You become more fiscally conservative as you get older because you’ve had more time to watch your federal government fail to solve any problems despite taking in trillions of dollars in revenues per year.
You’ve watched the private markets deliver life-changing technologies that bring the entire tide up, all while these hypocrites and fools bark the same nonsense year after year, and somehow cannot manage to deliver anything but massive deficits, finger pointing, and divisive rhetoric.
In this post, Warren transfers nonsense from her brain to her thumbs, and through the magic touch-screen slab to tell you that she’d be able to do something with a few billion more dollars that her and her colleagues haven’t been able to do with a multi-thousand-billion dollar annual budget for years and years.
What is the meaning of her post here? There is no meaning. It is meaningless. The intention? To stir emotions in anyone who isn’t aware of the obvious things I’ve written here. To manipulate and gain the support of sheep.
If you actually think revenue is the bottleneck for government output, you lack basic financial literacy and are being conned by con artists.
I think it’s time to revisit the accredited investor laws in the US.
Companies are staying private longer, where only accredited investors (aka rich people!) can invest. Retail investors can only come in after IPO, when much of the upside has already been captured.
These rules were created with the best of intentions, to protect regular people from scams - a noble idea. Unfortunately, in practice they've often made it illegal to get richer, unless you're already rich. A regressive tax!
We have to judge policies based on their outcomes, not on their intentions.
These are two possible routes I see:
1) Replace the rule with something merit-based, like a financial literacy test. Pass it and you're accredited. Having a qualification based on competency rather than your bank balance or income seems far more fair.
2) Remove the rule entirely. Let consenting adults assess their own risk. Disclosure requirements stay and fraud enforcement stays to punish bad actors.
This aged horrifically.
California politicians dunked on Elon and helped drive out SpaceX, Tesla jobs, engineers, suppliers, and the tax base.
Now SpaceX is headed for a $1.75T IPO.
“Message received” may be the most expensive political own-goal in California history.
https://t.co/8pHN7pCevO The 2nd largest city in the country just finished their primary- headed to the general election is the current mayor, a leftist. LA spends $596k to house 1 homeless person. Houston spends $170k... The court-ordered audit of $2.3 billion in homelessness spending could not determine where the money went... all the while, taxes go up and contributors are FLEEING. LA's decline is incredible... but where does it go from here? Check out today's doc!
literally nothing more annoying on the fucking planet than when websites don’t have the US at the top of a country selection list. No, I am not going to select fucking “Afghanistan” boutique clothing brand based in Nashville. Fuck off.
“Why don’t you just eat fucking ramen everyday? Just eat peanut butter and ramen for 50 years dumbass and invest all your money into the pico top of the gayest most fragile empire in history you dumbass idiot. Just starve and eat shit and dirt everyday for your entire life and then you can spend $30 on lunch when you’re old and about to die it’s simple. Don’t you know your 20’s are for grinding?? You’re supposed to eat shit for the majority of your life that’s why your ancestors built America. So you could eat shit and fucking die moron.”
@anishmoonka “Excuse me, m’am? U really shouldn’t be walking in the middle of this busy road, u could get hit”
“Don’t tell me what to do, that gives me physical pain like the researchers said, lemme live my liiif——“
She ded.
It's because TVs aren't subsidized by the government.
The reason Doritos are so expensive is because, up until recently, people on welfare could get them with SNAP, so PepsiCo could charge whatever they wanted and had no reason to care whether or not you could afford it because their primary clientele were people who were using your tax dollars to buy them. You pay more because someone else is getting it for "free", and by "free", I mean you're paying for it with your taxes.
Since the government doesn't buy TVs for people (with your money), TV manufacturers have to price competitively, hence the low TV prices.