That's pure fantasy. People will always want something that someone else has just because they have it. We have housing projects in larger cities, so they have basic shelter. Those same cities have programs to provide food. So we already supply those basic needs. But those same areas are also among the highest crime areas that we have. Handouts don't work.
Keyword "general". The intent isn't to put food on each and every person's plate. Our system of government would never be able to accomplish that. Remember the whole "ask not what your country can do for you"?
That already happens. People move to locations where the schools are better, or public housing is more plentiful, or insurance is cheaper, etc. My own town got swamped by families with special needs students because we used to have a good program for that. Things like in-state tuition discounts do come with a minimum-number-of-years residency requirement to combat that type of thing. This is the type of dirty detail that leads to the preexisting condition type of exclusion. You need to have been paying into the risk pool for it to work, thus those that haven't get penalized. It serves a purpose, even though people hate the idea of it.
General welfare isn't individual welfare. General welfare refers to the union and making sure the union is in good shape, that we're not being invaded by a foreign country, as an example. The feds are giving back that responsibility, as they should. They should never have taken it on in the first place. We're getting back to a Constitutionally sound system of government.
You can put food on your plate. The feds are defending the border and doing other such things so that you can carry on with your responsibilities. Food, shelter, etc are your responsibilities.
No. The feds are putting less money into it, but it's the responsibility of the state, local government, charitable organizations, or even people themselves to take care of this. It's the role of government to make sure there's food on your plate. That's your responsibility. The government should be getting out of being someone's provider.
Not a good belief to have considering that our President was critical of the pope's comments about building walls and pointed out the hypocrisy of the vatican defending itself with walls.
Parent was saying that people were morons for trusting him. We had the choice between him and Hillary. More Americans trust him than trust her, so he won the election. See how that works?
You assigned the work, not the candidate. If they want to bring a portfolio of work in with them, they can. A waste of time is phone screens, multi-round interviews, and now work that you don't think is work. You are not an effective interviewer.
"if you're not excited to get to work with someone, why would you hire them?"
Skill? Creativity? Knowledge? Experience? People can have these traits without humping your leg to get you excited in an interview.
"Giving this 'homework' allows us to spend less time in the onsite interview asking the candidate to work on the board."
There it is. You're spending their time instead of your own. Time is money right? That's why I'm saying you need to compensate them. You've just admitted there's a cost involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Students are getting shot right outside of Boston schools but they're worried about racist maps. That's Boston.
We need a Godwin's law for climate change.
That's pure fantasy. People will always want something that someone else has just because they have it. We have housing projects in larger cities, so they have basic shelter. Those same cities have programs to provide food. So we already supply those basic needs. But those same areas are also among the highest crime areas that we have. Handouts don't work.
Keyword "general". The intent isn't to put food on each and every person's plate. Our system of government would never be able to accomplish that. Remember the whole "ask not what your country can do for you"?
That already happens. People move to locations where the schools are better, or public housing is more plentiful, or insurance is cheaper, etc. My own town got swamped by families with special needs students because we used to have a good program for that. Things like in-state tuition discounts do come with a minimum-number-of-years residency requirement to combat that type of thing. This is the type of dirty detail that leads to the preexisting condition type of exclusion. You need to have been paying into the risk pool for it to work, thus those that haven't get penalized. It serves a purpose, even though people hate the idea of it.
General welfare isn't individual welfare. General welfare refers to the union and making sure the union is in good shape, that we're not being invaded by a foreign country, as an example. The feds are giving back that responsibility, as they should. They should never have taken it on in the first place. We're getting back to a Constitutionally sound system of government.
You can put food on your plate. The feds are defending the border and doing other such things so that you can carry on with your responsibilities. Food, shelter, etc are your responsibilities.
..not the role of..
An edit feature would be nice here.
No. The feds are putting less money into it, but it's the responsibility of the state, local government, charitable organizations, or even people themselves to take care of this. It's the role of government to make sure there's food on your plate. That's your responsibility. The government should be getting out of being someone's provider.
We actually provide all of those things.
The military is a federal issue, those other programs are not. Look to your state.
No one disagrees in my safe space.
Not a good belief to have considering that our President was critical of the pope's comments about building walls and pointed out the hypocrisy of the vatican defending itself with walls.
Ellen Pao also comes to mind.
Sometimes I think voting for public officials should require a little more than just showing up and demanding a ballot.
Sometimes.
Little known fact.. the Reps won that too.
Has Québec signed the Canadian Constitution yet or are the Canadian imperialists in Ottawa still asserting dominance over it?
The word is straitjacketed, unless you're in the habit of wearing crooked jackets.
More people in the places that mattered. He won, get over it.
Parent was saying that people were morons for trusting him. We had the choice between him and Hillary. More Americans trust him than trust her, so he won the election. See how that works?
He's more trustworthy than Hillary.
So don't live in the city. There are tech jobs all over the country.
And if it wasn't mentioned up front, you've now wasted their time and yours.
You assigned the work, not the candidate. If they want to bring a portfolio of work in with them, they can. A waste of time is phone screens, multi-round interviews, and now work that you don't think is work. You are not an effective interviewer.
"if you're not excited to get to work with someone, why would you hire them?"
Skill? Creativity? Knowledge? Experience? People can have these traits without humping your leg to get you excited in an interview.
"Giving this 'homework' allows us to spend less time in the onsite interview asking the candidate to work on the board."
There it is. You're spending their time instead of your own. Time is money right? That's why I'm saying you need to compensate them. You've just admitted there's a cost involved.