You specifically stated "Substantial" which I demonstrated as _FALSE_. Read your own words, or did the Russians come in and hack that claim into your post?
What "Free Press"? are you referring to? The "Free Press" that did everything in their power to get Trump elected, because as we found out later the Democrats believed he would be the easiest for Hillary to beat? The one that colluded with the DNC to install a particular person to the highest office in the land after the two Primaries? The one that continues to collude to disrupt the current President? The painfully obvious slander and hit jobs by CNN and MSNBC colluding with (and repeating the stories of) NYT, WP, etc..? That "Free Press"?
The "Free" press has been dead for quite a while. We were put on notice by journalists when the monopolization was legalized (previously restricted by law).
I believe it would be more apt to say that Trump wanted to attack an openly corrupt media establishment. A whole lot of people agree with him, and of course the owners of that powerful block of corruption are doing all they can to maintain power and control.
You are full of false dilemmas. The magic devolution to cave man teaching is ludicrous for two very obvious reasons.
1. State control of education would mean that Texas standards would have to compete with Florida standards, who would need to compete with Michigan, Ohio, California, etc...
2. More direct control from the populace of the State. Texas would not be able to create "flat earth" science without the populace agreeing with the legislature. People would not vote for that type of legislation, and even if a small state like Delaware decided to teach flat earth people would simply move to a State that teaches real science.
Sorry to burst your bubble, the the REAL world does not require massive federalization for every thing.
There is a reason that there is no mention of Education in the Constitution, or Abortion in the Constitution, or countless other issues that the feeble minded want federalized. These are not "new" issues to our generation or time, they had both abortion and education back in the 1700s as well.
It's not fake news merely because you can't handle the truth. Here are two questions for you:
1. Did Trump propose cutting the community development block grant?
Yes
2. Does that grant give substantial funds to meals on wheels?
The answers are respectively yes and yes which means Trump is indeed cutting funding for meals on wheels.
No. The cuts in the discretionary budget account for 3% of the Meals on Wheels budget. There is another 28% which is funded through the non-discretionary budget. The portion being cut is not substantial, you are repeating false information. So here is two questions for you.
1. Should a program be paid 3 Billion dollars which does nothing but setup cronies with cash, simply because a tiny portion of that cash goes to a good cause?
1. Should the Federal Government provide _ANY_ funding to _PRIVATE_ organizations?
The answer to both of those questions should be "no".
Personal attacks and lies should not be moderated favorably, the post I'm responding to is clearly flamebait.
The majority of Meals on Wheels funding, which is federal funding to a _PRIVATE_ organization (so questionable) is not through discretionary funding. The discretionary portion of funding is 3% of their funding. The majority of the funding is through the non-discretionary portion of the budget. "Cancelling" is fear mongering bullshit. I'd say check your facts, but some people have no interest and others are paid not to.
We are a nation based on Federalization, meaning that the States should be the primary Government for the people. The Federal Government should not, and was never intended, to be a massive bloat of centralized power. The Federal Government was intended as A) National Defense and B) Arbitration and Law regarding States.
You may disagree with certain powers being returned to the States, but that _is_ _the_ set of ideals you will find both in the US Constitution. That is fully verifiable by reading the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. This is the current primary driver in many issues.
Both sides have done a whole lot of wrong in the past, and this administration _may_ turn out to be the same. However, 59 days into the administration I have seen a President attempt to live up to promises he made when on the campaign trail. Bids are going out for the wall, he has had every person on their administration sign no-lobbying contracts, immigration reforms are being made (though obstructed), Health Care is being addressed, the Budget recommendations (even if you dislike them) have been submitted on-time to Congress.
This "not my candidate" extremist bullshit is being bought and paid for by some extremely wealthy people. It's disturbing that so many people are falling for the pleas for the status quo, which moved the US into negative territory over the last 8 years.
I'm not sure how well we should trust Comey, but so far he's being pretty level. Most important question asked so far. "Is there any evidence that votes were change in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania..." to which the director of the NSA and FBI both stated "no".
