No self-respecting economist still believes this nonsense. It's not worth a serious reply.

Basically correct. There was no federal income tax until during the Civil War, when we needed a way to pay for soldiers and supplies. We were like a teenager who learned for the first time about this thing called credit. We've had a national debt since then, and thus of course federal income taxes. No one would lend to the federal government if it didn't have the power to tax to pay the debt back. A lot of people don't seem to get this connection between debt and taxes. I;m a fiscal conservative, but when so-called fiscal conservatives push through income tax cuts, that just raise our national debt. Future taxes will be higher. In total, we'll pay even more than we would have if we hadn't put it off because more interest is added. Some idiots claim "debt doesn't matter" because we basically owe the money to ourselves. But US Treasuries are now obviously held in large part by non-US institutions. But even that is not the biggest point. The biggest point is the shifting of the burden from one generation to the next.

This is long-winded and may seem off-topic, but I think it's very relevant to a discussion of individual rights. Whether the federal government had the power to incur a national debt and then to tax to pay it off was hotly debated for a long time. Now, the vast majority just accepts it. Yes, the federal government needs some revenue. I'm not an anti-government crackpot. But look at our national debt. Look toward the future at the taxes we and the next generations will have to pay to pay off our debt. At what point does it stop? Should our government have the power to make us all debtors to the rest of the world?

Keep in mind that many (most?) of these are public companies. Channel Insider would probably get a lot of flak if they published an article flatly predicting their failure in the next year. This way, they can point to their own comments and say they did no such thing.

Way off topic, but I have to chime in...

Are you being sarcastic, or are you actually suggesting that your fellow guys should remove their pubic hair in some way? If you think hair is gross and want to mess with that part of your anatomy, that's fine... live and let live. But since this is a site for nerds--mostly male nerds, who stereotypically are not much in tune with the female viewpoint--I feel the need to speak up and warn any guys out there against getting the idea that women prefer hairless genitals. I obviously can't speak for all women, but the only time I've even heard another woman mention pubic hair was to complain about a man's shaved balls. She thought it was disgusting and showed lack of self-respect. If you feel the need to trim, go for it. But leave it basically intact. Just my suggestion.