Imminent, darn it!Are you saying circle jerks aren't honorable?
Eminent means 'honorable'. Which is probably not what you meant. :p
Oh Klaus....
I DISAGREE
*drives off*
IMO, one of the biggest problems with pretty much all (political) media is that the viewers/readers reward them for painting with the broadest possible brush in the ugliest possible colors.
there are loons in both parties. need we bring up ACORN? while i'm not marching on washington, i am genuinally pissed about this. the government has NO right to mandate that i carry health insurance. it does NOT have a responsibility to provide health care to everyone. some of the insurance policy reforms sound great, and i can't disagree with them from a humanitarian standpoint, but economically they just don't work. accepting people with (certian) pre-existing conditions means they are now forced to pay extreme medical bills and recieve essentially nothing. where do you think that money comes from? the real solution would be to get a handle on rediculous healthcare costs at the base and make the racket that is medical insurance irellevant.
There are no sane teabaggers. Maybe Fox should stop giving them airtime.
Which is why i'm personally (mark my ****ing words) going to knock on the doors of every registered Democrat in eastern Nebraska come election day.
Which is why i'm personally (mark my ****ing words) going to knock on the doors of every registered Democrat in eastern Nebraska come election day.
all 14 of them? sounds like a lot of driving :-P
the real solution would be to get a handle on rediculous healthcare costs at the base and make the racket that is medical insurance irellevant.
Also, let's talk about auto insurance. Coverage is mandated on auto insurance yes, but auto insurance is only needed in case of something like an accident. Imagine if auto insurance paid for routine maintenance such as oil changes and tire rotations. Do you think more people would get oil changes and tire rotations more often? Yes, they probably would, simply because someone else would be paying for it and the true costs would be hidden.
Routine maintenance on a car isn't comparable to the cost of medical care for a human. My personal routine medical care easily costs several thousand dollars per year.
Here's the options: the government makes sure I get health insurance I can afford, and I absorb some of the costs of my health care myself, or the government picks up the whole tab when I inevitably land in the emergency room repeatedly.
But it wouldn't cause the rate of automotive incidents to drop dramatically. Most people take care of their cars just fine without the need for insurance to cover routine maintenance.
That's like saying the CIA teamed up with Castro to pay the mafia to kill Kennedy.
Scientists have said again and again that more preventative care is the best way to save money health-wise.
Routine maintenance on a car isn't comparable to the cost of medical care for a human. My personal routine medical care easily costs several thousand dollars per year.
Here's the options: the government makes sure I get health insurance I can afford, and I absorb some of the costs of my health care myself, or the government picks up the whole tab when I inevitably land in the emergency room repeatedly.
Here's the rub. I don't want the Government to that for me, or much of anything else, it's not their place. Their only place in my life is to exercise and pursue the constitutionally mandated powers and objectives. Anything that is not those very specific and exact provisions
Healthcare is over-priced because everyone uses insurance to pay for it, hiding the actual costs of that health care so they don't see them and don't care how much it costs because they only ever pay $20 or $40 or whatever, not because there's some vast conspiracy between ALL the insurance companies and teh ebil republcans to drive up prices.
In 2007, the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person, up from $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per capita, the previous year.[37] Spending in 2006 represented 16% of GDP, an increase of 6.7% over 2004 spending. Growth in spending is projected to average 6.7% annually over the period 2007 through 2017. A recently released report on the latest figures showed that the US spent $2.5 trillion, $8,047 per person, on health care in 2009 and that this amount represented 17.3% of the economy, up from 16.2% in 2008.[38] Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and medical causes were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.[39]
Here's the rub. I don't want the Government to that for me, or much of anything else, it's not their place.
That's a fallacious argument on the face of it. No emergency room in the United States is going to turn away someone who is choking on blood or anything else. AFAIK, they never have and never will, it goes against a little thing called the Hippocratic Oath.
EMTALA was passed to combat the practice of "patient dumping", i.e., refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance, or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual with a medical emergency "comes to the emergency department," regardless of whether the condition is visible to others, or is simply stated by the patient with no external evidence.