When the Benghazi hearings were going, we had Democrats yelling about gun control and demanding censorship of Youtube instead of asking questions related to the actual issues. The grandstanding to keep the hearings away from Clinton were simply despicable. I'm not surprised that a couple of Democrats are sitting and spinning fairy tales about "Russia" by simply repeating narratives crafted by media already proven false.
Selective reading. I gave the example of a SF office and impact on local restaurants. Google's campus is not far from Mountain View's downtown with many dozens of restaurants. It will impact them too.
The NSA has taps on the hardware, but other agencies do not. If people are trying to do things outside of NSA control, they would need to come up with their own taps.
The US has let security go to shit over the last decade. Foreign workers for "cheap" is a big problem, low moral from shitty treatment by administrations (happened long before Trump so don't bother with the dumbass blame game), corrupt administrators, and of course shit morals at companies executive levels.
Of course it "could" be a foreign agency, but lets be real. If the other agencies were doing their jobs it would have been caught long before public attention on it.
I'm not sure if you know how a city works, but buildings already exist. "Opening an Office" means that you take over as the lease holder for floors in a building. Google took over occupancy of the building which killed the local market. The prior tenant did not provide gratis food, which meant that the bottom floor was busy with restaurants and small shops.
Google does not come in and buy up the restaurants or retain the employees. They put the shops out of business, and if they happen to need workers in the future Google "may" hire them. The amount of people Google needs to hire is far less than the local business, and all of the management money goes to Google instead of local shop owners.
I work in SF, I'll keep the name safe, for a company who does not provide food perks. The reason they don't is that it destroys local businesses. I was not really sure about the impact until Google opened an office not far away. The bottom floors of most buildings in SF are local restaurants. Within a few months of Google opening with free food for their employees, the bottom of the building was vacant. Hundreds of jobs lost, from cooks and restaurant workers to food delivery and cleaning services.
Not that Google cares mind you, as is obvious with this new deal.
The populace does not need this, and it creates a public dependence on Google. So much for the small guy and competition.
The symbol of Equality and Justice is the empty scale. We get this from Socrates defining Justice and Equality. When a person or group puts bias or favoritism on the scale, the arms move. The natural response is to add favoritism or bias to counter the first. However, no to people, groups, issues, circumstances, or conclusions are the same. It is impossible to get back to equality while something exists on the scale. Now when you look at society, you can have a scale with countless pans for every person and group. The more people attempt to add and remove bias, the more difficult balance becomes and the harder it is to return to justice and equality.
The only way to obtain equality is to remove all bias and all favoritism.
Anyone with training and education in Philosophy, especially at higher levels should know and understand the lesson. Yet we have countless "leaders" pushing for identities nearly everywhere.
No, I don't think it's accidental. Yes, I think people who understand this can push back and promote a better society.
Most of those will go over the speed limit. El Camino about 10 under during rush hour, but if the Goole/Waymo cars are there you are doing 15 instead of 25 where it's posted 35.
No, I happen to live in Mountain View so am near the big fleet. From the old hand rigged rides to the little toy cars they drive all around Mountain View.
I don't mind them testing and understand the need, but rush hour on El Camino, Central, Shoreline, and Middlefield is already bad. Then you have to try and get around these crawling vehicles if you can. They should drive out of rush hours, or go to an area with less traffic for traffic testing if they can't get within 15-20 miles of the speed limit.
When they do 15-20 miles per hour on rural roads with a speed limit of 35, I don't call it a fair test. I despise these traffic blockers with a passion.
A PoliSci degree provides NO credentials for Infosec. I can not give a PoliSci graduate a task of writing code to normalize failed logins over the last year and find anomalies. I can not ask them to look at switches and routers to detect anomalies. I can not ask them to provide the best method of hardening a new host. I can not ask them to work with developers on securing their code base. I can not ask them to write a functional policy for security. I can not ask them to harden a host, define a good FIM solution, deal with compliance on issues, etc.. etc.. etc... "ask" should have the expectation that the person would be able to actually perform the work.
