Only the dishonest call it the estate tax. Just like every other attempt the government uses to obfuscate, the name "estate tax" does not imply it's effect. Instead, it makes it sound benign.....which it is most definitely not. It's really rather simple: since all of the money and assets in one's estate has been taxed during one's lifetime, it is immoral to tax it again upon their death.

That is why it should be called the Death Tax. It is triggered upon one's death and for no other criteria. The death tax is unlike every other kind of tax we have which normally tax transactions (income, capital gain realization, use tax, etc). Literally, the only way it comes into play is if you die -- which everyone does.

What could possibly go wrong?
As opposed to what is wrong with the system we have now?
Good try at diversion. Who cares what we used to have. We all know it was broken. Go ahead and pretend the government has your best interests in mind while it determines what healthcare you receive. I am sure nothing will go wrong with that arrangement and conflict of interest.

You are right they are banning soft drinks. However that was at the city government level (NYC). Riddle me this: what do you think would have happened if that was at the Federal Government level? Are you seriously arguing that the government is going to take a hands off approach and let you live your life the way you want to? Not when they are paying the tab. As long as they pay the tab, they have a vested interest in making you act more healthy and I assure you they will abuse that power just as they have abused every other power we've ever given them.

Not yet so rest easy young comrade. Your time will come too....

Ok, I stand corrected. I had the terminology exactly backwards. Thank you for the corrections.

Ok, so the OP should have stated Class 3 firearms instead of "assault weapons". Had he said that I would not have replied. Vocabulary matters. Class 3 is not the same thing as an "assault weapon/rifle".

Instead, he said we had to have an FFL and pay annual fee to own an assault rifle. That simply isn't true.....unless the assault rifle is a Class 3 weapon. However, most assault rifles are not Class 3 weapons so OPs statement is demonstrably false.

Single payer would suck. I hope we never get there. Sadly, there are people who don't understand why it's a "bad idea" to depend on the government for your healthcare.

If you "give" healthcare to the government to mange, the government absolutely will abuse it's power. Since medical care is so critical, the government will use that to force you to behave a certain way. Today we ban softdrinks. Tomorrow, you get fined for being fat (or doing whatever unhealthy habit "they" don't want you to do).

What could possibly go wrong? Am I the only person in the world who sees this naked power grab? Jesus.....once they get control of your medicine, "they" can make you do whatever "they" want. Seems rather obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than 5 seconds.

What the fuck difference does it make what kind of fraud it is? Fraud is fraud. Either way the taxpayers get screwed.

And it's not just dirty "private corporations" ripping off Medicare. It's all kinds of people and entities but good try at making it about "evil corporations".

Ohhh, can't wait. If this last round is any indication, we'll be in for an even bigger letdown for single payer.

Seriously, the apologists are unbelievable. "We'll get it right next time. Promise!". How about you guys get one right before we trust you with more stuff?

No, "assault rifles" are not perfectly legal, unless you have an FFL and pay the annual fee. .
Bzzzzzt. Wrong. They are perfectly legal and you have no idea what you are talking about. I have many and I don't pay a fee or have an FFL.

The only rifles that are restricted to own are automatic rifles. ie: machine guns. But those have been restricted for a long time. Outside of that, there are no other restrictions to buy, own, posses, shoot, or sell an "assault" rifle/weapon (no difference). That law expired and good riddance.

The reason is was a stupid law is simple: the only thing that makes a rifle an "assault" rifle instead of a regular rifle is aesthetic characteristics like a bayonet holder, hand carrier, short barrel, etc. Basically: all the shit that doesn't matter for a gun. Outside of that criteria, they all work the same. The have long barrels. They fire bullets of many calibers. They are semi-automatic. They have scopes. Etc, etc, etc.

What the hell does "outed an assault rifle owner" mean? Last I checked, assault rifles are perfectly legal so what would be the point of outing an owner?

Oh that's right....I forgot: sensationalism.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Unfortunately, the balance of power is completely in the hands of the reporter. You don't know anything about the reporter's ethics until it's too late.

Which brings to mind one of my favorite cliches: Don't ever get into an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel.

We don't have a culture that encourages that behavior. Imagine.....what would have happened if the FBI admitted it fucked up and checked the wrong box?

I'll tell you what would happen if they said that: all hell would break loose. We'd have claims of racism, we'd have claims of misogyny, we'd have everyone and their cousin claiming to be a similar victim regardless of the merits of the claims.

The reason people don't say "sorry, I fucked up" is because "sorry" is not an acceptable answer in our society. All it seems to do is admit guilt which is inevitably followed by lawsuits. Why bother with an apology when the end result will be the same? Better to just ignore it until it becomes unignorable and only then will they respond.

Whether it's govt or "big business" the result is the same. They don't say "sorry, we fucked up" because they damn well know that won't be the last word. They also know, legally, that giving an apology is the equivalent of admitting guilt.

If society accepted apologies, we'd see a lot more of them. Unfortunately, that's not how our over-litigious world works.

I suspect many who rail against this kind of graft and corruption are fine with giving the government and it's agencies more power to regulate and 'insure a fair marketplace'. However, the more rules and laws that are passed, the more they can be (ab)used to advantage or disadvantage someone else or some other company. I am constantly surprised at how many people here on /. do not make this connection.

We beg and beg for more regulation about X. Once it's in place, you complain because companies try to influence the process? Well, surprise surprise.....when you regulate people or companies, they usually want to participate in the process. If, during that process, they can disadvantage the other guy......why not do that? That's common sense, completely expected, and has been going on as long as the world has been going around.

That Slashdot finds this surprising says more about slashdot than it does the companies.

Maybe this will work better:
1. Establish law(s) affecting companies
2. Act surprised when companies want to participate in the lawmaking
3. ????
4. Profit

1/3 of the country is not on food stamps because they are hungry. Hunger has nothing to do with it. Ask yourself: how can a country have 1/3 of it's population hungry and still have an obesity epidemic within that very population?

Something's rotten in Gotham....

Point in case, the people surfing the web using telnet to port 80 are going to be very pissed.

I bet all 8 of those people could learn a workaround.
C'mon....are we really worried about a use case for telnet websurfing?