I'll say it, I don't think they should have to.... I am so disgusted right after reading that I feel physically ill. I cannot fathom that level of greed, selfishness, and complete disregard of your fellow human beings. Have you no shame at all?
if you can't afford treatment you are just making it harder for the people who can.
I'll say it, I don't think they should have to.this whole healthcare mess is a reason I am damn glad to be canadian, where I don't have to worry about going broke because i have, say, cancer.
if you can't afford treatment you are just making it harder for the people who can.
I'll say it, I don't think they should have to.
if you can't afford treatment you are just making it harder for the people who can.
I'm poor and have no insurance feel as il as you want
They're the government. That's what they're for...BlackWolf, in the USA, The Tenth Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html) would disagree with you.
Most conservatives just avoid the question./me coughs
They're the government. That's what they're for...BlackWolf, in the USA, The Tenth Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html) would disagree with you.
The Preamble has no binding legal force and is little more than a summary for the document that follows. This is basic civics stuff people.
The Preamble has no binding legal force and is little more than a summary for the document that follows. This is basic civics stuff people.
Well, frankly I understand her incredulity, given that the government has for a very long time possessed a lot of powers not strictly granted to it in the Constitution.And you are okay with the government having all those powers not granted to it by the Constitution? Are you saying that just because it has been happening for a while, it is okay?
But this is clearly not some kind of exclusively liberal problem, because the Bush administration took major steps to expand government power and reinterpret the Constitution as a 'living document'.
Well, frankly I understand her incredulity, given that the government has for a very long time possessed a lot of powers not strictly granted to it in the Constitution.And you are okay with the government having all those powers not granted to it by the Constitution? Are you saying that just because it has been happening for a while, it is okay?
But this is clearly not some kind of exclusively liberal problem, because the Bush administration took major steps to expand government power and reinterpret the Constitution as a 'living document'.
And yes, the Bush administration did this as well. Do you think I am any happier about that?
Well, frankly I understand her incredulity, given that the government has for a very long time possessed a lot of powers not strictly granted to it in the Constitution.And you are okay with the government having all those powers not granted to it by the Constitution? Are you saying that just because it has been happening for a while, it is okay?
But this is clearly not some kind of exclusively liberal problem, because the Bush administration took major steps to expand government power and reinterpret the Constitution as a 'living document'.
And yes, the Bush administration did this as well. Do you think I am any happier about that?
Well, frankly I understand her incredulityI may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits. In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.
Well, frankly I understand her incredulityI may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits. In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.
Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions. Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.
Well, frankly I understand her incredulityI may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits. In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.
Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions. Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.
No document supersedes the Constitution in determining governmental powers.Well, frankly I understand her incredulityI may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits. In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.
Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions. Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.
My statement meant that I understood what she was thinking when she responded with incredulity; as Blue Lion said, the government has had vast power assigned to it through documents more recent than the Constitution. Members of the government from both parties are accustomed to this, since the government routinely makes policies in areas not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.
It did not reflect anything about my own opinion of this matter.
I'm slightly pissed that you feel the need to assign an opinion to me and then attack me about it. I try to understand people whether or not I agree with them, and that includes Pelosi.
This is one of the reasons I dislike GenDisc. Even a carefully neutral statement will end up being taken as a cause for argument.
No document supersedes the Constitution in determining governmental powers.Well, frankly I understand her incredulityI may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits. In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.
Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions. Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.
My statement meant that I understood what she was thinking when she responded with incredulity; as Blue Lion said, the government has had vast power assigned to it through documents more recent than the Constitution. Members of the government from both parties are accustomed to this, since the government routinely makes policies in areas not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.
It did not reflect anything about my own opinion of this matter.
I'm slightly pissed that you feel the need to assign an opinion to me and then attack me about it. I try to understand people whether or not I agree with them, and that includes Pelosi.
This is one of the reasons I dislike GenDisc. Even a carefully neutral statement will end up being taken as a cause for argument.