Wow, I could ask them to write a theme paper about the impact of hacking on business. That is pretty handy to have every few years, so we have technical writers to handle that task.
Your right that the degree is always the highest priority for a candidate. People want experience, which for IT security requires extensive knowledge in computers, programming, networking, and a whole lot of normalization to threats in your area of expertise. Women tend not to be interested in IT, let alone IT Security.
People (women included) coming out of college don't want a minimum wage job monitoring Splunk logs to start learning the skills needed for IT. They want a 6 figure job because "degree". Demanding a job because "gender" is a losing proposition, especially for IT.
Haha, so much delusion and idiocy it's hard to picture you as a real person. I see you as a bot repeating talking points from the last batch of political losers.
By your own admission every previous candidate made the same claims, yet you don't call them or the failed candidate Hillary a "loser". Just the person who won.
Then you claim that Trump lost by the biggest number in popular vote vs. electoral college which ignores the fact that population today is higher than in the last, every election. By percentage the biggest difference was in 1824, second to 1888. Math and research are not that hard, but you are not even trying. Citation for the mentally handicapped. President Trump won the second largest amount of electoral college votes in a split vote by percentage.
You then go to the claim which has no basis in reality, that people didn't support Barack Obama because of his skin color. Strangely 70% of the independent who voted for Obama voted for Trump. You also ignore that even among Democrats the turnouts dropped by 2.8% for the same exact candidate between 2008 and 2012. The percentages of woman and minorities were higher for Trump than McCain or Romney, hence the blue states turning Red. Asians preferred Trump, as did the people who immigrated from Europe and Russia. Again, numbers prove you wrong.
Except better thought out. Both are in favour of building new infrastructure. Hillary had a well though out plan on how to pay for it. Trump just seemed to declare it would happen as if by magic.
That statement has no basis in reality. None, zero, zip, nada. Hillary had a few sound bytes and power point slides, most of which started to go up in September (for Infrastructure, Immigration) and in terms of Government accountability there was no platform. She ran on "he's bad", which is why Democrats didn't vote for her. She was caught in double speak, open lying, and literally hid from the public and media for nearly a year. She was lazy and relied on a lying media (who was caught openly cheating for her), who performed such a constant stream of hit pieces on Trump that he is going to be untouchable even if he actually does something wrong.
There is simply no further point in attempting to have a discussion with a person who feels justified to argue against facts. You are delusional at best, and a Hillary shill at worst. I know the lines. Everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamophobe, and hates the poor. People simply don't believe you and your ilk any longer, you wore out the lies.
I like how you ignored my question. If a Degree was a Degree in terms of Jobs, why can't I go be a certified Medical professional due to my Math Degree? I'll add that I also have a Philosophy degree which I received at the same time as my Math degree. I have two of them, so should be more than qualified. Hell, I should be able to be a professor of English Studies, because the only thing that counts is experience and I have been writing my whole life.
8 years of budget overruns under a Democratic President is a problem because "average republican". Good grief, stop blaming one side of being shitty when your own side is just as bad, if not worse.
Completely false analogy. Pocket watches were around at a time where we didn't have monitors all over the place showing the time, and we didn't work on computers which showed the time. Not getting "time" is trivial since it's literally surrounding you. When did people normally check the time? Looking for a ride/coach/train, and today we have software on our devices handling the ticketing so need the phone out anyway.
Um yes? The president made an awful lot of idiotic campaign promises,
Which happen to match many of the same promises as Barack Obama, GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush SR. So what you really mean to say is "not my party/candidate".
While it may give you some cognitive dissonance, why not go read the campaign speeches of the previous 4 Presidents and let me know how many times they claimed that we need to fix the border, clean up corruption, strengthen the Military, hold Government accountable, increase transparency, etc.. etc.. etc... People disliked the last president primarily because not only did he live up to any campaign promises, but once in power actively worked against every single one of them.
