Companies use H1B and L1 visas as a method of bringing in cheap foreign labor.
First they post a job with outrageously high requirements for a lowball salary.
The only local workers who can do it are currently employed (often at the same company) for better money, so they won't take it.
The company "can't find" any local talent, so they bring in a foreign worker on an L1 or H1B visa who doesn't meet the job requirements either - but will do the job they actually wanted done, for an even lower salary.
The standard procedure for companies when they want to do this is to first post a job opening with outrageously high skill and experience requirements, and a sub par salary.
Any American workers who are qualified for the position are generally already employed at the same or better wages, in positions with lower requirements - so few if any apply. If a qualified worker does apply, it is a win for the company - they've just hired an overqualified worker for 1/2 to 2/3 of the salary such a position should command.
In the more common case that no workers apply who meet the qualifications set, the company applies for an L1 or H1B visa on the basis that it "cannot find qualified American workers". They then bring in foreign workers who do not meet the original requirements, for even lower salaries.
I don't have a facebook account, mainly because I neither want a potential employer judging me based on it, nor demanding my login. I also don't wish to have my information sold to whoever facebook is making deals with that week, as they change privacy policies.
The folks from Rumblefish are trying to do damage control - which at this point, any reasonable company would do.
It is possible that the "reviews" were done by an automated system on their side, which would be bad.
It is also possible that the "reviews" were done by a lazy human on their side who if there is any justice in the world, is in the process of being fired.
If the former case is true, it was a bad business model by the company which is now coming back to bite them.
If the latter case is true, then the company representatives posting here may just be decent people trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Either way, I'd say give them the benefit of the doubt. If the bogus infringement notices continue after this, we can break out the pitchforks and torches - otherwise it can be counted as a lesson learned.
The first article is not about a terrorist attack, but about an attack against an enemy military base in a civil war. As long as you're not a soldier and don't step into the war zone, you're not at risk.
Unless you happen to be one of the 70 Afghan civilians nearby when it happened.
The second article is about an Israeli attack against Hezbollah. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; is Israel committing terrorism when they're fighting Hezbollah?
That took an extra 5 minutes of searching - I can likely find a dozen more if I bother to look.
The third article is about a terrorist attack, since they targeted civilians, but it only killed 18 people. It's also part of the fight against an occupying force, so it's unlikely they'll target their attacks outside their own country.
Only 18 people? Ah, well that's all right then. Funny thing - if someone kills 18 people and they're not a terrorist, they get called a mass-murderer....and does it really matter where they are committing the attacks? Its OK because it isn't happening here?
The fourth article is, once again, about an attack against a military target, not a terrorist attack.
Yep. You probably missed the part at the bottom where it mentions the other recent suicide bombings by the same group at a secondary school, university and hospital.
The fifth article is about a terrorist attack where nobody was hurt, except for a chicken coop and a propane tank.
So terrorist attacks are OK if they don't -actually- manage to kill anyone?
Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world
Most terrorist acts in Europe are still carried out by Christian Europeans, like the Catalonian separatists in Spain, or the Catholic separatists on Northern Ireland. The most recent major act of terrorism, Anders Breivik's bombing of the Norwegian parliament with 8 dead and subsequent shooting of another 77 people, was...
...on the 22nd of July. Five months ago.
The most recent incident of Islamic terrorism was today:
There were probably more, but that was just a cursory search. I could go back further - but the point is the word "common" in my statement. By far the vast majority of attacks are committed by islamic terrorists. Do other terrorists exist? Sure....but they're not committing attacks every day.
While there is a certain amount of (justified) paranoia that the government would use digitizing records as an opportunity to engage in revisionist history, I have to say that despite a desire to do so, the odds are against the government being able to pull it off.
In order for something like 1984's Ministry of Truth to function, the government would have to be far, far more competent and efficient than is ever to be likely.
