

The whole idea is to make it SOO hard to go into debt that most times the country will operate above board.

In fact, I’d like to see legislation that states that 10% of all taxes MUST be invested in local government or domestic corporate bonds. (Relatively secure, helps the country or countrymen.)  Eventually, the feds should have enough invested throughout the land that they will never need to tax the people again.

Furthermore, that’s not so outlandish an idea.  Many governments domestically and abroad are buying mutual funds to supplement their income so they can ease the tax burden.  Why can’t the feds?

Eh, I’ve got no particular take on ‘em. I suppose they could be cool, but I’ve never liked the whole atmosphere of collectable stuff. Give me good ol’ Diplomacy any day :D.

@cystic:

At the same time, one could probably get an ob/gyn, a psychiatrist and a statistician together for a retrospective study - even if it’s a simple questionaire. … It could simply analyze feelings, thoughts etc. … Clinical depression is evaluable, as is anxiety, PTSD, and one can measure drug intake if your state/province has a DPIN system. Other out-comes too might be evaluated in terms of 3, 5, and 10 year morbidity, mortality etc. (i do believe some have been done with some equivocal data).

True, with the first. Though the problem with questionaires is that you have to be extremely careful with the wording. I fear that any study on this can very easily be manipulated by the according interest group who launched it. So, you could make a study testing depression etc., but that then must be done to women who have given birth, have aborted, have not been pregnant, and no question should somehow relate to pregancy.
Then, after evaluated for these three different groups, you could start to make some statitics out of that.
But, i fear that the above-mentioned statistics did not pay enough attention to that, something i conclude from the “30% to 60%”, an error i can not accept when having 1000, say “datapoints”.

I’ve discovered that it also depends on the browser you’re using. I really don’t like the font that IE tends to use but Netscape has a nice legible times new roman type font.