No document supersedes the Constitution in determining governmental powers.Well, frankly I understand her incredulityI may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits. In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.
Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions. Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.
My statement meant that I understood what she was thinking when she responded with incredulity; as Blue Lion said, the government has had vast power assigned to it through documents more recent than the Constitution. Members of the government from both parties are accustomed to this, since the government routinely makes policies in areas not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.
It did not reflect anything about my own opinion of this matter.
I'm slightly pissed that you feel the need to assign an opinion to me and then attack me about it. I try to understand people whether or not I agree with them, and that includes Pelosi.
This is one of the reasons I dislike GenDisc. Even a carefully neutral statement will end up being taken as a cause for argument.
I'm poor and have no insurance feel as il as you want
bull**** hippie good time banana rock-and-roll programsHow is it that you always make my own ideologies sound way more fun than they are to me? That sounds like a music festival that makes Bonnaroo look like my senior prom.
The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country already, and you wanna milk them for more?
If you push much more, they're gonna leave and take their toys with them.
And they've been paying for your bull**** hippie good time banana rock-and-roll programs for longer than that. The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country alreadyYou are so caught (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States), and complete with references too.
The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country already
And they've been paying for your bull**** hippie good time banana rock-and-roll programs for longer than that. The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country already, and you wanna milk them for more? If you push much more, they're gonna leave and take their toys with them. Because as you've pointed out over and over, they have the means to do so. Then who are you going to milk for the money to run your "good intentions"?
If you push much more, they're gonna leave and take their toys with them.
And they've been paying for your bull**** hippie good time banana rock-and-roll programs for longer than that. The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country already, and you wanna milk them for more? If you push much more, they're gonna leave and take their toys with them. Because as you've pointed out over and over, they have the means to do so. Then who are you going to milk for the money to run your "good intentions"?
I'd like to remind thread participants of one thing that does not go away: not treating fatal diseases causes patients to become disease vectors in some illnesses. Which may allow evolution of even more resistant forms.
Which means that to have no antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, we have to do away with antibiotics altogether.I'd like to remind thread participants of one thing that does not go away: not treating fatal diseases causes patients to become disease vectors in some illnesses. Which may allow evolution of even more resistant forms.
actually treating them causes the resistant strains, if no one was treated there would be nothing for them to become resistant to.
That would actually be a great system and hopefully it will some day happen.
Of course, in our current system, it's likely to be a corporate therapy developed by a biotech start-up, available only to the ultra-wealthy at first - thus allowing them to not only control most of the nation's wealth, but to live forever.
Funny, Wikipedia has the U.S. maximum corporate tax rate at 39% federal with state corporate tax rates as high as 12%. UK's maximum is 28%, Sweden's is a flat percentage set at 26.3%, Ireland is at 12.5%, and it says China's is at 25%, but that lacks a citation. Even Venezuela and Bolivia have lower corporate tax rates with the maximums at 34% and 25% respectively.And they've been paying for your bull**** hippie good time banana rock-and-roll programs for longer than that. The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country already, and you wanna milk them for more? If you push much more, they're gonna leave and take their toys with them. Because as you've pointed out over and over, they have the means to do so. Then who are you going to milk for the money to run your "good intentions"?
The top 2% controls 80% of the wealth of the United States. They aren't leaving anytime soon.
The United States also has one of the lowest corporate tax burdens in the world.
Funny, Wikipedia has the U.S. maximum corporate tax rate at 39% federal with state corporate tax rates as high as 12%. UK's maximum is 28%, Sweden's is a flat percentage set at 26.3%, Ireland is at 12.5%, and it says China's is at 25%, but that lacks a citation. Even Venezuela and Bolivia have lower corporate tax rates with the maximums at 34% and 25% respectively.
Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world)
On that list only Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Saudi Arabia, and Syria have higher maximum corporate tax rates than the United States.
That would actually be a great system and hopefully it will some day happen.
