When you are in criminal court, the rules are skewed to favor the defendant. It starts with innocent until proven guilty and keeps going from there. What you see on TV is not how it really works. Criminal court is almost a ritual like proceeding where the defense gets the benefit of EVERY doubt.
This is by design, it's because we'd rather be afraid of criminals than the state and I agree with it completely.
That would depend on how you identified the people to be rounded up. Just driving down the street and selecting people on appearance, yeah that's illegal. If on the other hand you were to collect evidence that certain industries/locations were employing illegals and then raid them and check the documentation status of all the workers on site, that would likely be completely kosher. (I'm looking at you agriculture, meat processing and construction) Of course taking action against large corporations would mean a huge political outcry and a ton of lawsuits/drop in donations so it would never happen.
Sticking solely to people who have actually been president I'd say that yes Bush Jr. was definitely to the right of Ike, Nixon & Reagan. In addition Reagan was to the right of Nixon who was to the right of Ike, it's a trend.
You're assuming the money would be spent on consumption, for most of the rich it would instead be plowed into investments in financial securities. The likely result would be job losses as firms flush with new cash consolidate their industries.
A market for Visas, that's a slick Idea that solves things in a very free market kind of way, I approve, we should do that. (seriously) I also look forward to seeing Collateralized H1B Derivative tranches.
If you can't find enough people then no matter how much salary you're currently offering the numbers are too low. You have two options 1) Increase pay offers until you find people willing to take the job 2) Hire someone at a lower rate and train them.
The only group wanting CS grads at all was the US Army, and they would only accept you if you would take MOS 11X (infantry, they choose everything else.) So, it looks like a CS degree might be good if you want to be a front line grunt and make PFC after basic training, but not much else.
That's silly, with a CS Degree you'd be eligible to go in as an officer. Sure, there are some downsides compared to the private sector but it's MUCH better than being a PFC. I should know, I was enlisted (Marines not Army but the principle is the same).
The fact that nothing is working as intended is because people think taxes and government regulation have no negative consequences, and keep making more of them to fix the previous consequences of bad government taxes and regulations.
True, but also somewhat misleading as it implies that removing taxes and regulations also has no negative consequences, which is false. Like many things in life it tends to be a trade off and you have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each tax and regulation. Many of our current ones should probably go away, others should be modified, a few should be strengthened and in some areas we probably need new ones.
The answer is obvious: so governments can waste their money on little, average guys like me and you, instead of always wasting it on a few already incredible rich people, who get every break they desire by corrupting governance by making it fundamentally unfair.
You're making an awfully big assumption that extra funds would be spent on little people instead of further spending on powerful special interests.
Re:and we will need basic income to cover the peop
on
Planes Without Pilots
·
· Score: 1
Airlines are already complaining about a shortage of pilots today.
Shortage of pilots, hah, that's a good one. Do you have any idea how many people are trying to become professional pilots? There are so many it drives the wages down to ridiculously low levels compared to the cost of training and certification.
Slashdot Mirror
When you are in criminal court, the rules are skewed to favor the defendant. It starts with innocent until proven guilty and keeps going from there. What you see on TV is not how it really works. Criminal court is almost a ritual like proceeding where the defense gets the benefit of EVERY doubt.
This is by design, it's because we'd rather be afraid of criminals than the state and I agree with it completely.
That would depend on how you identified the people to be rounded up. Just driving down the street and selecting people on appearance, yeah that's illegal. If on the other hand you were to collect evidence that certain industries/locations were employing illegals and then raid them and check the documentation status of all the workers on site, that would likely be completely kosher. (I'm looking at you agriculture, meat processing and construction) Of course taking action against large corporations would mean a huge political outcry and a ton of lawsuits/drop in donations so it would never happen.
Sounds like a good plan, I'd vote for it.
Sticking solely to people who have actually been president I'd say that yes Bush Jr. was definitely to the right of Ike, Nixon & Reagan. In addition Reagan was to the right of Nixon who was to the right of Ike, it's a trend.
3. The US federal government is one of the few in the world set up to put the interests of the 'opulant minority' ahead of the common people.
Foreign governments don't put the interests of the common people first either, they just favor a different set of insiders.
BTW the last president to do anything about illegal immigration was Eike
I like Ike! Ah, the days before Republicans went off the deep end, it makes me sad to realize he'd never get elected nowadays.
You're assuming the money would be spent on consumption, for most of the rich it would instead be plowed into investments in financial securities. The likely result would be job losses as firms flush with new cash consolidate their industries.
A market for Visas, that's a slick Idea that solves things in a very free market kind of way, I approve, we should do that. (seriously) I also look forward to seeing Collateralized H1B Derivative tranches.
If you can't find enough people then no matter how much salary you're currently offering the numbers are too low. You have two options 1) Increase pay offers until you find people willing to take the job 2) Hire someone at a lower rate and train them.
The only group wanting CS grads at all was the US Army, and they would only accept you if you would take MOS 11X (infantry, they choose everything else.) So, it looks like a CS degree might be good if you want to be a front line grunt and make PFC after basic training, but not much else.
That's silly, with a CS Degree you'd be eligible to go in as an officer. Sure, there are some downsides compared to the private sector but it's MUCH better than being a PFC. I should know, I was enlisted (Marines not Army but the principle is the same).
That would appeal to the Libertarian wing but not the Corporate wing, guess which provides more campaign donations?
While I sympathize with your sentiment, you are absolutely wrong. There is simply no way for Zuckerfuck and Ballmer to become bigger doucebags.
This is America! We can supersize anything.
Will someone put these two clowns into the bear enclosure at the zoo and get rid of them for good?
Why do you hate bears? What did they ever do to you?
If someone wants to develop a curated block list it would support that functionality.
With global warming soon to make planet Earth uninhabitable for humans in as little as 200 years
That's extremely unlikely in all of the published scenarios. End of technological civilization, sure, end of humanity, no.
I'd take the position that what is best for any nation is more of a symbiotic relationship with corporations.
If labor is also involved that's called Fascism, if it isn't then it's Corporatism. Both are quite effective but have unpleasant side effects.
Of course it turned out that the Laffer Curve didn't actually work, which is why Reagan raised taxes seven times while in office.
The fact that nothing is working as intended is because people think taxes and government regulation have no negative consequences, and keep making more of them to fix the previous consequences of bad government taxes and regulations.
True, but also somewhat misleading as it implies that removing taxes and regulations also has no negative consequences, which is false. Like many things in life it tends to be a trade off and you have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each tax and regulation. Many of our current ones should probably go away, others should be modified, a few should be strengthened and in some areas we probably need new ones.
Whoa, legal and ethical are very much not the same thing.
Tax loopholes are put there for a reason.
Of course they are, you didn't think all those lobbyists get paid for nothing do you?
The answer is obvious: so governments can waste their money on little, average guys like me and you, instead of always wasting it on a few already incredible rich people, who get every break they desire by corrupting governance by making it fundamentally unfair.
You're making an awfully big assumption that extra funds would be spent on little people instead of further spending on powerful special interests.
Actually I meant changing from first past the post voting to another voting system, ranked voting for example.
Changing the voting system to not force a two party setup might be a good idea too.
Apparently Marshall Brain knows what he's talking about after all. http://marshallbrain.com/robot...
Airlines are already complaining about a shortage of pilots today.
Shortage of pilots, hah, that's a good one. Do you have any idea how many people are trying to become professional pilots? There are so many it drives the wages down to ridiculously low levels compared to the cost of training and certification.