If you had actually checked up on Ann Romney, you would have found out that they had their first child living in a $75 / month apartment while Mitt was finishing up college. Hardly the "million dollar mansion" you suggest. And what has she been doing for the last decade? Fighting cancer and multiple sclerosis.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Guess you never heard of insurance deductibles.
I would send you our justices (who went the other way and made camera enforcement illegal) but we still need 'em.
There is no point where speeding only a little or for a purpose is legal.
In Minnesota, speeding by up to 10 mph over the limit is legal while passing.
Without getting into the merits of the 2nd Amendment, let me just point out that no major politician (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) has proposed to "severely curtail or outright ban" your right to bear arms.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
But what if they're fighting for the North?
Of course they're fighting for the north if they word it that way. Someone fighting for the south would say "enjoys reenacting the War of Northern Aggression"...
Agreed again, but note that the bill passed the Senate 86-13 and it passed the House 283-136, both of which are over the 2/3rds threshold for overriding a Presidential veto. Therefore a veto would not have been likely to prevent the bill from becoming law; it would simply have given Republicans a fresh club to beat the President with ("vetoed critical funding for Our Troops", "soft on terrorism", yada yada).
Then let them override the veto.
The reason iOS devices don't need anti-malware solutions is because all of the programs that run on that platform are from a secure and curated Apple App Store.
You know, we can make all computer systems secure by forcing people to only get software that has been screened by the government. And we can eliminate all sources of terrorist communication by forcing all telephone calls, email, letters, etc, to go through government "approval" censors. And we can eliminate fraud in the banking system by only allowing transactions that are pre-approved by the government. And we can improve car safety by only allowing people to buy cars supplied by the government.
And I wouldn't want to live in that world.
But Mendel never cross bred a pea with a firefly.
It's one thing to breed plants and mess with pollen and steer nature in a direction; it's another to start messing with genes and DNA and putting things in them that is impossible to happen in nature.
Viruses manage to inject DNA originally from one species into another all the time. It's thought that about 8% of human DNA has been injected into our systems from foreign by historical viral outbreaks, and then passed on to children. It's one of the ways our immune system passes on immunity.
I like you say "the old and the poor" are not the largest share, then proceed to "prove" it by showing a chart that leaves nearly all of "the old and the poor" spending off and conclude that something else is the majority of spending. Look at the total budget, including entitlements (which are left off your chart), and you'll see that defense is like 18% of the budget, and "the old and the poor" are about 38% of the budget. Add in servicing the public debt to the latter figure (because servicing the public debt is largely servicing the "Social Security Trust Fund") and you're talking about over half the federal budget.
Did you take into account the various credits and deductions? My daughter earned about $6k last year working part time. She had a total of about $100 taken out through the year for federal income tax (plus SS and FICA). She got a refund at the end of the year of nearly $700 - yes, she got refunded more than she paid in, due mostly to the EIC and other credits.
I thought it was fairly well known that approximately 47% of US families pay no - that's 0, zippo, nothing - in Federal income tax. Per the IRS.
The Republicans couldn't have timed it better. Pillage the economy, let it fail just before the Democrats take office, and two years later when the Dems have halted and begun reversal of the worst economic disaster of all time, the Republicans come in, blaming the Democrats.
Err, the Democrats took over *4* years ago, not 2. They had complete control of the legislature (and hence the budget process) in 2006, only adding the executive in 2008.
Walmart prices are not dependent on insurance - they charge $4 per 30 day supply whether or not you're insured. Most insurance coverage has a higher copay for prescriptions than $4 anyway, so insurance won't ever kick in.
For you maybe. People in my pay range ($70-95K) are looking at Federal tax increases of over $2,000. Might be chump change to you, but not to me.
Thyroid medicine at Walmart or Walgreens - $4 for a 30 day supply. This is also true of MANY common medications, including nearly all that are commonly prescribed for diabetes, hypo/hyperthyroidism, high blood pressure, etc.