In fact why not look at Hillary's rhetoric, and see how many of her popular positions were exactly that of President Trump. How about Cruz's most popular rhetoric moving to exactly that of President Trump. Too foolish to see your own bullshit? Enjoy your aneurysm.
The citation claims that Rep. Morgan's numbers are correct. The only differential would be the 1 time drop of employees at the EPA due to retirements, which if you read today's numbers (as I reported) the numbers went up and beyond.
Maybe if you spent more time at school instead of trolling you would be educated. Then again, Leftism hates facts. Namely the summary paragraph which you intentionally ignored.
There are a few minor issues with Griffith’s choice of dates and numbers, but we won’t quibble. The EPA increase would have dipped below 100 percent if Griffith had used the most current employment figures from 2013. On the other had, Griffith could have made the growth sound more dramatic if he had started his comparison in 1970, when the EPA was born.
Yeah, but those people with facts are "dildo"s, not the people who ignore them.
.08% Not much of a cut, and it does not pertain to any of the space programs. I would strongly recommend people read or listen to Directory Mulvaney's Q&A session for answers, as apposed to reading some propagandist's opinion of the briefing.
From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%. Funding for the EPA is up 51% during just the Obama administration. The total number of employees "reduced" over the last 40 years is almost all in military service personal cuts. Every other agency has grown, as have their budgets. The EPA, as an easy target, has projects and funding for things like "clean energy" redundant with at least a dozen other agencies. That is just one area of dozens of redundant projects and redundant bureaucrats handing out tax payer money to pet projects.
Citation and first interesting quote. "From 1972 until 2011, the number of EPA employees increased by 107 percent while the number of total federal personnel decreased by 15 percent," he said on March 25 during testimony before the House Budget Committee. Today that office is at an estimated 18,500 employees.
The only staffing reductions in Washington over the last 40 years happens to be the dwindling Military. The second quote is only covering up until 2011, and since then there has been growth in every single agency in Washington. "Executive branch civilian employees numbered 2.82 million in 1972 and 2.76 million in 2011, a drop of 2.1 percent. Meanwhile, uniformed military personnel numbered 2.36 million in 1972 and 1.58 million in 2011, a decrease of 33.1 percent. So the reduction in federal employees has more to do with a smaller fighting force than with a shrinking bureaucracy.
I think an important point here is that the President's budget matches exactly what he said during the campaign. A whole lot of people are in shock that a President is doing what he claimed he would during the campaign. That really has to blow people's minds after nearly three decades of years of "read my lips, no new taxes" (Bush SR.), "we will increase transparency" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will fix immigration" (Sr. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will balance the budget and work on the deficit" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), and since we isolated the first Republican I'll close with "Hope and Change" (Obama).
Slashdot Mirror
You specifically stated "Substantial" which I demonstrated as _FALSE_. Read your own words, or did the Russians come in and hack that claim into your post?
What "Free Press"? are you referring to? The "Free Press" that did everything in their power to get Trump elected, because as we found out later the Democrats believed he would be the easiest for Hillary to beat? The one that colluded with the DNC to install a particular person to the highest office in the land after the two Primaries? The one that continues to collude to disrupt the current President? The painfully obvious slander and hit jobs by CNN and MSNBC colluding with (and repeating the stories of) NYT, WP, etc..? That "Free Press"?
The "Free" press has been dead for quite a while. We were put on notice by journalists when the monopolization was legalized (previously restricted by law).
I believe it would be more apt to say that Trump wanted to attack an openly corrupt media establishment. A whole lot of people agree with him, and of course the owners of that powerful block of corruption are doing all they can to maintain power and control.
You are full of false dilemmas. The magic devolution to cave man teaching is ludicrous for two very obvious reasons.
1. State control of education would mean that Texas standards would have to compete with Florida standards, who would need to compete with Michigan, Ohio, California, etc...
