Debt Limit Deal: Almost 100% of the burden will be borne—via spending cuts—by the poor and the middle-class.

[The_Dude 1,142]

you do realize that's a myth, right?

Thats something new to me. It used to be significantly higher, or maybe that was just an option available.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Several baiting posts and as well as several responses related to the baiting posts have been removed. Further such posts will meet with administrative action.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

holy #######... $14 here for a 18pk

I wouldn't pay $5.00 for that #######.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i just checked your state clock - seems like you better get back to work, there's a deficit piling up there.

No worries, the Republicans have just cut taxes again. Remember, unless there's a Democrat executive, deficits don't matter.

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

No worries, the Republicans have just cut taxes again. Remember, unless there's a Democrat executive, deficits don't matter.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

$10.88 at the local Walmart for Coors 18 pack. I paid $9.80 at Safeway a few weeks ago.

Only the campesinos drink "Bud" around here.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wouldn't pay $5.00 for that #######.

It's quantity, not quality. Most beers taste the same after the first bottle.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's quantity, not quality. Most beers taste the same after the first bottle.

I gather that you've never had a real beer. You should try one at least once.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I gather that you've never had a real beer. You should try one at least once.

What's a real beer to you? Try to pick one without formaldehyde.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Acknowledging Republican hypocrisy here?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What's a real beer to you? Try to pick one without formaldehyde.

Here you go. There are hundreds more - this is just to point you in the right direction.

BTW, if it has formaldehyde, it's not a beer. It would violate the Reinheitsgebot which allows for three ingredients only: Water, barley and hops.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here you go. There are hundreds more - this is just to point you in the right direction.

BTW, if it has formaldehyde, it's not a beer. It would violate the Reinheitsgebot which allows for three ingredients only: Water, barley and hops.

No yeast?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Reinheitsgebot (German pronunciation: [ˈʁaɪnhaɪtsɡəboːt] ( listen), literally "purity order"), sometimes called the "German Beer Purity Law" or the "Bavarian Purity Law" in English, was a regulation concerning the production of beer in Germany. In the original text, the only ingredients that could be used in the production of beer were water, barley and hops. The law has since been repealed but many German and American beers, for marketing purposes, continue to declare that they abide by the rule, in an attempt to convince customers that only the three permissible ingredients are used.

The Reinheitsgebot is no longer part of German law: it has been replaced by the Provisional German Beer Law, [2] which allows constituent components prohibited in the Reinheitsgebot, such as yeast, wheat malt and cane sugar, but which no longer allows unmalted barley.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It's quantity, not quality. Most beers taste the same after the first bottle.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer to drink Grolsch and/or Heineken all day long...but with the prices out here being what they are...

On another note...if you check out this article down below...they are screwing us. They were suppose to put 33.33% of all oil roylaties in that fund and give us a bigger percentage (checks). Greedy Alaska politicians and their bs waste programs for rural Alaska.

http://www.adn.com/2011/08/02/1997099/permanent-fund-assets-reach-401.html

Permanent Fund reaches $40.1 billion on 20.6 percent gain

JUNEAU -- A fund established decades ago to share Alaska's oil wealth with future generations has hit $40.1 billion.

The Alaska Permanent Fund on Tuesday reported a 20.6 percent gain for the recently ended fiscal year, its third-highest return and biggest since 1986.

Chief Executive Mike Burns said it was an outstanding year but the fund's board and staff don't chase returns. He said the goal is a positive rate of return over the long run and that's the focus in building a portfolio that doesn't change in response to short-term market conditions.

That's not to say the fund wasn't affected by fluctuations during the recession and stock market declines. The fund fell at one point to $26 billion during the economic slump, Burns said. It ended the 2010 fiscal year at about $33.3 billion.

Burns said the fund has largely stuck with the same asset allocation because it is more interested in long-term than short-term gains.

"We don't live year-to-year and really try to take a longer view," he said.

The fund reported that stocks make up about half its total value and were the biggest contributor to its overall performance. The fund's real estate portfolio gained 16.9 percent for the year; U.S. bonds 5.3 percent; and non-U.S. bonds 0.6 percent. The fund reported that its alternative assets also contributed to the up year.

The overall 20.6 percent rate of return includes realized and unrealized gains.

Figures released Tuesday were unaudited, and final figures were expected to be released next month at the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp.'s annual meeting.

The fund receives 25 percent of the state's oil royalties, Burns said, which amounted to $887 million last fiscal year.

The fund earned $2.1 billion in statutory net income, which Burns said takes into account only realized gains. It is from this figure that calculations are made that determine the annual dividend that most Alaskans receive.

This year, the fund expects to transfer $800 million to the dividend division for checks to Alaskans. Last year, the fund said, $858 million was transferred.

The amount of investment earnings allocated to dividends is based on a five-year rolling average of Permanent Fund performance. Last year, nearly 641,600 Alaskans were deemed eligible to receive dividend checks of $1,281.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Reinheitsgebot (German pronunciation: [ˈʁaɪnhaɪtsɡəboːt] ( listen), literally "purity order"), sometimes called the "German Beer Purity Law" or the "Bavarian Purity Law" in English, was a regulation concerning the production of beer in Germany. In the original text, the only ingredients that could be used in the production of beer were water, barley and hops. The law has since been repealed but many German and American beers, for marketing purposes, continue to declare that they abide by the rule, in an attempt to convince customers that only the three permissible ingredients are used.

The Reinheitsgebot is no longer part of German law: it has been replaced by the Provisional German Beer Law, [2] which allows constituent components prohibited in the Reinheitsgebot, such as yeast, wheat malt and cane sugar, but which no longer allows unmalted barley.

You missed the important part:

"The lifting of the Biergesetz, however, only concerns imported beer. Beer brewed in Germany still has to abide to it."

And yes, yeast was always an allowed ingredient under the Reinheitsgebot of 1516 and subsequently the beer taxation laws - can't really brew beer without it, can you? Not only did I forget to list it as an allowed ingredient but the English wikipedia page is actually incomplete on that detail as it seems (that's what you quoted there). Checked the German wiki page and it is correctly listed there.