A "normal" account not only charges the percentage, but also auxiliary fees associated with all of your "rewards".

A Square account entails the merchant agreeing that all funds over $1000 received in a given week will be held for 30 days before being released to them. This is not something many people can do (give a processing company a 30 day loan). They have also only been around for a couple of years at most, and during that time they have accrued quite a few complaints. I am not saying it's a bad service. I am saying that it is a poor fit for many retail operators.

It seems to me that you might want to ask some of your local merchants how much of the money that they "collect" actually goes to the processor/card companies. This would be a better way of seeing the actual costs, rather than relying on your own calculations. Your calculations may be logical, but the statements the merchants get are not necessarily so. You are expecting honest dealings from an industry known for shenanigans.

It's called planning ahead. I certainly don't have to rush off to find an ATM branch. I carry cash with me. Now, perhaps you live in a dangerous area. In that case, I think you are smart to use the card instead. But trying to justify passing the costs of your convenience onto others (by contributing to the price increase) is misguided.

Ask people if they feel that adding 2.75% immediately to the cost of goods and services is desirable. Sales tax in NY is 8%. What do you think people would say to a proposal to raise it to 10.75%?

You getting cash back off the deal, or points, or whatever else is actually not even part of that 2.75%. That is included in other Merchant Account processing fees. If you look at the Merchant's statement, you will see them listed. People who use those cards are in effect forcing a discount from the Merchant. The sick part is that when Merchants sign up for these accounts, they are often not told by vendor that this will happen, even if they specifically ask for a list of any possible fees. After things don't add up the first few months, they call and complain. Then they are directed to the booklet "agreement" which details such things.

Except that this cost to the merchant increases over time, and the discount rate is a percentage of the price. So every expense reflected the the store owners price increases will also increase the processing costs, which will increase the price again. Better not to feed into that loop.

Technically, there is some cost resulting from going to the bank, but it pales in comparison with the processing fees of the card company for a small business. Especially retail (as opposed to service), where the price you are selling something for includes the cost of getting the product from a distributor. Your fee includes a "discount rate", often around 2.5%. So, $2000 in sales of goods that cost you $1200 to put on the shelf (I am being conservative, here) will cost you $50 at that rate. Worth a trip to the bank, I think.

Well, except that doing this does not come for free. The credit card companies pay for those points/miles by charging the merchant extra for that card in "processing fees". So in effect, you are taking a discount from the merchant. Now, I wouldn't feel *too* bad about taking that discount from, say, a big box store. They probably have very tailored agreements that minimize the processing fees.

However, when dealing with Mom & Pop, who started taking credit cards as a result of whiny people (not you, just whiny people who are out there) complaining, it can really add up. I'm sure we have all seen that person buying the half and half, or soda, or what have you, and whipping out the card, debit or credit. Yes, sometimes we are caught with no cash. But that should train us to carry it.

I try to pay cash for as much as possible. I try to deal with reputable places that will stand behind their products, of course, so that risks of using the cash are low. I am investing in the shop's maintenance of lower prices, and trying to cut out one of the many potential middle men. I believe that it is a practice to at least consider.

Wow. What have you been *reading*? My best guess is that you had some very "dynamic" professors while going to college. There is no addressing anything you have written, as your theory of a sudden reversal of the parties is so ingrained into your belief system it would take a crisis of faith to shake it.

I could point you to various biographies of the politicians of the time, and platforms adhered to by William Jennings Bryan vs. those of McKinley in the late 1800s to early 1900s, but it won't matter. As much as you decry others as being bigoted, well, you are free to use the public domain quote and turn it right back around.

Actually, they were Republicans, and became unelectable when Democrats in the South used various schemes to prevent such an occurrence. You didn't see any quantity of Black Democrats in office, either.

From Wikipedia:

"State legislatures reduced voting by blacks by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules, amending constitutions to the same ends from 1890–1910, and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation and restrict labor rights, movement and organizing by blacks. The Democratic Party essentially dominated the "Solid South" until the 1960s."

and from the same article:

"During the Great Depression, many black voters switched allegiances from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, in support of the New Deal economic, social network, and work policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration"

The Democratic party has been able, to some extent, to scam a large percentage of the Black electorate into thinking that they are on their side, and that Republicans and Conservatives and the like are bigots. That smoke screen will last only so long, and labeling every Black person who happens to be running as a Republican a stooge or Uncle Tom or what have you will start to backfire.

