If you ever eat at a fast food chain, or prepared meals (tv dinners etc.), and this stuff becomes cheap, you will be eating it without even knowing it.
Yeah. Too bad we don't have some sort of government bureaucracy that maintains requirements for labeling so aren't fooled. We could call it, "FDA".
I hate to tell you this, but the water you drink probably passed through some sort of animal, so water isn't vegetarian. You're being silly; digested protein is just protein.
McDonalds stopped frying them in lard decades ago, but I'm unsure as to whether they still use beef-based flavoring or not. Regardless, there's no sugar.
Octane is about the same now as it was then; only the method of measuring it has changed. This is similar to how a muscle car from the 1960s might have been rated at 350 HP, but it's really like a 250 HP car now because at the time they used to dyno it without even an alternator or air cleaner on the engine!
The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year.
Read the Constitution much? The Senate passed it with a supermajority. I see no reason it wouldn't pass the House (which is GOP controlled, and the GOP is trying to cut costs right now) with a supermajority as well. If it manages to pass both houses with over 66% of the vote, a veto can be overridden.
1) Food that is sold raw and unprocessed. Raw meat, veggies, flour, milk, etc are tax free. The sort of stuff your parents/grandparents called 'staples'. Cooked foods, things in cans (processed foods), etc are taxed. Frozen stuff is not taxed if it's raw, like frozen broccoli.
Congrats: you just put in a tax on those who can't cook.
I mostly agree with you, but sales tax is not the most regressive tax possible because it taxes consumption-- and generally, the greatest consumers are those with wealth. People are mostly envious of the boats, cars, and houses owned by the wealthy, not great piles of cash they can dive into like Scrooge McDuck (watch out for paper cuts)! The most regressive tax would be a true "flat" tax: a set amount that is paid by all. Cities and townships often have a tax like this called a "per capita" tax. While they're normally small, I don't like them because they're essentially a tax on breathing. If you would like sales taxes to be more progressive, that's done simply by excluding food and clothing. The truly poor spend all of their income on food, clothing, and shelter (which is already untaxed).
oh for [insert random $DEITY here]'s sake. The 'free' here is clearly intended (to the meanest of intelligences) to be in the context of 'free to me'.
Because that's the only person who matters, right?
In the UK, this selfishness that I see in the US does exist (of course), but it seems far less prevalent -
Oh, I think I can find ONE example, right here on Slashdot.
Americans are among the most charitable people on earth. What most of us don't like is when someone else takes our hard-earned money from us by force, and distributes it to whatever cause they see fit. That's not charity. Taking money from people doesn't turn them into generous people any more than putting a suit on a bum makes him a businessman.
but it's still a lot "free-er" (in terms of liberty here, not cash)
The three essential rights are life, liberty, and PROPERTY. The last is being stolen, and that should be a concern to the thieves who extol "charity" much more than the victims.
Why do you assume that raising taxes (this is what "repealing the Bush tax cuts" means: raising taxes on everyone) will increase revenue? Heard of the "Laffer curve"?
It wasn't really until Reagan that the National Debt took on a life of its own. It was tiny enough in the past that it was never really an issue, but Reagan, for better or for worse, decided to win the Cold War by spending so much the Russian government wouldn't be able to feed its citizens if it tried to keep up.
No. Please look at the spending under FDR, both during the depression and WWII, and under LBJ's "War on Poverty". Not new under Reagan. And Congress must create and pass a budget. Reagan wanted to reduce spending, simplify the tax code to remove loopholes, and reduce the size and quantity of tax rates. Congress would only allow the last two.
If our students understood economics, there would be fewer of them going to college with the false expectation that a degree will guarantee them a secure job, and even fewer who believe politicians who promise "free" anything.
No, it wasn't. It was a specific enumeration of powers, clarified by the tenth amendment. I don't know what you mean by that, as the only specific enumeration that MIGHT apply is the oft-abused "interstate commerce" clause-- which I will always assert does NOT mean Congress gets to regulate something just because it MIGHT affect interstate commerce.
the founding fathers had a very low impression of the average person
"Person" means "an individual". You go on to talk about California referendums being an example of pure democracy gone wrong, which seems to contradict your original assertion that the "average PERSON" was not considered competent by the founders. If you don't like EITHER, then I guess we need an oligarchy or dictatorship.
You act as though the 3 networks are all equivalent, and thus only partisan bias could possibly cause someone to criticize one more harshly than the other. Not so. CNN is a news network (or tries to be, they have really gone downhill in recent years) that has a bit of a political bias, as is inevitable. Fox is a propaganda network that reports some news.
And this is based on what data? Oh right, just your opinion.
"fake news": the Daily Show doesn't report on the news. It reports on the news media, which perforce gives viewers a passing familiarity with what the news media is reporting.
Yeah... this is called "reporting the news" when you repeat what the news media is reporting.
The problem with your statement is that that gold has little intrinsic value. It is not a terribly useful metal (it has uses, but a lot of gold is used for purely decorative purposes).
Why do I keep hearing this? You only forgot to mention, "you can't eat gold"! Gold has MANY uses, especially in electronics. It is a noble metal, which is a very special property. And a decorative purpose is still a purpose. Claiming that gives something no intrinsic value means that many "decorative" items have no intrinsic value. People want decorative items.
"Laundered"? Let me check my dictionary. That reminds me of that time we tried to steal fractions of a cent and I misplaced the decimal point. I always get little details like that wrong.
