Posted on 11/28/2006 1:35:36 PM PST by SmithL
Edited on 11/28/2006 3:20:53 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Excerpt from USA Today removed. Only a title and link can be posted. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts
"Tough and durable, but you can not make bowties and roses with them ;)"
lol!
Those spots have just become perks for growing old, having no principles, and being a whiner with a wimpy doctor. I'd pay my share for government docs to set and enforce standards for such disability benefits.
Oh, and even if they are allowed to park closer their destination, why should they not have to pay the parking meter or obey time limits like the rest of us?
So how were you inconvenienced?
But coins are "Constitutional".
The Constitution does authorize the "coining of money" (Article I, Section 8). It does not authorize the "printing of fiat currency." How the Court got this one wrong is beyond me. Powerful interests at work here.
Maybe the government could print bills on different shaped cardboard, so that a quick touch would tell the difference between one denomination and another. And we could all carry our money in backpacks instead of wallets.
If Jon Cary and the Silk Pony were President, there wouldn't be any more blind people.
How do they know if they ask for Juicy Fruit that they didn't get Big Red instead?
American paper currency has been printed using the intaglio process for at least the last 60 years (and probably for more than a century). I could see phasing in braille dots and larger, more boldly embossed numbers--which could be programmed into current electronic note readers. But changing the size of the notes? That's crazy! It would make millions of electronic note readers useless. That is a very bad idea.
Having said that, this whole decision is stupid. It belongs in the halls of Congress or the Bureau of Engraving, NOT in the hands of some looney-tune federal judge.
ARGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
First of all, it's printed right there on the bill, "legal tender for debts public and private and between that tender honey you don't want the missus to find out about".
Second, everybody knows that money talks.
I don't see, uh, get, I mean get the problem here. Overturned on appeal, I'm sure of it.
Can you imagine being in a Casino when those bills were being used...
How about fighter jets? The military discriminates against blind folks pretty badly.
Since as the judge admits this is going to cost about 200 million over a decade, the treasury department should respond that they will work on implementing such features once congress budgets the funds for doing so.
The courts have ruled in the past that congress can pull funding when they disagree with the president. They can do the same when they disagree with the Judiciary. Adding 5% to the treasury's cost of printing money is obviously an unfunded mandate.
Congress creates such mandates on a regular basis, but the executive branch doesn't have to implement them unless they are funded.
The Judge isn't saying that this is a constitutional right of blind people, he's saying it's required by existing legislation, which means he's claiming that congress implemented an unfunded mandate to do this.
The treasury department should politely tell the Judge that even if his interpretation of the law is correct, it's up to congress to provide the fund to make it happen, and then ignore the judge's ruling until congress acts.
Counterfeit euro notes were actually in production (and very good ones, I might add) before they were released into general circulation. It's quite a story on how this came about.
You both are nice, well-meaning, compassionate people (no, no sarcasm from me). However, I respectfully submit that you miss the point.
What's next.......touch screens/Braille for the Internet? Think I'm being farfectched here? Merely look at the history of the anti-smoking movement over the last decade or so and tell me I'm being 'farfetched'.
This way lies madness.
Well - as long as you're travelling on that road, they didn't mean the "coining" of nearly worthless slugs. Even silver dollars were only legal tender for debts up to 5 dollars.
It was not Judge Friedman who made this ridiculous ruling. Every other source confirms that it was Judge James Robertson.
B/c when deflation hits contracts have been pegged to pre-deflation dollars, while the goods/services used to raise money to make those payments is now paid in deflated buckaroos. To wit, the loan, mortgage, whatever has now becomes bigger. A h### of a lot bigger.
Thus:
-- You own Acme Widgets. Your widgets sells for $1.00 each. It cost you, oh, let's say 91¢ -- for raw materials wages, maintenance, utilities, taxes, etc.-- to make each widget. The remaining 8¢ is obscene profit.
-- You borrow $1,000 from the bank to buy and install a machine that will stamp your widgets with just-too-cute-for-words pictures of puppies on them.
-- All told you'll pay the bank back, oh, let's say $1,010 for the loan. Theoretically you need to sell 1,010 widgets to pay off this loan.
-- Then one day you wake up and find deflation has struck. The price of everything has been chopped by 50% -- bam!
-- Your widgets are now selling for 50¢ each. But the money you borrowed (the $1,010) is based on widgets selling for $1 each.
-- So now instead of needing to sell 1,010 widgets to pay off your debt, you need to sell 2,020 widgets -- double what you originally budgeted.
-- Worse, every widget you make you lose money.
Remember?
$1.00 widget, selling price
- .92 fixed cost to make same
-------
$0.08 profit
Well, with this deflation its now:
$0.50 widget, selling price
$0.92 fixed cost to make
-------
$0.48 in the hole...well, more like 50¢ in the hole since you (also) won't be making you obscene profit of 8¢.
So every widget you make you lose money, but you gotta pay back that bank loan some how! Rise the price? No dice. The public just ain't gonna spend $2.00+ for widgets, even widgets with just-too-cute-for-words pictures of puppies on them. B/c chances are they just found themselves with 50% less pay, same as you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.