You assume that the terrorists are not willing to kill half the planet to accomplish their goals, even if half their own people die in the process. They've already proven repeatedly that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives and those of their own people to commit terrorist acts.
If half the world population were to die off (in equal percentages everywhere), countries like the US, UK and Germany would be vastly more affected in terms of productivity, influence, and ability to project military power than countries like Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan.
The actual deaths would likely vary somewhat from one country to another - but industrialized nations would still be the most affected, and the terrorists could easily see the deaths of half their own people as an acceptable cost.
Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world, and almost uniformly use their religion as the justification for their acts (as opposed to terrorists who happen to be of other faiths, who do so rarely). They also have a history of being willing to sacrifice their own lives to accomplish their goals. Even if they believed that they would themselves die in the process, and that muslims would be killed in equal percentages to westerners, they would still likely use it, on the (correct) theory that 50% casualties would be far more damaging to industrialized nations than to their own.
All that said, it really doesn't matter what sort of terrorists get a contagious, airborne bioweapon if they are willing to use it.
This sort of thing is why I've been saying for the last few years that I am far more concerned about terrorists with bioweapons than terrorists with nukes. The bioweapons are cheaper and easier to make, the raw materials easier to obtain, and the consequences of use potentially far more severe.
Once they've sold their knowledge, they can be identified, sometimes.
Keeping the knowledge from spreading isn't possible - eventually it will become commonplace. The challenge is making the raw materials and weapons grade nuclear material out of the hands of those who would misuse it.
A similar problem exists with bioweapons - eventually the knowledge to make them will become commonly available. The differences there are that raw materials for bioweapons are far easier to obtain, the equipment needed is far less expensive than for nukes, and the potential damage of bioweapons is far worse.
The problem is that the government is made up of people who want to be re-elected - and what they have learned is the best way to do that is to pander to the special interests that finance them, and also to the electorate with handouts, subsidies, grants, kickbacks, loans, credits, bailouts, loans, etc.
All of those things cost money - and the people who write and pass the laws that create them have for decades done so without any consideration for how much they cost. Every year, the government just borrows more money to cover the additional spending. This is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem - both major parties are equally guilty - they just want to spend the money on different things.
I'm very conservative. Despite that, I'll agree taxes probably need to go up at this point - BUT... with a couple of caveats:
1) Since the federal government has proved that it is incapable of reining in its spending, increased taxes by itself is not a solution - without some sort of enforced fiscal responsibility, they would just treat increased revenue as a license to increase spending. To that end, a balanced budget amendment is an immediate requirement. If necessary, peg spending to income, and pro-rate all budget items - but it has to be done.
2) The income tax needs to be replaced with a flat, federal sales tax that exempts food and clothing below a set dollar amount that is indexed to inflation. This accomplishes several things. First, it closes all the tax loopholes that the ultra-rich use to pay lower tax rates than the middle class. Money does them no good unless they spend it, and when they spend it, they pay taxes. Second, it abolishes corporate income taxes (which are just taxes on the customers of those corporations by proxy, since the corporations simply pass the costs of those taxes on to the consumer). Third, it gives private citizens at all income levels a stake in paying for the services and monies provided by the federal government. Currently almost half the population pays no federal income tax. As a result, they often have no concern for the costs of benefit programs. This change would mean that the "poor" while not taxed on basic necessities, would be paying some tax - and that tax would increase as federal spending increases. "Want national healthcare? No problem. Your taxes will go up X amount next year to pay for it."
If this is part of the stimulus, I wonder if the negative 1100 jobs counts toward the total jobs created by all our money. It would be kind of funny and kind of sad if we spent a trillion dollars to create jobs and the total job creation from that spending ended up being negative.
If I lived in a country that had such a law, the first thing I would do is ensure my children never had internet access - since as their parent, I am financially liable for their behavior.
I would also turn off the wireless on any internet-connected devices and go hard-wired only.
There are certainly other measures one could take to protect oneself from inadvertently becoming a victim of this sort of law - but those are a couple of basic ones.
