And what about a "well regulated Militia" goes against the definition of "regulation" that I quoted above?
. . . does that work for you ? Because it works for me. No crying babies, chatty teens, or rude patrons playing with their smartphones.
Didn't experience any of that in my last trip to the cinema. But then, that was to see Florence Foster Jenkins, so maybe the problem is the movies you're going to.
This is no longer true, And via eMail or a web browser and cut/paste this was always possible anyway.
Actually, it very much is still true.
This is the current policy as of today (2017-03-30).
There are several browsers that just do that, in the Apple AppStore.
Yeah no, not buying that if you actually believe anyone chooses to be poor. But I'll pretend for a second you aren't lying. If you work hard, but don't have the opportunity to make a better life for yourself, you will still be poor.
Everyone has opportunities if they know where to look—even people barely scraping by on minimum wage. They just have to make the right decisions by the time they reach high school—living with roommates to keep their costs down, waiting to have kids until they can afford them, and saving every penny they can so that they can afford to go to college. Once they've passed that hurdle, it gets somewhat easier, but many never even get to that point, in large part because nobody instilled in them the importance of saving money.
Mind you, the poor don't have the same opportunities, and it is harder for someone starting out poor—particularly if their parents are also poor—but having fewer opportunities is not the same as having no opportunities, which is why I think it's important to spend at least as much effort at educating the poor to take advantage of the opportunities that they do have as we spend on trying to artificially create additional opportunities (which is, at best, a temporary solution that only helps the current generation and must be continuously funded).
And learning money management skills isn't just important for the poor. I've known highly intelligent people working in high tech who are at both extremes—people who spend almost every penny that they earn on getting new cars and computers almost every year, and people who are the polar opposite, never buying a new car because they don't want to lose half their investment in the first year. One of those groups is going to be in a position to retire early, and the other is probably happier right now. On the one hand, you want to retire early enough to enjoy your retirement years. On the other hand, you could die in a car crash the day before retirement and not get to enjoy any of your savings. It's a trade-off.
The important thing is not the particular balance of spending versus saving that any given individual chooses, but rather that the individuals intentionally made the decision after carefully considering the alternatives by looking at the numbers after gaining enough knowledge to understand the ramifications of their decision.
Every dollar that you put into a 401k at age 22 will be worth more than twenty dollars at 65 (statistically). So whether your personal goal is to retire at forty or live a more luxurious life and work until you're 70, whether you plan to have no kids, one kid, or ten kids, it is important to start thinking about financial planning for retirement by the time you take your first job. Unfortunately, many people (both rich and poor) don't do that. The critical difference is that people with high income can mostly get away with burning through most of their income, whereas people with low income can't. And that's why we need to spend more effort on financial education of our young people; education is the great leveler.
They and their children are raised to execute suboptimal reasoning.
I don't think suboptimal reasoning has anything to do with it. For the most part, ignoring people who are poor because of some disability, most poor people are poor because they were not taught good money management skills by their parents, and therefore made bad financial decisions at every possible opportunity by doing what their parents did, with each bad financial decision making things worse for them.
I think that if you presented money management skills to those same kids early on, they would easily be able to handle the actual reasoning required to recognize that those skills are valuable and are a way to avoid being poor long-term. So the real problem is that nobody bothers to give them the facts required to start that reasoning process in the first place, and by the time they realize it, they're deep in debt and their bad habits are so ingrained that it is hard to change them.
We haven't had true home economics classes in high school since my parents were kids, and it shows. We need to bring that back. However, even if we do bring that back, it still isn't enough. IMO, money management skills need to be taught in school starting in first grade when kids learn how to count currency. That way, kids who don't learn those skills from their parents still stand a fighting chance. All it takes is one teacher to change a child's future.
Does your mother know what kind of woman-hating monster you are? I'm going to assume you don't have a wife or a girlfriend, because you couldn't hide your hatred that well for any length of time, but you know, moms can overlook the fact that you're a hate-filled worm.
You mean, an actual human life versus a fetus that may or may not end up as a human being.
And further to that, that isn't the only place "regulate" even appears in the Constitution, with the clear intent that the enumerated powers were meant to be *governing* powers. In fact, the word appears FIFTEEN times in the Constitution, and each and every instance indicates that "regulate" is being used exactly in the definition I gave.
Even your example is absurd, since it's pretty clear a "voltage regulator" is meant to "control" voltage, in other words govern it. It is exactly the same usage.
Right, why should men have to subsidize maternity care? Why should women have to subsidize prostate exams? hint: that's how insurance pools work.
So, the pool of people who are planning to have kids should pay for itself. There are millions of them. The pool of people who are biologically incapable of having kids are at zero risk of incurring that cost, and shouldn't pay for the risk of an occurrence that cannot happen. Women who cannot have children are not in the pool of women who will experience the cost giving birth. Are you foggy on that, somehow?
Sounds like you should have just gone with the "no coverage" option.
But you've just been explaining to me how affordable and reasonable and good it all is. Why the change of heart?
JEsus, just how far do you want to take this argument. The fact is that "regulate" was used in governing parlance over a century and a half BEFORE the Constitution was written, and clearly the Founding Fathers, being reasonably well-versed in the English governing system were using "regulate" in exactly that sense. In fact, "voltage" as a word didn't exist until the very tale end of the 18th century or the early 19th century.
I love how the so-called "Constitutional purists" will in fact try to redefine the Framers' intentions with the most obviously moronic arguments.
Where the Constitution says "regulate", it means to control and govern, to create laws, to, well, REGULATE. Jesus Christ.
Well, financially speaking bankruptcy doesn't happen because you don't make profit. It happens because you run out of cash flow to meet your current obligations.
Had Westinghouse back in the 90s gone all-in on a fuel cycle it had no practical experience with, it would be pretty much where it is today: building the first power plants of a new design, after a multi-decade hiatus in commissioning nuclear power plants. Either way it's a recipe for construction delays, which equal cost overruns without corresponding new revenue, which equals bankruptcy.
The only way to get a large-scale nuclear power plant business off the ground is to have vast quantities of cash on hand, which businesses don't like to do because keeping cash relatively idle costs money too.
You can write a small letter to Grandma in the filename. -- Forbes Burkowski, CS, University of Washington