Of course, in our current system, it's likely to be a corporate therapy developed by a biotech start-up, available only to the ultra-wealthy at first - thus allowing them to not only control most of the nation's wealth, but to live forever.
Tleilaxu, anyone? =)
A cookie to the first person that gets the reference WITHOUT looking it up.
I have the ultimate solution for health care and the Government can pay for it!
Nanobots.
Develop a series of nanobots that float serenely in our bloodstreams until an infection hits and then they move to eliminate it. Simoultaneously, they implement continuous microscopic repairs to our organs, circulatory systems and genetic structure, making everyone functionally immortal. And they would be available to anyone for the low low cost of your soul, your firstborn and right arm.
This facetious attempt at comedy has been brought to you by my boredom and lack of wit!
In short, the corporate taxes are actually passed on to workers and consumers, rather than being paid by the corporation and stopping there.
And then the Great Robot Uprising happens, and we're all equally screwed.I have the ultimate solution for health care and the Government can pay for it!
Nanobots.
Develop a series of nanobots that float serenely in our bloodstreams until an infection hits and then they move to eliminate it. Simoultaneously, they implement continuous microscopic repairs to our organs, circulatory systems and genetic structure, making everyone functionally immortal. And they would be available to anyone for the low low cost of your soul, your firstborn and right arm.
This facetious attempt at comedy has been brought to you by my boredom and lack of wit!
Something like that will happen eventually, but unless the government steps in and subsidizes it for people who are not ultra rich then our society will be divided into two parts, one that effectively are immortal gods, and the rest of us lowly mortals.
No and no. Tax burden is something different.Businesses passing costs onto others? [sarcasm]*gasp* That could never happen![/sarcasm] Seriously, businesses always pass costs onto someone else. I thought most people knew that already.
This may not actually be very helpful, but this is a Wikipedia article on the topic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence)
In short, the corporate taxes are actually passed on to workers and consumers, rather than being paid by the corporation and stopping there.
No and no. Tax burden is something different.Businesses passing costs onto others? [sarcasm]*gasp* That could never happen![/sarcasm] Seriously, businesses always pass costs onto someone else. I thought most people knew that already.
This may not actually be very helpful, but this is a Wikipedia article on the topic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence)
In short, the corporate taxes are actually passed on to workers and consumers, rather than being paid by the corporation and stopping there.
Now, if the businesses pass the costs related to taxes onto consumers and workers, doesn't that mean reducing the taxes they have to pay would mean they don't have to pass as much on? Higher wages for workers and lower prices for consumers seems like a good reason to lower taxes.
If one company pockets the extra profit, and their competitors decide to cut prices, guess who loses market share?If all companies pocket the extra profit, and none of their competitors decide to cut prices, guess who gets screwed?
Higher corporate taxes always devolve down to who ever is paying money into the corporation, whether it is consumers or stockholders. So raising corporate taxes has little to no actual effect on the daily business practices of the corps in question.
Of course as we all know, Corporations are EVIL INCARNATE!
The consumers obviously. But this scenario is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma. If all companies pocket the profits, all of them profit. If one company cuts prices and steals market share, everyone else loses and that company wins.That company wins until everyone else reacts and everyone makes less money. That's how economists say things should work. This clearly does not reflect reality in a rather wide range of areas.
I was just about to yell at Liberator for interfering my attempt to prove why lower corporate taxes would result in lower prices, and someone shows up and replies to his tirade before I can dress him down. Now people are just going to ignore my statements and focus on what Liberator said.
EDIT: You know Liberator, for a while there you were pretty close to figuring out angry yelling was not a good way to get your point across in a debate. I'm dismayed to see you slide like this since you had a lot of potential to be a valuable contributor when you weren't using words composed entirely of capital letters.
No and no. Tax burden is something different.Businesses passing costs onto others? [sarcasm]*gasp* That could never happen![/sarcasm] Seriously, businesses always pass costs onto someone else. I thought most people knew that already.
