This counter argument is bullshit, its the trickle down economics of government regulation. Damage to the environment costs money that the people eventually have to pay. Preventing that saves money. Never mind the fact that we never seem to actually see any real benefit from all of the money we save so called "job creators"
We have been following this "cut taxes on the rich" and "de-regulate industries" bullshit since the 80s and it hasn't helped a damn thing, it has caused several major recessions and pay for most people is lower than it was when this started.
THIS STUFF DOESN'T WORK. We know that... but it doesn't stop rich people from continuing to serve you the same line of BS that they have for the last 30 years. Maybe its time to try something else?
Those entitlements are paid for out of taxes that are explicitly earmarked for those entitlements. Social security, you pay in and the money is supposed to go to social security, same thing for medicare.
If you are going to cut those entitlements you had damn well better cut out those taxes and you really ought to return the massive amounts of money paid into those programs that we will never see. The budget would be just as fucked, if not more than it is now and I'm damn well not giving back some of that tax money just so we can spend another 100 billion on the military.
The problem is that the government has consistently borrowed against that money and not paid it back, entitlements aren't the issue, we pay for those, we should get them. The issue is that our discretionary spending isn't sufficiently covered by our other taxes. This is in large part because the rich don't pay nearly as much as they used to and because corporations often pay little to no tax. We have been cutting the taxes on the wealthy for years while increasing discretionary spending, thats the problem, not entitlements which have been properly funded since they came into being.
I suspect you will see a pretty big shift in what makes a car desirable when self driving cars become the norm, its hard to say if ownership will even be as common as it is now, it seems unlikely that kids who grow up in a family that has a self driving car will ever learn to drive.
I suspect that more and more, in car entertainment, comfort, ride smoothness and fuel economy/range will be the primary things used to market cars in the future and not the ultimateness of the driving machine.
Its impossible to reach your target when you can't post on the forums that are exposing this BS. Try posting some contrary opinions on, say, the Red Pill redit and see what happens.
Its not our fault that people are dumb enough to buy garbage like pizza gate to the point where some fuckwit with a gun shows up and shoots up a pizza parlor.
This kind of speech is dangerous and while I might have, at one point, believed that nobody of consequence would believe such obvious bullshit that is clearly not the case so now we have to worry about folks that get indoctrinated into this kind of bullshit doing things like killing innocent people.
We used to say that the truth is the best way to inoculate against this but the forums where this crap comes from ban anyone who posts anything that they don't agree with (but of course its liberals who are the people censoring, not the alt right forums).
So whats your suggestion for fixing this problem, or do you think its a perfectly good status quo?
The reason you can't do anything about it is that these security holes exist and there are people who are very good at finding them. If the CIA were disbanded tomorrow do you think that somehow these exploits would cease to be developed? Other countries have the ability to create them, according to the dump several of them actually come from criminal black hats. The exploits are going to exists, the question is, does a branch of our government have them, or just other governments and criminals.
First, why the hell switch job when your wife is having late stage cancer and needs your support?
What makes you think it was voluntary? Why do people generally assume that job changes are by choice at all when layoffs are so common in the tech industry?
BAE is a shit show, my Ex wife worked there, it was an old boys network where you only go promoted if you had the right genitalia and went out for beers with the right people on the right night. They worked ridiculous hours much of the time and didn't give a rats ass about work life balance. Avoid at all costs
My issue is that nobody can draw even the slightest correlation between any policy move by Trump and these job gains. The idea that businesses are just hiring extra people because they have "faith in the future" is BS, you hire because you have need... need that is generated by demand for your product or service which grows over years, not overnight
Why on earth are you still working at a company that has had you in death march mode for a decade? Work life balance has value, I doubt you are making so much more at this company that its worth while to stay.
They have an app for the iphone, you have to go to the web if you want to buy content but you can view it on the device. I'm a whole lot more likely to buy content from their store if I can actually view it on my TV.
That literally makes no sense. The CIA hacks the democrats and then leaks documents that make Hillary look bad, making it far more likely that Donald wins the election just so they can turn around and fabricate a story about him being in bed with the Russians.
Slashdot Mirror
DC Universe movies.
I certainly couldn't imagine paying to watch them.
This counter argument is bullshit, its the trickle down economics of government regulation. Damage to the environment costs money that the people eventually have to pay. Preventing that saves money. Never mind the fact that we never seem to actually see any real benefit from all of the money we save so called "job creators"
We have been following this "cut taxes on the rich" and "de-regulate industries" bullshit since the 80s and it hasn't helped a damn thing, it has caused several major recessions and pay for most people is lower than it was when this started.
