The only source that I could find quickly says that the farebox recovery ratio is 39% across all of the MBTA system, so a 61% subsidy.

Come on out here to San Francisco and tell me that having fares has any effect on the behavior of mentally ill people on transit.

Fare inspectors aren't trained to provide security anyway.

Yep. Most mass transit is already at least 75% free to the rider - as in, the farebox only covers less than 25% of operating costs.

Great, just what we needed. More people who can tolerate Pepsi.

Dear god, steps 1, 2, and 3, need to be “TURN OFF THE CIRCUIT BREAKER.”

Maybe that’s the self-perpetuating part. Once the turkey is cut, the surface area grows and it’ll start to cool really quickly. I could totally see people saying, “oh, next time let’s tent it to keep the heat in,” not realizing that it won’t do any good because the cooling is almost all happening post-cut.

Moral of the…

No, you’re not correct. The OP says that government has no place in picking winners and losers, which is anticapitalist nonsense.

Which is fine, because “because it’s legal” is not the argument I made. My argument was directed specifically at the contention that the government has no business backing one company over another, which is just nuts.

Hey, a Maserati SUV is the most American thing I can imagine. Take a brand with a sporting pedigree, then super-size it to take all the fun out and sell it as a suburban assault vehicle.

That’s only true if the views of the people are on a bell curve. If the people are polarized, then there is no “middle” and the centrist position is less popular than either extreme.

It sounds like you had a bad experience, but without unions we wouldn’t have the 40 hour work week, OSHA, or any number of worker protections. And unionization is strongly correlated with a reduction in systemic economic inequality, since unions provide a countervailing force on the unequal power dynamic between an…

So, hypothetically, the government should treat Johnson & Johnson and Theranos the same?

Genuinely asking, why do you think it's bullshit? If the people believe that there is a public interest in supporting union manufacturing (because unionized workers tend to have more rights and be better compensated, for example), then why would it not be a valid stipulation for how the people's money is spent?

I’m not sure that’s true - we’ve had a two party system since long before we had nukes. Even when we’ve gone through party reorganization (goodbye Whigs!), we’ve still ended up with two.

We are simply not a capitalist economy. Not should we be. But Democrats long ago sold out the working class to make deals with guys like Manchin.

Many airlines don’t even use row 13 because of superstitious passengers.

Overbooking is actually much less common than it used to be, thanks to the David Dao incident and most airlines deciding never to IDB (involuntarily deny boarding). This is why you hear about people getting $10,000 flight vouchers.

Good point, the article and my chart should make it clearer that this is based on adjusted income. I'll wait to see if there are more suggestions and post an updated version.