I wonder if the people who voted for the law will like the consequences of people trying to protect themselves from it.
Don't you understand that when you take a job, you negotiate for a "Total Compensation" package.
Yep - and for non-union employees, that is done once, at time of hire. Unions deliberately negotiate short term contracts so that they can periodically re-negotiate to get better pay/benefits, on the theory that the economy is consistently improving. In times of very low unemployment, the union can even hold a company hostage for unreasonable demands and get them.
This time, that strategy backfired. Sucks to be them - but when you gamble regularly, sometimes you lose.
The future of IT will be one guy, sitting in a closet, making minimum wage to push a button when someone's cupholder is broken....because management is afraid of automation.
What happened to Law Enforcement in this country is that citizens now commonly have the ability and equipment to record and publish Law Enforcement abuses where they can be seen by a global audience.
Prior to this ability being commonplace, cases of police abuse tended to be the officer's word against the victim's, and unless there were other unbiased witnesses the officer was generally presumed to be telling the truth. Accusers and witnesses were also commonly harassed and further victimized by police in an attempt to get them to retract/recant. The abuses have not changed - only the frequency with which they get public attention with proof.
Law Enforcement does not like being held responsible for their crimes, thus the abuse of the wiretapping laws to silence accusers and witnesses.
As for winning the cases against those recording police in public - they often do - and even where they do not, the citizens are often ruined financially by the cost of defending themselves.
First order of business is to stop spending more than we take in.
What to cut? Cut everything. Balanced budget amendment, limit government spending for the current year to last year's income.
Take 25% off the top and use that to pay down the debt.
Take the remaining money and use it to finance the budget on a pro-rated basis. That means -everything- gets cut.
You can argue about what specific programs to cut spending on so that there is more money for everything else, AFTER you stop spending more than we take in.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Seems to me the government is trying to solve the wrong problem.
Everyone keeps talked about deficit reduction....but that's just a fancy way of saying we're going to keep spending more than we take in.
What we need to be talking about is DEBT reduction. This is the plain way of saying we're going to spend less than we take in and use the remainder to pay down the debt.
The reason politicians never talk about debt reduction is they all have pet projects/programs they want to protect at all costs.
There's a simple solution to this. It will be painful as all hell, but not as much as the financial collapse that will occur if we don't act. In short, pass a balanced budget amendment like the one I wrote below:
Balanced Budget Amendment
As our elected representatives seem to be incapable as a body, of spending within the country's income, this amendment's purpose is to leave them no choice, at any time there is a national debt.
Section 1
The provisions of this Amendment shall go into effect on the calendar year following any calendar year in which there exists a national debt, and shall remain in effect until the debt has been paid in full.
Section 2
The United States shall be prohibited from spending more money than it received as revenue during the previous calendar year, except as outlined in the Sections below. In the event that the previous year's revenue is greater than that of the current year, the United States may borrow such funds as are necessary to make up the difference.
Section 3
While the provisions of this Amendment are in effect, 25% of the revenues taken in by the United States (or the full amount of the debt, whichever is less) shall be allocated out of budget to pay down the debt, before any other spending. If it was necessary to take out a loan under Section 2 of this amendment to meet the previous year's income level, an amount equal to the loan shall be added to the 25%, to pay the loan off in full the following year. The remaining revenues shall be spent on the budget, all budget items being funded on an equal, pro-rated basis. If remaining revenues after paying down the debt are only half as much as required to fully fund all budget items, then all budget items will be funded at half their budgeted level.
Section 4
To prevent the United States from circumventing this amendment by shifting costs to individuals or states, all existing unfunded or underfunded mandates shall become null and void from the date of ratification of this amendment. Creation of additional unfunded or underfunded mandates shall be prohibited. If the United States mandates behavior of individual states or individuals, and that behavior has a cost, the United States must fully fund the cost. In addition, the United States shall be prohibited from making monies paid to individuals or States conditional on behavior it cannot legally require.