This may not actually be very helpful, but this is a Wikipedia article on the topic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence)
In short, the corporate taxes are actually passed on to workers and consumers, rather than being paid by the corporation and stopping there.
Now, if the businesses pass the costs related to taxes onto consumers and workers, doesn't that mean reducing the taxes they have to pay would mean they don't have to pass as much on? Higher wages for workers and lower prices for consumers seems like a good reason to lower taxes.
Because it will hurt them more if they don't. If one company could lower prices, steal market share from their competitors, and make up the lost per-unit revenue through volume, it would. What part of "this is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)" do you not understand? BL, go down to the section on the PD in economics, and you'll see why companies would choose a sub-optimal result. Yes, it talks about advertising, but the problems faced by companies in this situation wouldn't be any different.I was just about to yell at Liberator for interfering my attempt to prove why lower corporate taxes would result in lower prices, and someone shows up and replies to his tirade before I can dress him down. Now people are just going to ignore my statements and focus on what Liberator said.
EDIT: You know Liberator, for a while there you were pretty close to figuring out angry yelling was not a good way to get your point across in a debate. I'm dismayed to see you slide like this since you had a lot of potential to be a valuable contributor when you weren't using words composed entirely of capital letters.
Which do you think is more obvious, markets being always undercut or a static price range so companies can rake in profits? Why would companies drive their prices downward when they know it'll only hurt them in the end?
Okay GB, you win, American corporations don't pay their taxes, Average Joe pays it for them.
In a situation like that though, I don't see why anyone (not talking about you here) would approve of keeping the rate where it is since it only punishes consumers.
Seriously, everyone complains about how much money the huge "mega" corps are making. None of you seem to want to talk about they're charitable work or how much product they write off as giveaways.
Because it will hurt them more if they don't. If one company could lower prices, steal market share from their competitors, and make up the lost per-unit revenue through volume, it would. What part of "this is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)" do you not understand? BL, go down to the section on the PD in economics, and you'll see why companies would choose a sub-optimal result. Yes, it talks about advertising, but the problems faced by companies in this situation wouldn't be any different.
So it's ok for 10,000 people to make $500k a year, but if the person above them makes $1m because he made it possible for 2500 of that 10k to make 500k it's katie-bar-door time?
To compensate for this, you lighten the body of the car to the point to where survival is a questionable activity in the hypothetical collision.Bull****.
Also, there is a company that sells things at a reduced price and makes up for it in volume, in almost every sector of the retail market, and has be enormously successful. The name of this company is Wal-Mart, and it is currently the largest retailer in the world with millions of outlets worldwide and selling they're products on an average of 5% less than they're competition in whatever market they are in.
actually treating them causes the resistant strains, if no one was treated there would be nothing for them to become resistant to.
Because it will hurt them more if they don't. If one company could lower prices, steal market share from their competitors, and make up the lost per-unit revenue through volume, it would. What part of "this is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)" do you not understand?
Okay. So lowering the corporate tax rates may not have an effect on consumer costs. That still doesn't mean the situation we have now where the consumers bear the corporate tax burden is fair. How would you suggest we rectify this problem?Because it will hurt them more if they don't. If one company could lower prices, steal market share from their competitors, and make up the lost per-unit revenue through volume, it would. What part of "this is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)" do you not understand?
You are also aware that in many cases of Prisoner's Dilemma the prisoners cooperate? You're aware that many simulations of iterated Prisoners Dilemma result in a situation where both sides always cooperate because the recriminations that result from the first defection result in a lower overall score?
While the company that reduced it's prices might gain market share, that would last as long as it took the other companies to reduced their prices too. We're talking about a day at most for many products and a month or two for others. It's simply not enough time in most cases to make the kind of in-roads needed to offset the enormously reduced profits when the other companies also lower their prices and their customers defect back to whoever they were originally using. Starting a price war could very easily get everyone into a situation where they all cut their prices so heavily that all but one or two of them goes out of business.