THIS STUFF DOESN'T WORK. We know that... but it doesn't stop rich people from continuing to serve you the same line of BS that they have for the last 30 years. Maybe its time to try something else?
Those entitlements are paid for out of taxes that are explicitly earmarked for those entitlements. Social security, you pay in and the money is supposed to go to social security, same thing for medicare.
If you are going to cut those entitlements you had damn well better cut out those taxes and you really ought to return the massive amounts of money paid into those programs that we will never see. The budget would be just as fucked, if not more than it is now and I'm damn well not giving back some of that tax money just so we can spend another 100 billion on the military.
The problem is that the government has consistently borrowed against that money and not paid it back, entitlements aren't the issue, we pay for those, we should get them. The issue is that our discretionary spending isn't sufficiently covered by our other taxes. This is in large part because the rich don't pay nearly as much as they used to and because corporations often pay little to no tax. We have been cutting the taxes on the wealthy for years while increasing discretionary spending, thats the problem, not entitlements which have been properly funded since they came into being.
I suspect you will see a pretty big shift in what makes a car desirable when self driving cars become the norm, its hard to say if ownership will even be as common as it is now, it seems unlikely that kids who grow up in a family that has a self driving car will ever learn to drive.
I suspect that more and more, in car entertainment, comfort, ride smoothness and fuel economy/range will be the primary things used to market cars in the future and not the ultimateness of the driving machine.
If their research showed one thing and they didn't disclose known risks to investors thats really, really bad.
Its impossible to reach your target when you can't post on the forums that are exposing this BS. Try posting some contrary opinions on, say, the Red Pill redit and see what happens.
Its not our fault that people are dumb enough to buy garbage like pizza gate to the point where some fuckwit with a gun shows up and shoots up a pizza parlor.
This kind of speech is dangerous and while I might have, at one point, believed that nobody of consequence would believe such obvious bullshit that is clearly not the case so now we have to worry about folks that get indoctrinated into this kind of bullshit doing things like killing innocent people.
We used to say that the truth is the best way to inoculate against this but the forums where this crap comes from ban anyone who posts anything that they don't agree with (but of course its liberals who are the people censoring, not the alt right forums).
So whats your suggestion for fixing this problem, or do you think its a perfectly good status quo?
I don't actually think that is the issue at all.
The reason you can't do anything about it is that these security holes exist and there are people who are very good at finding them. If the CIA were disbanded tomorrow do you think that somehow these exploits would cease to be developed? Other countries have the ability to create them, according to the dump several of them actually come from criminal black hats. The exploits are going to exists, the question is, does a branch of our government have them, or just other governments and criminals.
The fact that he almost certainly wouldn't have taken the job if it was? The fact that his boss was ok with him working any extra hours from home?
it says right in the summary that his boss was ok with it so clearly your reasoning is completely flawed.
So some other kind then because the summary clearly states that his boss said it was fine.
Urgent fixes to production issues at a government contractor? Please
Since when is a 40 hour work week (with additional off site hours offered) considered a demand?
2) Only after being engaged by the company did he disclose he would limit his working time to 40 hours per week
I remember when this was what we called standard employment terms, nobody is supposed to be expected to work more than 40 hours a week.
First, why the hell switch job when your wife is having late stage cancer and needs your support?
What makes you think it was voluntary? Why do people generally assume that job changes are by choice at all when layoffs are so common in the tech industry?
Where does it say that he agreed to 24/7 availability?
BAE is a shit show, my Ex wife worked there, it was an old boys network where you only go promoted if you had the right genitalia and went out for beers with the right people on the right night. They worked ridiculous hours much of the time and didn't give a rats ass about work life balance. Avoid at all costs
After he took office he said it was 40% so I guess he is doing a really shitty job if the numbers are going in the wrong direction.
Its almost as if hiring goes up in the beginning of the year once people set their budgets or something.
My issue is that nobody can draw even the slightest correlation between any policy move by Trump and these job gains. The idea that businesses are just hiring extra people because they have "faith in the future" is BS, you hire because you have need... need that is generated by demand for your product or service which grows over years, not overnight
Why on earth are you still working at a company that has had you in death march mode for a decade? Work life balance has value, I doubt you are making so much more at this company that its worth while to stay.
They have an app for the iphone, you have to go to the web if you want to buy content but you can view it on the device. I'm a whole lot more likely to buy content from their store if I can actually view it on my TV.
Maybe they could make an apple TV app while they are at it.
Or the Russians only cared about releasing the dirt they had on them, and not the republicans.
That literally makes no sense. The CIA hacks the democrats and then leaks documents that make Hillary look bad, making it far more likely that Donald wins the election just so they can turn around and fabricate a story about him being in bed with the Russians.
Your critical thinking needs a little work