Section 5
In the event of the United States engaging in a declared war, Sections 1 through 3 of this amendment shall be suspended so long as the state of war exists.
If Sections 1 through 3 of this amendment are suspended during wartime, neither any currently serving member of Congress, nor the President or Vice President may run for election or re-election until one election cycle has passed after the end of the war.
Section 6
To encourage actual budget cutting rather than simply increasing the budgeted dollar amount of a budget item beyond all reason in order to get a larger piece of the pro-rated pie, the budgeted amount for any budget item is prohibited from being increased while Sections 1 through 3 of this amendment are in effect. Further, the budgeted dollar amount for any budget item whose budgeted dollar amount was increased while Sections 1 through 3 were suspended due to the United States engaging in a declared war shall immediately revert to pre-war levels as soon as the state of war ends.
Since you aren't planning on giving up the internet entirely and plan to use it at work and via public wifi, given that you are addicted, you wont be spending any time at home.
That means you can put all your goods in storage, sleep in your car, use the showers at truckstops, and save a bundle on rent/mortgage.
If there are only two choices, I don't disagree - but if there are three or more choices, and everyone is telling you the one you really want to vote for doesn't have a chance, then the logical thing to do is pick the least bad of the remainder. It is exactly that sort of manipulation that has given us more of the same, election after election.
Slashdot Mirror
The suppression of political groups is even worse than that - and not limited to the IRS, though the IRS instigated it in this case.
Companies use H1B and L1 visas as a method of bringing in cheap foreign labor.
First they post a job with outrageously high requirements for a lowball salary.
The only local workers who can do it are currently employed (often at the same company) for better money, so they won't take it.
The company "can't find" any local talent, so they bring in a foreign worker on an L1 or H1B visa who doesn't meet the job requirements either - but will do the job they actually wanted done, for an even lower salary.
The standard procedure for companies when they want to do this is to first post a job opening with outrageously high skill and experience requirements, and a sub par salary.
Any American workers who are qualified for the position are generally already employed at the same or better wages, in positions with lower requirements - so few if any apply. If a qualified worker does apply, it is a win for the company - they've just hired an overqualified worker for 1/2 to 2/3 of the salary such a position should command.
In the more common case that no workers apply who meet the qualifications set, the company applies for an L1 or H1B visa on the basis that it "cannot find qualified American workers". They then bring in foreign workers who do not meet the original requirements, for even lower salaries.
I don't have a facebook account, mainly because I neither want a potential employer judging me based on it, nor demanding my login. I also don't wish to have my information sold to whoever facebook is making deals with that week, as they change privacy policies.
So start the 5 years when the product is first sold retail, and prohibit them from charging for trial versions of the product.
The folks from Rumblefish are trying to do damage control - which at this point, any reasonable company would do.
It is possible that the "reviews" were done by an automated system on their side, which would be bad.
It is also possible that the "reviews" were done by a lazy human on their side who if there is any justice in the world, is in the process of being fired.
If the former case is true, it was a bad business model by the company which is now coming back to bite them.
If the latter case is true, then the company representatives posting here may just be decent people trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Either way, I'd say give them the benefit of the doubt. If the bogus infringement notices continue after this, we can break out the pitchforks and torches - otherwise it can be counted as a lesson learned.
By all means, give him a fair trial.
...and his business associates, friends, family, and dog.
Then execute him.
The first article is not about a terrorist attack, but about an attack against an enemy military base in a civil war. As long as you're not a soldier and don't step into the war zone, you're not at risk.
Unless you happen to be one of the 70 Afghan civilians nearby when it happened.
The second article is about an Israeli attack against Hezbollah. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; is Israel committing terrorism when they're fighting Hezbollah?
Oops. My mistake.
