You know how you live high on the hog with a $175K salary? You don't have 6 kids. :P
He may not be living high on the hog, but he's still doing better that most, even adjusted for having 6 kids. The median salary for a 4 person household in Wisconsin is $78k. If we cut his household in half (from 8 to 4) and adjust his salary accordingly, that's still $87k. I know this isn't exactly a perfect way of scaling to figure out how much he'd need if he didn't have so many kids, but it's the best I could come up with given how I'm not a statistician.
Well, that too. But my main concern was the part about enacting a law without the need of the Senate :O
You do understand that in order for that bill to become law it has to be passed by the Senate, right? There is no way that it's ever going to be anything other than a house resolution. Stop being such a Chicken Little.
You do understand that in order for that bill to become law it has to be passed by the Senate, right? There is no way that it's every going to be anything other than a house resolution. Stop being such a Chicken Little.
Alan Hale (R-Montana) has decided that DUI laws are too harsh.. What's funnier is that he claims DUI laws are 'killing' small businesses. Probably meaning specifically his wife's, since he and his wife own a bar and restaurant. Oh, and local idiot DJ's in Albany Free Beer & Hot Wings interviewed him and gave him a chance to explain himself, but he continued to stand fast in his stance, going so far as to say "Think of all the young people who have had their lives ruined by getting a DUI", and saying "People should be able to have 4-5 drinks in an hour and be allowed to drive home", and saying that designated driving isn't a good solution. Oh, and he sounds like Hank Hill.
Alan Hale (R-Montana) has decided that DUI laws are too harsh.. What's funnier is that he claims DUI laws are 'killing' small businesses. Probably meaning specifically his wife's, since he and his wife own a bar and restaurant. Oh, and local idiot DJ's in Albany Free Beer & Hot Wings interviewed him and gave him a chance to explain himself, but he continued to stand fast in his stance, going so far as to say "Think of all the young people who have had their lives ruined by getting a DUI", and saying "People should be able to have 4-5 drinks in an hour and be allowed to drive home", and saying that designated driving isn't a good solution. Oh, and he sounds like Hank Hill.
It's funny because I actually agree that the current DUI limit is actually too strict but dear god "4-5 drinks in an hour" quote is crazy.
What we need in this country are some freaking Daiko taxi services where there are two guys in the taxi when you call them, one to drive the taxi, and one to drive your car when you're too drunk to drive yourself.
The problem with "limit" laws is that they will always be slightly more restrictive than necessary to cater to the lowest common denominator. If everyone were as good a driver as me, the speed limit could easily be 80 mph. If people were all my size and body shape, the legal BAC limit could be 1.0. If everybody had a grandpa as cool as mine that taught them how to responsibly wield a rifle at age 10, then gun licensing laws would be entirely different.
But there is always going to be a need for low catch-basket limits to grab the crazy outliers.
Well, that too. But my main concern was the part about enacting a law without the need of the Senate :O
You do understand that in order for that bill to become law it has to be passed by the Senate, right? There is no way that it's ever going to be anything other than a house resolution. Stop being such a Chicken Little.
This is the part that threw me out of the loop:
1 SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER 2 OF FISCAL YEAR 2011. 3 (a) DEADLINE FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLA4 TION FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER 5 OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.—If the House has not received 6 a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating 7 that it has passed a measure providing for the appropria8 tions for the departments and agencies of the Government 9 for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of 10 H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 2011, 11 are hereby enacted into law.
Well, that too. But my main concern was the part about enacting a law without the need of the Senate :O
You do understand that in order for that bill to become law it has to be passed by the Senate, right? There is no way that it's ever going to be anything other than a house resolution. Stop being such a Chicken Little.
This is the part that threw me out of the loop:
1 SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER 2 OF FISCAL YEAR 2011. 3 (a) DEADLINE FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLA4 TION FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER 5 OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.—If the House has not received 6 a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating 7 that it has passed a measure providing for the appropria8 tions for the departments and agencies of the Government 9 for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of 10 H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 2011, 11 are hereby enacted into law.
That's a clever trick, but it won't work. This text itself has to become a law, meaning the senate also passes it, before it becomes law.
It may be sooner than you think. I would posit that we will most likely see them in our lifetimes.
I remember in 1984 reading an article in the Weekly Reader about how flying cars would rule the skies by the far-flung year of 1995. Hovercraft, jet packs, you name it -- transportation is one of those future techs that just doesn't evolve that quickly. Oh, to be sure we are light-years ahead in terms of safety and computerization of vehicles, but autonomy is still something that's an incredible distance off. And even if we get our auto-cars, I predict the adoption rate will be zero, because people trust themselves behind the wheel more than they trust machines.
Well, that too. But my main concern was the part about enacting a law without the need of the Senate :O
You do understand that in order for that bill to become law it has to be passed by the Senate, right? There is no way that it's ever going to be anything other than a house resolution. Stop being such a Chicken Little.
This is the part that threw me out of the loop:
1 SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER 2 OF FISCAL YEAR 2011. 3 (a) DEADLINE FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLA4 TION FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER 5 OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.—If the House has not received 6 a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating 7 that it has passed a measure providing for the appropria8 tions for the departments and agencies of the Government 9 for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of 10 H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 2011, 11 are hereby enacted into law.
Any bill "passed" in this way would be unconstitutional because it would violate presentment. "The bill must be passed in identical form in both the House of Representatives and Senate and signed by the President."
I remember in 1984 reading an article in the Weekly Reader about how flying cars would rule the skies by the far-flung year of 1995. Hovercraft, jet packs, you name it -- transportation is one of those future techs that just doesn't evolve that quickly. Oh, to be sure we are light-years ahead in terms of safety and computerization of vehicles, but autonomy is still something that's an incredible distance off. And even if we get our auto-cars, I predict the adoption rate will be zero, because people trust themselves behind the wheel more than they trust machines.
If people were all my size and body shape, the legal BAC limit could be 1.0
You mean 0.10% (I hope). Anything over 0.40% means you're passed out and possibly dead. Also, I was under the impression that BAC inherently accounts for different sizes and body shapes. Am I wrong?
I remember in 1984 reading an article in the Weekly Reader about how flying cars would rule the skies by the far-flung year of 1995. Hovercraft, jet packs, you name it -- transportation is one of those future techs that just doesn't evolve that quickly. Oh, to be sure we are light-years ahead in terms of safety and computerization of vehicles, but autonomy is still something that's an incredible distance off. And even if we get our auto-cars, I predict the adoption rate will be zero, because people trust themselves behind the wheel more than they trust machines.
The point is that Google has already made a car that drives itself, and the only accidents that have occurred while testing it on the road has been other people hitting it.
Comments
EDIT: And the crazy keeps on coming. Republican claims Obama wants to deplete US forces by attacking Libya so he can call up private army laid out in Obamacare bill.
WUT.
Oh, and local idiot DJ's in Albany Free Beer & Hot Wings interviewed him and gave him a chance to explain himself, but he continued to stand fast in his stance, going so far as to say "Think of all the young people who have had their lives ruined by getting a DUI", and saying "People should be able to have 4-5 drinks in an hour and be allowed to drive home", and saying that designated driving isn't a good solution.
Oh, and he sounds like Hank Hill.
But there is always going to be a need for low catch-basket limits to grab the crazy outliers.
1 SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER
2 OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.
3 (a) DEADLINE FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLA4
TION FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER
5 OF FISCAL YEAR 2011.—If the House has not received
6 a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating
7 that it has passed a measure providing for the appropria8
tions for the departments and agencies of the Government
9 for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of
10 H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 2011,
11 are hereby enacted into law.