Lurker > robbobmur

Flight :Vegas 1900 miles

Drive: Va. Beach VA. , Cooperstown NY , and Ocean City Maryland - all around 700 miles

Love coke icees.

Occasionally a Mt. Dew one in the summer.

A little grocery store in Upland , Indiana had a orange/vanilla slushy that was tasty. But they rotate the flavors in their machine, and haven't had it in awhile.

I did like the vanilla/orange coke they had a few years ago, if I chilled it in the freezer for about an hour.
If it was merely cool , the orange would be very tart, and you couldn't taste the vanilla.
But as it started to freeze and become a little slushy, the combined flavors tasted perfect together.

Two that come to mind:

1)
Wolverine's Rude Awakening Extreme from X-Men Legends 2.

Its opening level of 10% of your max health restored usually means you'll be immediately killed again shortly after resurrection.

It doesn't work if you die falling off a cliff.

They should have made it a passive skill that would in effect as long as there was at least one other character active in the team.

2)
Many of the weapons from Deus Ex :Human Revolution are only useful in certain circumstances that you're not going to know where the ideal situation is on a first playthrough.

The crossbow and rocket launcher are great in specific locations, and the lack of ammo for the powerful grenade launcher makes it practically useless.

We used to have ham and all the traditional Thanksgiving and Xmas fare, but the last several years we switched up and have Mexican Fiesta.

adjl posted...

Did you really just compare the mass imprisonment of thousands of innocent people to "maybe billionaires don't need to be quite so billionairey"?

No, I was quite clear, why are you misinterpreting what I said?

Just because the majority say so , doesn't mean a policy is moral , fair , or just.

There are countless examples in human history of those in power abusing the powerless simply because the "state" dictated it was legal.

I'm hesitant to give an entity that already misuses the wealth of this country, more control of the wealth.

Lokarin posted...

By alleviating tax burdens on the poorest, such as infrastructure and public services.

People on the bottom do not have investment capital - I mean, around 97% of my spending is just on not dying, but I only make about $19k a year.

Right , they don't or can't use funds for wealth creation.

If you want them to do so , you'll need a better plan than just take away the wealth from others so there isn't as big of a disparity.

Democratically choosing to tax the rich more is a democratic action, y'know, from da people.

So was slavery , or Japanese internment during WW2, or any other transgression committed by the government of da people.

Just because it's legal by democratic vote ; doesn't mean it's moral, fair , or just.

Blue_Thunder posted...

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12
https://wir2022.wid.world/

And how does taxing the wealthy more , create wealth at the bottom?

Are you advocating taking over the decision making of the poor's spending habits to ensure they create their own wealth?

What policy change is going to get the poor to invest in and practice wealth creating actions instead of spending their funds on necessities and luxuries?

And if the government is full of the wealthy and has shown they're corrupted by the wealthy, why would you want that entity to have more control over the wealth?

Lokarin posted...

suggests to me that a much larger tax burden was a result of federal income tax, something that disproportionately affects poor people

The lowest earners pay no federal income tax at the end of the tax year , with the standard deduction and EIC they actually get more than they pay in.

Well , it was nice of you to provide numbers to back up your point.

So, here's a few to mull over.

Under Reagan , the economy set a new record for consecutive monthly growth, which was broken during the Clinton administration.

So, let's compare their administrations.

Taking the year after their inauguration and ending with the year they left office.

Comparing 82 to 89 under the Reagan administration:
Federal individual income tax revenues increased 49.7%
Corporate income tax revenues increased 110%
Payroll tax revenues increased 78.4%

Comparing 94 to 2001 under the Clinton administration:
Federal income tax revenues increased 83%
Corporate income tax revenues increased 7.5%
Payroll tax revenues increased 50.4%

Now , there was an pronounced unusual drop in corporate revenue from 2000 to 2001.
Using the 2000 number , the increase would come in at 47.6% , still less than half of Reagan's increase.

nuggetg posted...

You mean the "Moon landing".

Yes, 1969, " one small step for man , one giant leap for mankind."

The moon landing.

Moon landing.