For that day, how about this instead:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/nigeria/articles/20111201.aspx
Or this:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20111201.aspx
Or this:
http://www.criticalthreats.org/gulf-aden-security-review/gulf-aden-security-review-december-1-2011
That took an extra 5 minutes of searching - I can likely find a dozen more if I bother to look.
The third article is about a terrorist attack, since they targeted civilians, but it only killed 18 people. It's also part of the fight against an occupying force, so it's unlikely they'll target their attacks outside their own country.
Only 18 people? Ah, well that's all right then. Funny thing - if someone kills 18 people and they're not a terrorist, they get called a mass-murderer. ...and does it really matter where they are committing the attacks? Its OK because it isn't happening here?
The fourth article is, once again, about an attack against a military target, not a terrorist attack.
Yep. You probably missed the part at the bottom where it mentions the other recent suicide bombings by the same group at a secondary school, university and hospital.
The fifth article is about a terrorist attack where nobody was hurt, except for a chicken coop and a propane tank.
So terrorist attacks are OK if they don't -actually- manage to kill anyone?
Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world
Most terrorist acts in Europe are still carried out by Christian Europeans, like the Catalonian separatists in Spain, or the Catholic separatists on Northern Ireland. The most recent major act of terrorism, Anders Breivik's bombing of the Norwegian parliament with 8 dead and subsequent shooting of another 77 people, was...
...on the 22nd of July. Five months ago.
...and yesterday:
...and the day before:
...and the day before that:
...but they're not committing attacks every day.
The most recent incident of Islamic terrorism was today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8931171/Suicide-bomb-attack-on-Afghan-Nato-base.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lebanese-media-idf-bombed-espionage-devices-uncovered-by-hezbollah-1.399257
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/343369/bomb-gunmen-kill-18-iraq-marks-us-withdrawal
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/somali-soldiers-killed-suicide-bomb-attack-15054747
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=247407
There were probably more, but that was just a cursory search. I could go back further - but the point is the word "common" in my statement. By far the vast majority of attacks are committed by islamic terrorists. Do other terrorists exist? Sure.
While there is a certain amount of (justified) paranoia that the government would use digitizing records as an opportunity to engage in revisionist history, I have to say that despite a desire to do so, the odds are against the government being able to pull it off.
In order for something like 1984's Ministry of Truth to function, the government would have to be far, far more competent and efficient than is ever to be likely.
As am I - except I have never had one, and have no plans to change that.
You assume that the terrorists are not willing to kill half the planet to accomplish their goals, even if half their own people die in the process. They've already proven repeatedly that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives and those of their own people to commit terrorist acts.
If half the world population were to die off (in equal percentages everywhere), countries like the US, UK and Germany would be vastly more affected in terms of productivity, influence, and ability to project military power than countries like Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan.
The actual deaths would likely vary somewhat from one country to another - but industrialized nations would still be the most affected, and the terrorists could easily see the deaths of half their own people as an acceptable cost.
Islamic terrorists are by far the most common sort in the modern world, and almost uniformly use their religion as the justification for their acts (as opposed to terrorists who happen to be of other faiths, who do so rarely). They also have a history of being willing to sacrifice their own lives to accomplish their goals. Even if they believed that they would themselves die in the process, and that muslims would be killed in equal percentages to westerners, they would still likely use it, on the (correct) theory that 50% casualties would be far more damaging to industrialized nations than to their own.
All that said, it really doesn't matter what sort of terrorists get a contagious, airborne bioweapon if they are willing to use it.
This sort of thing is why I've been saying for the last few years that I am far more concerned about terrorists with bioweapons than terrorists with nukes. The bioweapons are cheaper and easier to make, the raw materials easier to obtain, and the consequences of use potentially far more severe.
Once they've sold their knowledge, they can be identified, sometimes.
Keeping the knowledge from spreading isn't possible - eventually it will become commonplace. The challenge is making the raw materials and weapons grade nuclear material out of the hands of those who would misuse it.
