While I'm in favor of helping lower income folks get ahead, we all know this money will be completely wasted (just like the rest of the 1.75T).

Half will come off the top for "Administrative costs" for these "local groups". Tony Soprano is licking his chops looking at this bill.

Then, for the remainder, instead of buying inexpensive Chromebooks and Android tablets, they will buy Dell XPS and iPads to reach as few people as possible

Finally, half of those people who actually receive a device will sell it.

If half a billion of my tax money will be spent on this, why can't the feds buy gov't labeled Chromebooks and tablets in bulk (1 model of each). Then, create a website where people can request one (libraries and schools have computers people can use to submit their requests, even though they likely already have phones with internet). Then, the request is checked against their tax returns and shipped to them. Finally, you make it a federal crime to sell one of the gov't branded devices.

Can you please supply your source for this? I believe mRNA vaccines were created in labs for SARS and MERS but I am not sure they were ever used in humans as those outbreaks ended quickly. I could be wrong though.

According to wikipedia:
"Before 2020, no mRNA technology platform (drug or vaccine) had been authorized for use in humans"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#Side_effects_and_risks

If indeed, that is the case, then we can say short term (1 year), side effects seem minimal but we do not know what long term side effects may be.

I'm tired of hearing about corporations not paying enough in taxes.

If you raise taxes on corporations, the people who will ultimately be paying that will be you and me. Corporations do not print money. If we raise their taxes, those costs will simply be passed on to the consumer. The costs that don't get passed on through increased prices will come out of profits - BUT, it is those same consumers who will pay again because they own these companies through stock (which is found in everyone's 401ks and pension plans).

Sure, some stock is held by foreigners and there are many private corporations, but when we are talking about the big boys, the average American is the once who would pay these "corporate" taxes.

One auto channel guy was able to avoid this due to his suspicions and he posted a video about this with some more info including the phishing emails. From what he said, it sounds like the scammers prompted the victims to enter the 2FA code (possibly making it sound as though the scammer's site was sending them a 2FA code, and the victim not closely looking to see that the SMS was from Youtube).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTmLjkDHolE&t=313s

It's an interesting study of how the human brain works - that legislators can tax a typical person on so many things that the person doesn't realize their actual complete tax rate. Income tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, utility tax, tolls, capital gains, etc.... The average person is probably taxed at close to 50% when you add it all up. I'm tired of hearing "tax corporations more". Those increased taxes will simply be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Corporations don't print US currency. Even if the cost were not passed on to the consumer, it will take away from corporate profits. That sounds good in a 10 second sound byte until you use just a tiny portion of your brain to realize that most of these large corporations are public - meaning that lower profits will also hit regular people, since most of us OWN these corporations either in private brokerage accounts or, more likely, in our 401k or pensions accounts. We have a spending problem in the US, not a revenue problem.

Not sure where you are from but for here in the US, here are a ton of sources on this topic which back up AC's post: https://www.motorists.org/issu...

This article fails to deduct from that $4T how much the rest of the world owes the US for all the technology that has come out of us being an industrialized nation. Sure, we could live like people in remote Africa, living off the land with a small carbon footprint, and then there would be probably a billion more people per year dying from diseases that have been cured or rendered treatable, starving from less food grown per acre, dying from dehydration since there would be less clean water technologies, etc. Almost all of this carbon usage was unavoidable if we wanted technology to advance. Even today, while people champion "green" energy, the fact of the matter is, "green" energy is still not even close to being a viable alternative to deliver the energy the world requires. We talk about "green" KILOwatt wind and solar farms in areas that have coal and gas power plants delivering MEGAwatts. One day "green" energy technology will be a viable option, but today it can only replace a small fraction of carbon-heavy power generation.

That is absolutely not true. I have purchased many albums that were released in the 1970s and 1980s after hearing songs on the radio within the last 10 years. Some of those songs I had never heard before (like some deep tracks), and some just grew on me.

This is exactly what I was thinking. I am actually in the market for a device like this but I need 1TB of storage space for my music collection (in FLAC format). Having such a small amount of disk space will ensure this product has no chance of making it - especially at that price point.

Sorry, but even taking those items into consideration, that's an outrageous number.

Is that they will now lower the speed limit. Eventually they'll get it low enough to hit their revenue goals - since that is what automated traffic devices are for anyway.

First, I agree with the other people who replied to your post that small arms can defeat more equipped military forces and that has been shown time and time again.

Second, armed civilians act as a deterrent to tyrannical gov't. Even if the gov't could win that war, the cost would be astronomical in terms of casualties and public perception for the people serving for the gov't side. They are not going to fire missles at their own neighbors. With a disarmed "people", gov't can simply take what they want with limited to no force. Those same forces who wouldn't fire on their own neighbors may be willing to lock them up.

Kind of ironic that you would label me as "dumb" when you can't seem to comprehend my simple response to the parent. I merely corrected what was stated as an incorrect fact. Nowhere did I express my opinion nor state this incident was acceptable. You go on to say "Christie's actions", which at this point is libelous and ignorant. Despite 3 investigations, testimony, thousands of documents and months of time, not a single piece of evidence has shown that he knew or had anything to do with this. There is evidence of 3 people involved, 2 of which worked for Christie and do not anymore (one resigned and one was fired). As for my opinion... I do not find this incident acceptable and if crimes were proven to be committed, the people who committed them should be punished. So far Christie is not one of those people.