but no. 2 could be answered by any middle schooler

What's the answer?

She needs some tactical 5.11 antiperspirant.

Excited. It's got a lot of historical stuff, and if you go near the border you might be able to get some souvenir shrapnel.

By S&P:

• Suppose you have some money. Is it safer to put your money into one business or investment, or to put your money into multiple businesses or investments?
  
  • a. one business or investment
  • b. multiple businesses or investments
  • c. don’t know
  • d. refuse to answer
• Suppose over the next 10 years the prices of the things you buy double. If your income also doubles, will you be able to buy less than you can buy today, the same as you can buy today, or more than you can buy today?
  
  • a. less
  • b. the same
  • c. more
  • d. don’t know
  • e. refuse to answer
• Suppose you need to borrow 100 US dollars. Which is the lower amount to pay back: 105 US dollars or 100 US dollars plus three percent?
  
  • a. 105 US dollars
  • b. 100 US dollars plus three percent
  • c. don’t know
  • d. refuse to answer
• Suppose you put money in the bank for two years and the bank agrees to add 15 percent per year to your account. Will the bank add more money to your account the second year than it did the first year, or will it add the same amount of money both years?
  
  • a. more
  • b. the same
  • c. don’t know
  • d. refuse to answer
• Suppose you had 100 US dollars in a savings account and the bank adds 10 percent per year to the account. How much money would you have in the account after five years if you did not remove any money from the account?
  
  • a. more than 150 dollars
  • b. exactly 150 dollars
  • c. less than 150 dollars
  • d. don’t know
  • e. refuse to answer

Literate = 3/5 correct

Survey respondents were deemed financially literate if they could correctly answer three out of the five questions. And with only 33% of adults worldwide achieving that passing grade, the survey’s authors estimate that a whopping 3.5 billion adults around the world — many of them in developing countries — lack an understanding of basic financial concepts.

(Ignore)
US & UK: just over 60% scored 'literate'.

Answers: B, B, B, A, A

My issues with amibos (sorry Rocket, didn't see your original question):
-Artificial scarcity + unique features for future games drives demand despite not really serving much of a purpose
-The possibility of pay-to-win features, which we're already seeing glimpses of in SSB with leveling characters and special effects
-Expensive physical DLC that doesn't actually unlock much content ($13 for DLC would typically give you a map pack or a small expansion; here you get very little [so far])

They're mostly harmless but I just don't like Nintendo's methods of wringing their customers' wallets. If EA tried something like this (or Super Smash Bros' criminal amount of paid DLC), fans would crucify them; but it's Nintendo, so it's all good.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on March 05, 2016, 07:11:56 PM

Guys, p90 is objectively the finest sub machine gun ever made. It just is.

It's a carbine.

That's the PS90.

no but really how the fuck is denying someone help to live not outlawed before this came to be?

Insurance is built on the premise that you won't need it; insurance agencies afford to pay bills by hedging against people that will have to pay monthly fees without costing a dime. Getting insurance after already becoming ill is, as Das said, like wrecking your car and then buying car insurance.

The real issue, which the ACA doesn't address, is the exorbitant cost of healthcare in the US which makes it effectively impossible to afford treatment outside of owning insurance.

p90 a shit

A beautiful shit.

Yeah I guess that's why they fought tooth and nail against Obamacare. This was one of the biggest parts of the ACA they were fighting, apart from mandatory health care (which you could argue is the same issue) businesses having to provide for employees if they have more than 50.

The mandate was probably the biggest point of opposition, but I couldn't find any Republicans fighting the pre-existing condition policy. Most of their arguments were just ambiguous stupid shit like "it's gonna ruin the country, because taxes are bad".

One of several good aspects of the act,, but both parties had been in support of eliminating discrimination based on pre-existing conditions by that time so it's hard to justify Obamacare based on a single policy which would have been adopted by anyone.

And yet you have sex with several black men every night. Interesting

Tell me, do you ride them reverse cowgirl style, or facing them? Something tells me that you like to look them in they eye when they finish

Is it still reverse cowgirl if it's a 300lb black dude on top?

The amount of beer you could take without being caught (1-2) won't get you buzzed, and it's crappy lite beer. Not worth it.

My point was merely that, if you want to say "you should feel bad for expecting some people to pay for many others" that you better be sure that the people you're speaking to agree.

I'm not asking you to feel bad, I'm trying to show that it's bad policy for the country while also being unfairly discriminatory of high-income earners.

The social contract binds you to such obligations in many folks' minds.

You call it "the social contract" as if the concept is anything more than philosophers' ephemeral catch-all for government policy. Taxation is one of the most obvious forms of a social contract, but it certainly doesn't dictate specific terms; it can't be quantified, so it's irrelevant.

And on the other hand, in the face of many leading economists disparaging Sanders' plan as a net detriment to the country, wouldn't the same social contract demand we listen to them?

http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000639-an-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals.pdf

The Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates that the Sanders tax proposals would increase federal revenue by $15.3 trillion over their first decade (6.4 percent of cumulative gross domestic product [GDP] over that period) and by an additional $25.1 trillion over the subsequent 10 years (7.0 percent of cumulative GDP), before accounting for any changes in the cost of federal borrowing or macroeconomic feedback effects.1 Approximately two-fifths of the estimated revenue increase would come from a new employer payroll tax on all earnings and an across-the-board increase in income taxes, which would pay for a new, government-administered, health insurance program. Net increases in individual income, payroll, and estate taxes paid by high-income and high-wealth taxpayers would account for another quarter of the increase, as would the elimination of tax breaks for health care– related expenditures. Higher taxes paid by businesses, a new tax on financial transactions, and a new tax on carbon would   account for the remainder. The proposal would raise taxes at every income level, but high- income taxpayers would face the biggest increases, both in dollar amount and as a percentage of income. Overall, the plan would raise tax burdens by an average of nearly $9,000, thereby lowering average after-tax income by 12.4 percent. However, the highest-income taxpayers (the top 0.1 percent, or those with income over $3.7 million in 2015 dollars) would experience an average increase in tax burdens of more than $3 million in 2017, nearly 45 percent of their $6.9 million average after-tax income. Households in the middle quintile of the income distribution would see an average tax increase of almost $4,700, or 8.5 percent of their average after-tax income. Those in the bottom quintile would experience smaller tax increases, averaging $165, or 1.3 percent of their average after-tax income.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanderss-plan-would-raise-taxes-by-34-1457114401?mod=e2fb

Mr. Sanders’s proposals would increase federal taxes by $15.3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Tax Policy Center. Mr. Sanders concentrates his tax increases on high-income households, which would face sharply higher levies on their wages, business income, capital gains and estates, as well as more limits on their deductions. The top 0.1%—those with incomes of $3.7 million under an expanded definition—would pay an average federal tax rate of 63.7% in 2017, up from 34.2%.

The middle 20% of households would face an average tax increase of $4,692 in 2017 and lose 8.5% of after-tax income. The lowest-income households would lose, too, but they would come out even by 2025.

“Sanders is clearly betting that people are willing to pay for his expansive new welfare state,” said Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, who was a Treasury Department official under President Bill Clinton. “There’s a giant tax increase, mostly on the rich, but everyone would pay more.”