A similar problem exists with bioweapons - eventually the knowledge to make them will become commonly available. The differences there are that raw materials for bioweapons are far easier to obtain, the equipment needed is far less expensive than for nukes, and the potential damage of bioweapons is far worse.
The problem is that the government is made up of people who want to be re-elected - and what they have learned is the best way to do that is to pander to the special interests that finance them, and also to the electorate with handouts, subsidies, grants, kickbacks, loans, credits, bailouts, loans, etc.
All of those things cost money - and the people who write and pass the laws that create them have for decades done so without any consideration for how much they cost. Every year, the government just borrows more money to cover the additional spending. This is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem - both major parties are equally guilty - they just want to spend the money on different things.
I'm very conservative. Despite that, I'll agree taxes probably need to go up at this point - BUT... with a couple of caveats:
1) Since the federal government has proved that it is incapable of reining in its spending, increased taxes by itself is not a solution - without some sort of enforced fiscal responsibility, they would just treat increased revenue as a license to increase spending. To that end, a balanced budget amendment is an immediate requirement. If necessary, peg spending to income, and pro-rate all budget items - but it has to be done.
2) The income tax needs to be replaced with a flat, federal sales tax that exempts food and clothing below a set dollar amount that is indexed to inflation. This accomplishes several things. First, it closes all the tax loopholes that the ultra-rich use to pay lower tax rates than the middle class. Money does them no good unless they spend it, and when they spend it, they pay taxes. Second, it abolishes corporate income taxes (which are just taxes on the customers of those corporations by proxy, since the corporations simply pass the costs of those taxes on to the consumer). Third, it gives private citizens at all income levels a stake in paying for the services and monies provided by the federal government. Currently almost half the population pays no federal income tax. As a result, they often have no concern for the costs of benefit programs. This change would mean that the "poor" while not taxed on basic necessities, would be paying some tax - and that tax would increase as federal spending increases. "Want national healthcare? No problem. Your taxes will go up X amount next year to pay for it."
If this is part of the stimulus, I wonder if the negative 1100 jobs counts toward the total jobs created by all our money. It would be kind of funny and kind of sad if we spent a trillion dollars to create jobs and the total job creation from that spending ended up being negative.
If I lived in a country that had such a law, the first thing I would do is ensure my children never had internet access - since as their parent, I am financially liable for their behavior.
I would also turn off the wireless on any internet-connected devices and go hard-wired only.
There are certainly other measures one could take to protect oneself from inadvertently becoming a victim of this sort of law - but those are a couple of basic ones.
I wonder if the people who voted for the law will like the consequences of people trying to protect themselves from it.
Don't you understand that when you take a job, you negotiate for a "Total Compensation" package.
Yep - and for non-union employees, that is done once, at time of hire. Unions deliberately negotiate short term contracts so that they can periodically re-negotiate to get better pay/benefits, on the theory that the economy is consistently improving. In times of very low unemployment, the union can even hold a company hostage for unreasonable demands and get them.
This time, that strategy backfired. Sucks to be them - but when you gamble regularly, sometimes you lose.
The future of IT will be one guy, sitting in a closet, making minimum wage to push a button when someone's cupholder is broken. ...because management is afraid of automation.
What happened to Law Enforcement in this country is that citizens now commonly have the ability and equipment to record and publish Law Enforcement abuses where they can be seen by a global audience.
Prior to this ability being commonplace, cases of police abuse tended to be the officer's word against the victim's, and unless there were other unbiased witnesses the officer was generally presumed to be telling the truth. Accusers and witnesses were also commonly harassed and further victimized by police in an attempt to get them to retract/recant. The abuses have not changed - only the frequency with which they get public attention with proof.
Law Enforcement does not like being held responsible for their crimes, thus the abuse of the wiretapping laws to silence accusers and witnesses.
As for winning the cases against those recording police in public - they often do - and even where they do not, the citizens are often ruined financially by the cost of defending themselves.
