Read it again. This time for comprehension.
Read it again. This time for comprehension.
Actually, the cash back comes from the interest payments of other cardholders, especially the ones who use cards irresponsibly and live on credit (and thus rack up huge interest bills). The processing fees go to the networks (VISA, Mastercard, etc.), not the issuing bank.
Do you think they deserve a better post-college shake than the rest of us, simply by virtue of the fact they chose to spend more on said education?
Yes. They invested more time, effort, and money, so they deserve at least the opportunity to have a better return on that investment.
Or, put another way, this is perhaps the only government pension that actually has funds to cover its future expenses. Kind of nice to know, given that most pension funds are grossly underfunded.
Didn't I see that strategy in an episode of JAG.
DH on an ILS is 200' AGL for Cat I, 100' for Cat II. And yes, I am a CFII.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001); text at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=533&page=27. The relevant quote: "We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman, 365 U. S., at 512, constitutes a search--at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use." Scalia, J., writing for the court.
Note also that it was 5-4, so it's not the most solid caselaw around, especially with the strong-government crowd sitting on the court.
I would be tempted to say that if you can't speed anymore, then the device has done its job. Supposedly, speed limits are here for the good of the people.
Now, if only those speed limits were defined in a sensible fashion. How many times have I seen 2x 3 lanes highway limited at 50kph ? (I live in France)
I'm sure in the US there are also those places where the speed limits are just... insanely ridiculous.
So, when it was down to getting caught by the occasional police officer hidden in the bushes, the game was fair. If those automated radars become commonplace, then for the game to remain fair, they *must* revisit speed limits in most places. Because if we have to respect those speed limits *everywhere*, driving is going to become a PITA pretty soon. And nobody will benefit from this.
As you seem to have grasped--but not articulated--speed limits are not for the good of the people, they're for the good of the revenuers.
That was true up until March; it's a little-known "feature" of Obamacare, though, that the gov't no longer backs private student loans--it now issues them directly. That was included to allow the government to reap the profits of student loans and apply them to the enormous costs of the new health care regulations and entitlements.
Government has become the predator, and I would note that the interest rates on my fed.gov loans are almost double the rates I was paying on my Citibank loans.
William Shatner wouldn't have a problem.
Since the thread was already Godwinned in the first post, I'm going to say that the Nazis also did similar things to the mentally and physically disabled.
Now, let's be fair to the Nazis: the US pioneered eugenics long before Hitler ever came to power. See, e.g. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Holmes, J, wrote for the Court:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
Which wouldn't be a problem if wages would increase so that a person could feed himself and his family on the reduced wages.
Alternatively, we could reduce the cost of feeding. Technology, changes to distribution methods, increases in productivity of all kinds have done precisely that:
Americans paid a high price to support this balkanized system for conveying food from farm to table. Food was hugely expensive, relative to wages. The average working-class family in the 1920s devoted one-third of its bud get to groceries, the average farm family even more. Most households spent more to put dinner on the table than for their rent or their mortgage. And for the average house wife, shopping for food consumed a large part of the day. This money, time, and effort bought plenty of calories, but only moderate amounts of nutrition.
According to the interview with the author (which I heard while driving, and cannot find a transcript), the budget fraction for groceries is now somewhere near 5%.
Meanwhile, the standard of living has continued to rise. We talk about our poor, but what do we really mean by "poor?" Consider http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty:
As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.” In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.
Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.
Very few states require any sort of license or permit to acquire a firearm. Pass the instant background check and in most places you can walk out with your purchase right away.
Put differently, you're saying that we shouldn't just give them money, we should also make buying their product mandatory (or at least make buying the alternative impossible).
Count me out.
So it's Hollywood-ready, then.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter S. Thompson