There is nothing of truth in your half-baked assertions.

Edward G. Walker, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature
Charles L. Mitchell, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature
John Willis Menard, Republican, 1868, Louisiana, U.S. Congressman, denied a seat due to wrangling by racists, neither candidate seated
Hiram Rhoades Revels, Republican, 1870, Mississippi, U.S. Senator
Black delegates Robert B. Elliott, Joseph H. Rainey, and John R. Lynch deliver addresses at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, 1872
John R. Lynch, Republican, 1872, Mississippi, U.S. Congressman
Blanche K. Bruce, Republican, 1874, Mississippi, U.S. Senate
Crystal Bird Fauset, Democrat turned Republican, 1936, Pennsylvania, State Legislature. "In 1944, disappointed by the Democratic Party’s failure to advance civil rights, Fauset switched to the Republican Party", from http://www.blackpast.org/
J.C. Watts, Republican, 1994, Oklahoma, U.S. Congressman

There are actually quite a few others. Start your research here, maybe, and take a breather from Slashdot. Trust me, you aren't adding any value to the conversation anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress

Funny you compare Albuterol with Toradol. Toradol is not safe for extended use. In fact, you aren't supposed to take it for more than about a week at a time. It can cause severe damage to vital organs. Don't get me wrong, it is a miraculous drug. But, like Albuterol, is not a perfect fit in all situations.

Albuterol is actually not as effective as an Epinephrine inhaler when someone is suffering from an Asthma attack. The time period until relief is achieved is much longer, and some people get very little relief from Albuterol. Some cannot cannot actually use Albuterol, and it's side effects can be quite dangerous. Primatene has very few side effects, and few long term risks with normal levels of usage.

Regarding the propellants, the CFC propellant in Primatene is much more effective at delivering the medicine than HFA-based propellants. That is one of the reasons for the delay. Armstrong actually bought the Primatene product from the previous owner just a couple of years ago. But go ahead an oversimplify it as a case of greedy pharmas looking to take advantage of us. Never mind the fact that they bought the line knowing (admittedly) that they had to get a "replacement" up and running quickly. Current estimates are 6 months after the new year to get FDA approval.

Calling their toll free number yields a live person, who will assure asthma sufferers that they plan to have the replacement product as soon as they are allowed to ship it. At the same time, they admit that the new propellant will not be quite as fast. Okay for most, as long as it is not your loved one expiring.

Do you have any data to back up your assertions that my claims are false? As for "hyper" kids, we had plenty. 99% of them grew out of it.

I don't know which state you live in, but in my state, you get enough administrators in the form of principals and assistant principals to give each kid in the district a full day with one of them every year. We have average budgets of over 25K per student per year. And every year, they threaten to cut things like sports, art classes, etc. unless the budget passes. The contingency budget is set to something around 98% of the proposed budget. The Superintendent makes over 200K per year, and the Assistant Super is also 6 figures. They both have "Executive Assistants".

60 years ago, we had local "schoolhouses" in this area, with maybe a few teachers and no "administrators". Some areas had something resembling a modern school. Maybe if you live in a City, then 60 years ago your version of events would approach reality, but for the vast majority of the country, the educational system has grown beyond belief. For all of that growth, basic literacy and math skills have declined.

In fact, it means one shouldn't make sweeping statements about things one does not actually know. Which is exactly why the "3 elements" statement is so ridiculous. It is almost guaranteed (not just possible, but almost guaranteed) to be WRONG. Repeating such silliness on the notion that the little scraps of information we have are sufficient is actually a disservice to science. It leads to a general mistrust of those in the field, and taints the reputation of the work that might actually have some value to it.

Teachers had far fewer resources, and schools had far fewer administrators 60 years ago, but got results at least equal to the results obtained today. They probably got more results. But between the bullcrap bureaucracy and kids being labeled with hundreds of different "learning disabilities" (truly amazing how many kids in my area are "dyslexic" or have "ADHD"), we have young adults entering the workplace who are profoundly stupid. Luckily, they are completely equipped with a social agenda. They know all the "right ways to think". They know nothing about thinking for themselves.

They are the same people who Penn & Teller displayed on their Enironmental Hysteria episode of Bull****. Likewise the episode on diversity education on the modern campus.