IIRC, the standard deduction this year was $6900 for single payers. Pretty easy to top that via mortgage interest.

Fellow MD resident?

Looks like the rest of your comment was truncated. Let me help:

"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. "

"Then candidate Bush referred to this as what? Something d-o-o economics. Anyone? Anyone?"

It was actually wishful thinking rather than faith. I've seen the same things you describe. I've also seen where things like this are swept under the rug forever. Then, the root cause analysis comes back and people flip shit because nothing was done about it in the past. Well, nothing other than ignore the recomendations of us morlocks...

Just like a malicious client can suck data out of a vulnerable server, the same can work in reverse, though clients tend not to keep an SSL connection open any longer than they need to (unless, it's IMAPS or FTPS or chat or some other application with persistent connections).

If you suck the private key out of a bank webserver's RAM, then perform a MITM attack on the bank users using the bank's own certificate, not only can you get their bank credentials (by them filling in the form and sending it to you), depending on the browser you may or may not be able to suck up other accounts from them (eg user logs into a credit card company site to see their bill, then logs into your fake bank to see if they can pay it).

And the next day, he finds a pink slip waiting for him.

I'm not sure where, in this thread, I have asserted any positive allegiance on your end. It's possible that I've done that elsewhere, I suppose, but I'm afraid I don't recall where.

I think the austerity is happening, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Note the smaller portions at restaurants.

This is slashdot. Nobody is ever required to do anything at all here.

I'm just kind of chuckling here at "I am simply pointing to the sign that says 'bridge out'" followed by "crowd who believe they have no alternative".

At a sufficiently high level of abstraction, you're akin to Sri Mick Jagger, belting out "I can't get no satisfaction". Shall we read your double negative literally, and deem you satisfied, or take the spirit of the lyric, and deem you still seeking the satisfaction? This many decades on, did the seeking, itself, become a destination, affording some meta-satisfaction?
Trying to serve it humorously, sir, but I find you a crapflooder, albeit less tedious than ram_degistrars.

Sure, it's a wikipedia link, but it's trivial to verify.

The underlying offense is the same. The law is written to play legalistic games.

These arguments are not "reasonable". I can't find an "reason" based arguments to venture beyond heterosexuality. Political arguments are not infrequently based upon stoking envy along sexual, racial, historical, and material lines.
Politicians demagogue, and low-information voters vacuum it up.

I don't dispute that this is an issue, but if we think in terms of seller/marketplace/buyer, I want to know what we're doing to ensure adequate numbers of sellers. That is, WTF competition?