2. More direct control from the populace of the State. Texas would not be able to create "flat earth" science without the populace agreeing with the legislature. People would not vote for that type of legislation, and even if a small state like Delaware decided to teach flat earth people would simply move to a State that teaches real science.
Sorry to burst your bubble, the the REAL world does not require massive federalization for every thing.
There is a reason that there is no mention of Education in the Constitution, or Abortion in the Constitution, or countless other issues that the feeble minded want federalized. These are not "new" issues to our generation or time, they had both abortion and education back in the 1700s as well.
It's not fake news merely because you can't handle the truth. Here are two questions for you: 1. Did Trump propose cutting the community development block grant?
Yes
2. Does that grant give substantial funds to meals on wheels?
The answers are respectively yes and yes which means Trump is indeed cutting funding for meals on wheels.
No. The cuts in the discretionary budget account for 3% of the Meals on Wheels budget. There is another 28% which is funded through the non-discretionary budget. The portion being cut is not substantial, you are repeating false information. So here is two questions for you.
1. Should a program be paid 3 Billion dollars which does nothing but setup cronies with cash, simply because a tiny portion of that cash goes to a good cause?
1. Should the Federal Government provide _ANY_ funding to _PRIVATE_ organizations?
The answer to both of those questions should be "no".
Personal attacks and lies should not be moderated favorably, the post I'm responding to is clearly flamebait.
The majority of Meals on Wheels funding, which is federal funding to a _PRIVATE_ organization (so questionable) is not through discretionary funding. The discretionary portion of funding is 3% of their funding. The majority of the funding is through the non-discretionary portion of the budget. "Cancelling" is fear mongering bullshit. I'd say check your facts, but some people have no interest and others are paid not to.
We are a nation based on Federalization, meaning that the States should be the primary Government for the people. The Federal Government should not, and was never intended, to be a massive bloat of centralized power. The Federal Government was intended as A) National Defense and B) Arbitration and Law regarding States.
You may disagree with certain powers being returned to the States, but that _is_ _the_ set of ideals you will find both in the US Constitution. That is fully verifiable by reading the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. This is the current primary driver in many issues.
Both sides have done a whole lot of wrong in the past, and this administration _may_ turn out to be the same. However, 59 days into the administration I have seen a President attempt to live up to promises he made when on the campaign trail. Bids are going out for the wall, he has had every person on their administration sign no-lobbying contracts, immigration reforms are being made (though obstructed), Health Care is being addressed, the Budget recommendations (even if you dislike them) have been submitted on-time to Congress.
This "not my candidate" extremist bullshit is being bought and paid for by some extremely wealthy people. It's disturbing that so many people are falling for the pleas for the status quo, which moved the US into negative territory over the last 8 years.
I'm not sure how well we should trust Comey, but so far he's being pretty level. Most important question asked so far. "Is there any evidence that votes were change in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania..." to which the director of the NSA and FBI both stated "no".
When the Benghazi hearings were going, we had Democrats yelling about gun control and demanding censorship of Youtube instead of asking questions related to the actual issues. The grandstanding to keep the hearings away from Clinton were simply despicable. I'm not surprised that a couple of Democrats are sitting and spinning fairy tales about "Russia" by simply repeating narratives crafted by media already proven false.
This will be a fun couple days.
As you should have noticed by the thread, techies are not adept at sarcasm.
Selective reading. I gave the example of a SF office and impact on local restaurants. Google's campus is not far from Mountain View's downtown with many dozens of restaurants. It will impact them too.
In other words, you selectively chose which part of the conversation to jump in on and are lost.
The NSA has taps on the hardware, but other agencies do not. If people are trying to do things outside of NSA control, they would need to come up with their own taps.
The US has let security go to shit over the last decade. Foreign workers for "cheap" is a big problem, low moral from shitty treatment by administrations (happened long before Trump so don't bother with the dumbass blame game), corrupt administrators, and of course shit morals at companies executive levels.
