Brawndo

I’ve got what plants crave.

Ethanol is wildy bad for the environment and is raising the cost of food.

I read somewhere awhile back that it takes something like 3 gallons of gasoline (through running farm equipment and transportation) to make 4 gallons of ethanol. That coupled with ethanol being less efficient that gasoline and causes more wear and rear on vehicles probably means that if we ditched it altogether we’d probably the same carbon emissions wise.

Also, for every acre of corn raised to go into ethanol, that’s one acre not going into feed corn or other food crops so we’re effectively raising the cost of food via limiting supply and competition.

The only people that benefit are farmers that recieve substantial subsidies to grow it and government personnel who administer said subsidies and elected officials that campaign on taking money from you the tax payer and funneling it into these programs.

The cost to all of us is diffused, probably no more than a few tens of dollars taken from us via taxes so nobody is gonna go stand up to these people and demand that we end this subsidy. The benefit to them is very focused and large so they have every interest to keep the cash flowing their way. Every interest to take money from all classes of people but most damaging to the poorest of people since those dollars mean more to them than richer peoples.

This wildest part is that you who is reading this right now is probably outraged that this program is in place but the even crazier part is that you can substitute this with practically any and all industries and they are all doing the exact same thing but for the things that you agree with, are perfectly fine with keeping those subsidies flowing. After all, it’s only the other people that are greedy. The only real solution is to completely end all federal subsidies but I’m sure you’ll disagree and say that XYZ is necessary because it’s your special interest.

Negative Income Tax as proposed by Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman is a much much much better implementation than a straight up UBI.

Link

Brawndo has what plants crave, it’s got electrolytes.

I’m gonna have what plants crave.

Pass a law that says you can’t be a violent criminal.

/s

But Brawndo got what plants crave, it’s got electrolytes!

By this logic because there is infinite time and infinite possibilities, we could develop a cure or a virus that kills this prion and avert this crisis. We could also not and just die. Then there is a possibility that none of this exists and this is a simulation and the developers haven’t added this as a feature yet.

If there was a true civil war the military would probably be divided with some on one side and some on the other but I really doubt there will be a civil war any time in the near future.

It’s got Electrolytes!

Dolph Lundgren is going to star in a movie with that exact premise!

The school of Anything Goes Martial Arts!

Klatu, Verata… Ni-humlenhdkidpwkehehkamajhen

Star Wars Battle Front 2 (2005)

I cannot tell you how many hours I burned playing Galactic Conquest with friends.

WATCH THOSE WRIST ROCKETS!!!

Would you like more sources?

The Guardian

NPR

Britannica

Al Jazeera

And how did that work out for the estimated 15-55 million people that died of starvation as a result of the “equitable distribution of land ownership”?

Source

Rent Control can only have one outcome. Decreased amount of available new or renovated rentals which coupled with an ever increasing demand for housing, creates some of the housing shortages we see in larger cities today.

UBI can be an effective way to fight poverty, and would be an even more effective way to combat poverty if we implemented a Negative Income tax whereby all welfare programs are rolled into the funding.

They also assume all the risk of the property too. Tenants can leave as they please but landlords are stuck with the property if the market turns.

What happens to all the people that lose their jobs due to this regulation. Are they better off?

Social Security is one of the greatest scams of all time.

Generally speaking, this is how it works

Lower Income families pay into it longer (didn’t go to college, have to get a job and start getting taxed at 18 vs. going to college and started to be taxed at say 22)

Lower Income families receive benefits for less time (pretty much all statistics show that the wealthier you are, the longer you live)

Lower income families pay a higher percentage of their income than wealthier families. (Social Security only on the first ~$130K in income. It’s a regressive tax)

Lower income families are paid out less in benefits. You get paid out based on what you pay in.

Wealthier families typically have other passive forms of income that are not subject to the Social Security tax, this means that if they get to keep this income stream going into retirement they are at a massive advantage over lower income families who if they have to work a job in retirement that again have to pay Social Security taxes on wages they earn.

In addition to all of this, upon death of both the primary and spouse, all the money taken vanishes and cannot be passed down to their children or beneficiaries which only compounds wealth inequality.

In short, Social Security is a regressive tax that unfairly penalizes the poor and provides a higher welfare pay out to families that are wealthier.