Does the average worker have a retirement investment account? I was under the impression that people saving for retirement were in the minority. Even if you are saving for retirement you have to ask your self which is more important to you, a bit larger of a retirement balance or the proposed benefits from more taxes being collected? My wife and I discuss a variation on this every once in awhile. I would like to save a bit more, she would like to spend more making the house prettier.
My Mother in Law has commented on breastfeeding an infant, while behind the wheel, driving cross country, without wearing seatbelts. That was back in the late 60's early 70's I guess. I wouldn't even consider removing my child from their safety seat while a vehicle isn't parked these days. Of course some of her children were sent home from the hospital in a cardboard box that she was just supposed to put on the floorboards, different times for sure.
My younger brother used to never wear his seatbelt, arguing that he'd rather be thrown clear of an accident than be trapping in a rolling and or crushed vehicle. I had tried to tell him that the odds of that weren't good, even if he ended up out of the vehicle he'd likely get crushed. It all fell on deaf ears.
Then one day a high school buddy of his was in an accident while not wearing his seatbelt. He was thrown halfway out of the pickup truck when the truck rolled over and cut him in half. His friend died almost immediately of course and my brother now religously wears his seatbelt.
I seem to remember a study showing that pornography reduced sexual assaults and such.
Not accurate at all.
The prosecutor decided that the 137 shots fired by the officers in the dozens of patrol cars involved in the chase were perfectly legal. What the prosecutor didn't think was reasonable was the officer who jumped up on the hood of the car, after the 137 shots had been fired, and unloaded another 15 rounds into the two unarmed people in the car.
I agree with the prosecutor that what that officer did was unreasonable. But I disagree with the previous 137 shots being reasonable, at least given what information I've read so far.
Apparently a quorum requires 51 senators be present. They had enough to get 57 votes already so presumably they have enough to have a quorum. However it isn't help up on that point, they have to vote for cloture which requires 60 votes. They were short 3 votes, so if over this next week they can pickup those 3 they could do it on the sly. However at that point they wouldn't need to do it on the sly anyways. Here's to hoping that all the opposing senators hold their ground.
They already tried that to some extent. McConnell tried to get a 1 day extension through and got shutdown. They've got one more day to try it again, the 31st, when they come back from their weeklong holiday.
I'm wondering though if it isn't possible for the senators that want it passed to come back early and sneak it through before the senate is supposed to reconvene. I don't really know enough about procedural rules and whatnot to know if that is even possible.
What it means is that the two dominant parties now refuse to have anything to do with debates that will include third parties if they can possibly help it. The last time a third party was allowed to seriously participate in big debates was when Ross Perot ran. The Republicans blamed him for their lose in the presidential election that year and since then no third party candidates get to be in the big debates.
I'm in a small city, 350K or so, and in theory there are 4 providers. However when you actually call and start discussing exactly what you want and when they can install, you find that only two serve your street. I'm pretty sure the only reason I can pick from 2 is that one is the phone company and the other is an actual cable company.
Meh, ever since the civil war it could easily be argued that the Fed can do whatever they like. In legal theory the union is made up of individual states that grant is specific rights. This should mean that member states are empowered to leave the union if they so desire. We all know how that turned out.
You could also argue that in the same way that states join together to make the union and grant the Fed powers, small localities join together to make a state and grant such state government powers. It would stand to reason that the individual localities should be able to tell the state to shove off.
"The difference between them is basically the seized quantity of the illicit substance. Both are prosecuted. Often."
In some jurisdiction quantity isn't a factor if it's a second arrest for the same charge. For instance in my state a second arrest for possesion of marijuana, regardless of quantity is automatically elevated to "with intent to distribute".
ASCII art perhaps?
The only time I've ever botted in a game was SWG. I wanted to level up some crafting professions. The only way to earn the relevant xp was to craft thousands of items, which had little to no value to anyone in the scheme of things. The crafting system involved a series of windows with recipes to be selected, materials to select, various options and finally finish the crafting resulting in a finished item. I figured out that you could actually use the ingame macro system to perform all of the actions in a perpetual loop, except the selecting of materials, which required some double mouse clicks. So I spent some time doing nothing but selecting crafting materials with the mouse while the running in game macro did everything else as rapidly as it could. But I realized I was looking at doing that and nothing else for something like 5 or 6 hours straight. So I found a mouse macro utility that would interface with the OS mouse drivers and feed it the appropriate mouse actions to move the cursor back and forth double clicking at the appropriate times. Then I sat down and read a book while it did the grind for me.
It was honestly a very silly system, the only significant barrier to maxing out those professions was the speed at which the interface reacted and your ability to double click rapidly in the same spot(s) for a very long time.
I don't know about completely striping reproductive rights, but I wouldn't object to everyone, rich or poor, having to procure a procreation license. Say each person is allowed up to one license provided they can be proved by some objective measure to be a competent future parent. Your right to a license may be bought and sold so that people who want more children and are capable of supporting them may do so provided they can find others willing to not have more children. Although honestly it sounds like a lot of central planning and I think that's been proved to be sufficiently complex enough that we're unlikely to ever accomplish it in a satisfactory manner.
There are two issues that exacerbate the problem of wealth inequality.
1. Very wealthy people even if they spend money on waste that doesn't improve productivity still likely earn more money from their wealth, than they can readily waste. For them to actually start losing significant chunks of their wealth requires very long chains of poor decisions.
2. Poor people are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Yes, they can accumulate and build significant wealth if they are dedicated to it and leverage their productivity in ideal ways over the course of a lifetime. However a single poor decision or misfortune can set them back decades.
In the end I would argue that rich people are frequently rich because of good fortune whether stumbling on a new product at the perfect time or being born into wealth. Rich people stay rich because out society is structured in such a way that their wealth affords them every advantage and insulates them from their own bad decisions, while the poor have little to no advantage and can be crippled financially for years by singular poor decisions. Can we change our economic or social structure to even things out a little or at least narrow the gaps? I believe we can, and I think living wages are a good place to start although gauraunteed basic income sounds more ideal to me.