4) To compensate for lost pay due to taxes, corporations raise prices so leadership can afford Maserati.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COSeM2EVkDc
if you don't treat it there is nothing for the pathogen to adapt to, it could in theory become more (or more likely less) deadly, but there is no reason to think it would be at all likely that a bacteria/virus/parasite would become resistant to a treatment in the absence of said treatment. it 'can happen' in the same way a human 'can' in a single generation develop wings and fly, evolution does not work that way, you are wrong.The pathogen is still going to be mutating at a "normal" rate so it will change and will sometimes change quickly regardless of if a treatment is being administered.
TL;RD
lrn2darwin
Ah yes-- in forming my present views on the issue of CEO compensation in the US, I completely neglected to account for this 22-second clip of Data laughing.4) To compensate for lost pay due to taxes, corporations raise prices so leadership can afford Maserati.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COSeM2EVkDc
4) To compensate for lost pay due to taxes, corporations raise prices so leadership can afford Maserati.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COSeM2EVkDc
The pathogen is still going to be mutating at a "normal" rate so it will change and will sometimes change quickly regardless of if a treatment is being administered.
The pathogen is still going to be mutating at a "normal" rate so it will change and will sometimes change quickly regardless of if a treatment is being administered.
the only thing that would have a potential effect on would be vaccines, and they have a limited window of usefulness to begin with.
as far as antibiotics go it would not have an effect, because, as I've said, a microbe cannot adapt to something that it is not exposed to.
I have no ideological objections to taxing corporations, though you don't want to kill them.
4) To compensate for lost pay due to taxes, corporations raise prices so leadership can afford Maserati.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COSeM2EVkDc
that experiment does not address the origin of the resistant bacteria, it simply proves that resistant strains exist and are in the wild.
But that's the way it is Nuclear. Its unfair certainly, but honestly I'm not sure how much differently you would act if you were running a Fortune 500 company. Backstabbing and hostile takeovers are just business as usual at that level, and if you want to swim with sharks, you better grow some teeth.I have no ideological objections to taxing corporations, though you don't want to kill them.
No, of course not, but they can afford to bear the burden...the rest of us can't. And it's frankly unfair they punish us for their taxes being raised.
But that's the way it is Nuclear. Its unfair certainly, but honestly I'm not sure how much differently you would act if you were running a Fortune 500 company. Backstabbing and hostile takeovers are just business as usual at that level, and if you want to swim with sharks, you better grow some teeth.I have no ideological objections to taxing corporations, though you don't want to kill them.
No, of course not, but they can afford to bear the burden...the rest of us can't. And it's frankly unfair they punish us for their taxes being raised.
I think if we become too reliant on 'pills', we are leaving the immune system too vulnerable to the more hardy strains of disease.
But without the selective pressure, the trait will never evolve (using the technical description of evolution as a change in allele frequency in a population.)
I don't support it at all, and I wish it would change, but I don't see a way to change it, unless you can think of a way to force companies to avoid shifting costs onto others.But that's the way it is Nuclear. Its unfair certainly, but honestly I'm not sure how much differently you would act if you were running a Fortune 500 company. Backstabbing and hostile takeovers are just business as usual at that level, and if you want to swim with sharks, you better grow some teeth.I have no ideological objections to taxing corporations, though you don't want to kill them.
No, of course not, but they can afford to bear the burden...the rest of us can't. And it's frankly unfair they punish us for their taxes being raised.
You've argued that 'this is the way things are' but supplied no reasons as to why this is the way things should be.
Not to get all patriotic here, but that line of reasoning about taxation would have kept us a British colony.
No, of course not, but they can afford to bear the burden...the rest of us can't. And it's frankly unfair they punish us for their taxes being raised.But that's the way it is Nuclear. Its unfair certainly, but honestly I'm not sure how much differently you would act if you were running a Fortune 500 company. Backstabbing and hostile takeovers are just business as usual at that level, and if you want to swim with sharks, you better grow some teeth.
Well that would be why, I never played Derelict
I never played Derelict
never played Derelict
Well that would be why, I never played Derelict
I've never played any of the campaigns