Of course it "could" be a foreign agency, but lets be real. If the other agencies were doing their jobs it would have been caught long before public attention on it.
I'm not sure if you know how a city works, but buildings already exist. "Opening an Office" means that you take over as the lease holder for floors in a building. Google took over occupancy of the building which killed the local market. The prior tenant did not provide gratis food, which meant that the bottom floor was busy with restaurants and small shops.
Google does not come in and buy up the restaurants or retain the employees. They put the shops out of business, and if they happen to need workers in the future Google "may" hire them. The amount of people Google needs to hire is far less than the local business, and all of the management money goes to Google instead of local shop owners.
I work in SF, I'll keep the name safe, for a company who does not provide food perks. The reason they don't is that it destroys local businesses. I was not really sure about the impact until Google opened an office not far away. The bottom floors of most buildings in SF are local restaurants. Within a few months of Google opening with free food for their employees, the bottom of the building was vacant. Hundreds of jobs lost, from cooks and restaurant workers to food delivery and cleaning services.
Not that Google cares mind you, as is obvious with this new deal.
The populace does not need this, and it creates a public dependence on Google. So much for the small guy and competition.
The symbol of Equality and Justice is the empty scale. We get this from Socrates defining Justice and Equality. When a person or group puts bias or favoritism on the scale, the arms move. The natural response is to add favoritism or bias to counter the first. However, no to people, groups, issues, circumstances, or conclusions are the same. It is impossible to get back to equality while something exists on the scale. Now when you look at society, you can have a scale with countless pans for every person and group. The more people attempt to add and remove bias, the more difficult balance becomes and the harder it is to return to justice and equality.
The only way to obtain equality is to remove all bias and all favoritism.
Anyone with training and education in Philosophy, especially at higher levels should know and understand the lesson. Yet we have countless "leaders" pushing for identities nearly everywhere.
No, I don't think it's accidental. Yes, I think people who understand this can push back and promote a better society.
Most of those will go over the speed limit. El Camino about 10 under during rush hour, but if the Goole/Waymo cars are there you are doing 15 instead of 25 where it's posted 35.
No, I happen to live in Mountain View so am near the big fleet. From the old hand rigged rides to the little toy cars they drive all around Mountain View.
I don't mind them testing and understand the need, but rush hour on El Camino, Central, Shoreline, and Middlefield is already bad. Then you have to try and get around these crawling vehicles if you can. They should drive out of rush hours, or go to an area with less traffic for traffic testing if they can't get within 15-20 miles of the speed limit.
When they do 15-20 miles per hour on rural roads with a speed limit of 35, I don't call it a fair test. I despise these traffic blockers with a passion.
A PoliSci degree provides NO credentials for Infosec. I can not give a PoliSci graduate a task of writing code to normalize failed logins over the last year and find anomalies. I can not ask them to look at switches and routers to detect anomalies. I can not ask them to provide the best method of hardening a new host. I can not ask them to work with developers on securing their code base. I can not ask them to write a functional policy for security. I can not ask them to harden a host, define a good FIM solution, deal with compliance on issues, etc.. etc.. etc... "ask" should have the expectation that the person would be able to actually perform the work.
Wow, I could ask them to write a theme paper about the impact of hacking on business. That is pretty handy to have every few years, so we have technical writers to handle that task.
Your right that the degree is always the highest priority for a candidate. People want experience, which for IT security requires extensive knowledge in computers, programming, networking, and a whole lot of normalization to threats in your area of expertise. Women tend not to be interested in IT, let alone IT Security.
People (women included) coming out of college don't want a minimum wage job monitoring Splunk logs to start learning the skills needed for IT. They want a 6 figure job because "degree". Demanding a job because "gender" is a losing proposition, especially for IT.
Haha, so much delusion and idiocy it's hard to picture you as a real person. I see you as a bot repeating talking points from the last batch of political losers.
