Aw, a bankruptcy for a level of government (which is not the same thing as a country) is not that bad. The US has already gone bankrupt the moment it went off the gold standard, defaulting on those obligations.
It is ridiculous to think that a company has the **responsibility** to provide training for their workforce, let alone training people who aren't qualified yet in order to become their workforce. No. That would be a desperation move by a company, should the normal competitive pressures fail to motivate people to get themselves trained.
"Why don't we just require everyone to get drug tested before they can receive any government benefits of any sort?"
Thus the distinction between net contributors vs. net beneficiaries. (Otherwise, anyone who happens to receive a $0.01 cheque from the government could be made to be covered.)
"see whether you find [a drug test] a humiliating experience or not."
Oh I'm sure it's a humiliating feeling, even though that's not the intent. So is being forced to pay gajillions in taxes, feel it unfair, then being accused of childish selfishness etc.
You see drug testing as needless humiliation. But as I understand it, the purpose of these programs is not to humiliate - it is to help establish actual need. The theory would be that if a poor person can afford to throw money away on drugs or other such gratuitous stuff, then they didn't need quite as much money from the treasury to begin with. That's intuitive enough.
"If instead of letting rich people claim a tax deduction we instead made it a credit, would you then support a drug test as a condition for getting it?"
I don't know. But if I had to, I'd probably draw the line closer to the dividing line between being a net contributor to vs. net beneficiary of the common treasury.
"why is it ok to subject someone to demeaning treatment in one case, but not in the other"
Taking arbitrary amounts of someone's money and forcing them to put up with it or else go to jail, yeah that's demeaning. No one should have to go through that.
"The money paid was not "one's own" to begin with, that share always rightfully belonged to the government as a special shareholder in the enterprise."
Do you call yourself "slave" when you're alone?
"By definition that money rightfully belongs to the welfare recipient."
Do you call yourself "slave to welfare recipients" when you're alone?
Slashdot Mirror
"the market trumps basic morality"
No one says that.
The market only trumps wishful thinking.
Maybe. Or one can draw the line at young humans who can contemplate the value of self-existence.
We demand locomotion equality NOW NOW NOW!
"I would not want them to have what I have and go through what I have. "
That's an interesting point. It reminds one of pro-abortion arguments.
But ... ask yourself, would you prefer to have never been born?
If this move turns out to be contrary to the fiduciary interests of shareholders, expect a class action lawsuit. A CEO can't simply throw money away.
"coal is being displaced by cheaper options like combined-cycle natural gas, wind, and solar" Aw man, thanks, that was a good one.
No, the "middle ground fallacy" means that it is an error to presume that the middle ground between two extreme positions is the right one.
Your standard black rubber type pool heater is basically this same thing, except it already works at scale.
Yeah, isn't it weird that this industry is so unique in that its supply curve bends backward in places?
a beowulf cluster of bill gates' fortunes
"So killing someone without trial is okay in your book."
Absolutely, if the killing is done in the process of defending one's self or others from a terrible danger.
heh yeah. Days are long gone when twitter presented itself plausibly as a "free speech platform".
It is unconscionable to force a criminal defendant to assist his or her own prosecution in any way whatsoever.
Aw, a bankruptcy for a level of government (which is not the same thing as a country) is not that bad. The US has already gone bankrupt the moment it went off the gold standard, defaulting on those obligations.
It is ridiculous to think that a company has the **responsibility** to provide training for their workforce, let alone training people who aren't qualified yet in order to become their workforce. No. That would be a desperation move by a company, should the normal competitive pressures fail to motivate people to get themselves trained.
BEEFY MIRACLE
"Why don't we just require everyone to get drug tested before they can receive any government benefits of any sort?"
Thus the distinction between net contributors vs. net beneficiaries. (Otherwise, anyone who happens to receive a $0.01 cheque from the government could be made to be covered.)
"see whether you find [a drug test] a humiliating experience or not."
Oh I'm sure it's a humiliating feeling, even though that's not the intent. So is being forced to pay gajillions in taxes, feel it unfair, then being accused of childish selfishness etc.
You see drug testing as needless humiliation. But as I understand it, the purpose of these programs is not to humiliate - it is to help establish actual need. The theory would be that if a poor person can afford to throw money away on drugs or other such gratuitous stuff, then they didn't need quite as much money from the treasury to begin with. That's intuitive enough.
"If instead of letting rich people claim a tax deduction we instead made it a credit, would you then support a drug test as a condition for getting it?"
I don't know. But if I had to, I'd probably draw the line closer to the dividing line between being a net contributor to vs. net beneficiary of the common treasury.
"why is it ok to subject someone to demeaning treatment in one case, but not in the other"
Taking arbitrary amounts of someone's money and forcing them to put up with it or else go to jail, yeah that's demeaning. No one should have to go through that.
Are you suggesting that the taxes owed are exclusively the penance for the original sin of living in preexisting civilization?
"The money paid was not "one's own" to begin with, that share always rightfully belonged to the government as a special shareholder in the enterprise."
Do you call yourself "slave" when you're alone?
"By definition that money rightfully belongs to the welfare recipient."
Do you call yourself "slave to welfare recipients" when you're alone?
subsidy / welfare == receipt of someone else's money
tax deduction == less of one's own money being taken
those things are different
Translation: I pretend to be aloof and objective, but will surely find a way to insult the speaker.
yeah, that too!