No, it's not. The cost of minting a nickel is more than five cents. The same goes for the penny. That being said, is a piece of paper with Washington's picture on it worth $1 in "bullion"? It's nice that coins have some intrinsic value, but coinage consists of only a small fraction of all US currency.
You don't think that perhaps your view of the Jon Stewart interview is swayed by your own opinions? I read the transcript, and while O'Reilly's trademark bluster is evident, I didn't see much in the way of fact and logic coming from Stewart. But what else would you expect from a guy that criticizes Fox for having opinion programs, while ignoring MSNBC and CNN's opinion programs and winking while hosting his own "fake news" show?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Too bad we don't have some sort of government bureaucracy that maintains requirements for labeling so aren't fooled. We could call it, "FDA".
You can say that again!
Well, at least we know who #2 works for!
I hate to tell you this, but the water you drink probably passed through some sort of animal, so water isn't vegetarian. You're being silly; digested protein is just protein.
McDonalds stopped frying them in lard decades ago, but I'm unsure as to whether they still use beef-based flavoring or not. Regardless, there's no sugar.
Octane is about the same now as it was then; only the method of measuring it has changed. This is similar to how a muscle car from the 1960s might have been rated at 350 HP, but it's really like a 250 HP car now because at the time they used to dyno it without even an alternator or air cleaner on the engine!
Read the Constitution much? The Senate passed it with a supermajority. I see no reason it wouldn't pass the House (which is GOP controlled, and the GOP is trying to cut costs right now) with a supermajority as well. If it manages to pass both houses with over 66% of the vote, a veto can be overridden.
Why stop there? How about for everyone who makes over, say, $30,000/year?
Congrats: you just put in a tax on those who can't cook.
I mostly agree with you, but sales tax is not the most regressive tax possible because it taxes consumption-- and generally, the greatest consumers are those with wealth. People are mostly envious of the boats, cars, and houses owned by the wealthy, not great piles of cash they can dive into like Scrooge McDuck (watch out for paper cuts)! The most regressive tax would be a true "flat" tax: a set amount that is paid by all. Cities and townships often have a tax like this called a "per capita" tax. While they're normally small, I don't like them because they're essentially a tax on breathing. If you would like sales taxes to be more progressive, that's done simply by excluding food and clothing. The truly poor spend all of their income on food, clothing, and shelter (which is already untaxed).
Because that's the only person who matters, right?
Oh, I think I can find ONE example, right here on Slashdot.
Americans are among the most charitable people on earth. What most of us don't like is when someone else takes our hard-earned money from us by force, and distributes it to whatever cause they see fit. That's not charity. Taking money from people doesn't turn them into generous people any more than putting a suit on a bum makes him a businessman.
The three essential rights are life, liberty, and PROPERTY. The last is being stolen, and that should be a concern to the thieves who extol "charity" much more than the victims.
Why do you assume that raising taxes (this is what "repealing the Bush tax cuts" means: raising taxes on everyone) will increase revenue? Heard of the "Laffer curve"?
No. Please look at the spending under FDR, both during the depression and WWII, and under LBJ's "War on Poverty". Not new under Reagan. And Congress must create and pass a budget. Reagan wanted to reduce spending, simplify the tax code to remove loopholes, and reduce the size and quantity of tax rates. Congress would only allow the last two.
If our students understood economics, there would be fewer of them going to college with the false expectation that a degree will guarantee them a secure job, and even fewer who believe politicians who promise "free" anything.
No, it wasn't. It was a specific enumeration of powers, clarified by the tenth amendment. I don't know what you mean by that, as the only specific enumeration that MIGHT apply is the oft-abused "interstate commerce" clause-- which I will always assert does NOT mean Congress gets to regulate something just because it MIGHT affect interstate commerce.
Thanks for the comprehensive rebuttal!
"Person" means "an individual". You go on to talk about California referendums being an example of pure democracy gone wrong, which seems to contradict your original assertion that the "average PERSON" was not considered competent by the founders. If you don't like EITHER, then I guess we need an oligarchy or dictatorship.
What separates Rachael Maddow from the "news", other than a commercial or two?
And this is based on what data? Oh right, just your opinion.
Yeah... this is called "reporting the news" when you repeat what the news media is reporting.
If running a BC client constitutes being part of a pyramid scheme, then Social Security is also a pyramid scheme.
Why do I keep hearing this? You only forgot to mention, "you can't eat gold"! Gold has MANY uses, especially in electronics. It is a noble metal, which is a very special property. And a decorative purpose is still a purpose. Claiming that gives something no intrinsic value means that many "decorative" items have no intrinsic value. People want decorative items.
"Laundered"? Let me check my dictionary. That reminds me of that time we tried to steal fractions of a cent and I misplaced the decimal point. I always get little details like that wrong.
What was ill-gotten about his gains? He ran the client and mined the coins. As far as I can tell, he followed the rules.
No, it's not. The cost of minting a nickel is more than five cents. The same goes for the penny. That being said, is a piece of paper with Washington's picture on it worth $1 in "bullion"? It's nice that coins have some intrinsic value, but coinage consists of only a small fraction of all US currency.
You don't think that perhaps your view of the Jon Stewart interview is swayed by your own opinions? I read the transcript, and while O'Reilly's trademark bluster is evident, I didn't see much in the way of fact and logic coming from Stewart. But what else would you expect from a guy that criticizes Fox for having opinion programs, while ignoring MSNBC and CNN's opinion programs and winking while hosting his own "fake news" show?