First order of business is to stop spending more than we take in.
What to cut? Cut everything. Balanced budget amendment, limit government spending for the current year to last year's income.
Take 25% off the top and use that to pay down the debt.
Take the remaining money and use it to finance the budget on a pro-rated basis. That means -everything- gets cut.
You can argue about what specific programs to cut spending on so that there is more money for everything else, AFTER you stop spending more than we take in.
Seems to me the government is trying to solve the wrong problem.
...but that's just a fancy way of saying we're going to keep spending more than we take in.
Everyone keeps talked about deficit reduction.
What we need to be talking about is DEBT reduction. This is the plain way of saying we're going to spend less than we take in and use the remainder to pay down the debt.
The reason politicians never talk about debt reduction is they all have pet projects/programs they want to protect at all costs.
There's a simple solution to this. It will be painful as all hell, but not as much as the financial collapse that will occur if we don't act. In short, pass a balanced budget amendment like the one I wrote below:
Balanced Budget Amendment
As our elected representatives seem to be incapable as a body, of spending within the country's income, this amendment's purpose is to leave them no choice, at any time there is a national debt.
Section 1
The provisions of this Amendment shall go into effect on the calendar year following any calendar year in which there exists a national debt, and shall remain in effect until the debt has been paid in full.
Section 2
The United States shall be prohibited from spending more money than it received as revenue during the previous calendar year, except as outlined in the Sections below. In the event that the previous year's revenue is greater than that of the current year, the United States may borrow such funds as are necessary to make up the difference.
Section 3
While the provisions of this Amendment are in effect, 25% of the revenues taken in by the United States (or the full amount of the debt, whichever is less) shall be allocated out of budget to pay down the debt, before any other spending. If it was necessary to take out a loan under Section 2 of this amendment to meet the previous year's income level, an amount equal to the loan shall be added to the 25%, to pay the loan off in full the following year. The remaining revenues shall be spent on the budget, all budget items being funded on an equal, pro-rated basis. If remaining revenues after paying down the debt are only half as much as required to fully fund all budget items, then all budget items will be funded at half their budgeted level.
Section 4
To prevent the United States from circumventing this amendment by shifting costs to individuals or states, all existing unfunded or underfunded mandates shall become null and void from the date of ratification of this amendment. Creation of additional unfunded or underfunded mandates shall be prohibited. If the United States mandates behavior of individual states or individuals, and that behavior has a cost, the United States must fully fund the cost. In addition, the United States shall be prohibited from making monies paid to individuals or States conditional on behavior it cannot legally require.
Section 5
In the event of the United States engaging in a declared war, Sections 1 through 3 of this amendment shall be suspended so long as the state of war exists.
If Sections 1 through 3 of this amendment are suspended during wartime, neither any currently serving member of Congress, nor the President or Vice President may run for election or re-election until one election cycle has passed after the end of the war.
Section 6
To encourage actual budget cutting rather than simply increasing the budgeted dollar amount of a budget item beyond all reason in order to get a larger piece of the pro-rated pie, the budgeted amount for any budget item is prohibited from being increased while Sections 1 through 3 of this amendment are in effect. Further, the budgeted dollar amount for any budget item whose budgeted dollar amount was increased while Sections 1 through 3 were suspended due to the United States engaging in a declared war shall immediately revert to pre-war levels as soon as the state of war ends.
This could be a real money saver...
Since you aren't planning on giving up the internet entirely and plan to use it at work and via public wifi, given that you are addicted, you wont be spending any time at home.
That means you can put all your goods in storage, sleep in your car, use the showers at truckstops, and save a bundle on rent/mortgage.
WIn?
If there are only two choices, I don't disagree - but if there are three or more choices, and everyone is telling you the one you really want to vote for doesn't have a chance, then the logical thing to do is pick the least bad of the remainder. It is exactly that sort of manipulation that has given us more of the same, election after election.