By your own admission every previous candidate made the same claims, yet you don't call them or the failed candidate Hillary a "loser". Just the person who won.
Then you claim that Trump lost by the biggest number in popular vote vs. electoral college which ignores the fact that population today is higher than in the last, every election. By percentage the biggest difference was in 1824, second to 1888. Math and research are not that hard, but you are not even trying. Citation for the mentally handicapped. President Trump won the second largest amount of electoral college votes in a split vote by percentage.
You then go to the claim which has no basis in reality, that people didn't support Barack Obama because of his skin color. Strangely 70% of the independent who voted for Obama voted for Trump. You also ignore that even among Democrats the turnouts dropped by 2.8% for the same exact candidate between 2008 and 2012. The percentages of woman and minorities were higher for Trump than McCain or Romney, hence the blue states turning Red. Asians preferred Trump, as did the people who immigrated from Europe and Russia. Again, numbers prove you wrong.
Except better thought out. Both are in favour of building new infrastructure. Hillary had a well though out plan on how to pay for it. Trump just seemed to declare it would happen as if by magic.
That statement has no basis in reality. None, zero, zip, nada. Hillary had a few sound bytes and power point slides, most of which started to go up in September (for Infrastructure, Immigration) and in terms of Government accountability there was no platform. She ran on "he's bad", which is why Democrats didn't vote for her. She was caught in double speak, open lying, and literally hid from the public and media for nearly a year. She was lazy and relied on a lying media (who was caught openly cheating for her), who performed such a constant stream of hit pieces on Trump that he is going to be untouchable even if he actually does something wrong.
There is simply no further point in attempting to have a discussion with a person who feels justified to argue against facts. You are delusional at best, and a Hillary shill at worst. I know the lines. Everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamophobe, and hates the poor. People simply don't believe you and your ilk any longer, you wore out the lies.
I like how you ignored my question. If a Degree was a Degree in terms of Jobs, why can't I go be a certified Medical professional due to my Math Degree? I'll add that I also have a Philosophy degree which I received at the same time as my Math degree. I have two of them, so should be more than qualified. Hell, I should be able to be a professor of English Studies, because the only thing that counts is experience and I have been writing my whole life.
8 years of budget overruns under a Democratic President is a problem because "average republican". Good grief, stop blaming one side of being shitty when your own side is just as bad, if not worse.
Completely false analogy. Pocket watches were around at a time where we didn't have monitors all over the place showing the time, and we didn't work on computers which showed the time. Not getting "time" is trivial since it's literally surrounding you. When did people normally check the time? Looking for a ride/coach/train, and today we have software on our devices handling the ticketing so need the phone out anyway.
Um yes? The president made an awful lot of idiotic campaign promises,
Which happen to match many of the same promises as Barack Obama, GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush SR. So what you really mean to say is "not my party/candidate".
While it may give you some cognitive dissonance, why not go read the campaign speeches of the previous 4 Presidents and let me know how many times they claimed that we need to fix the border, clean up corruption, strengthen the Military, hold Government accountable, increase transparency, etc.. etc.. etc... People disliked the last president primarily because not only did he live up to any campaign promises, but once in power actively worked against every single one of them.
In fact why not look at Hillary's rhetoric, and see how many of her popular positions were exactly that of President Trump. How about Cruz's most popular rhetoric moving to exactly that of President Trump. Too foolish to see your own bullshit? Enjoy your aneurysm.
The citation claims that Rep. Morgan's numbers are correct. The only differential would be the 1 time drop of employees at the EPA due to retirements, which if you read today's numbers (as I reported) the numbers went up and beyond.
Maybe if you spent more time at school instead of trolling you would be educated. Then again, Leftism hates facts. Namely the summary paragraph which you intentionally ignored.
There are a few minor issues with Griffith’s choice of dates and numbers, but we won’t quibble. The EPA increase would have dipped below 100 percent if Griffith had used the most current employment figures from 2013. On the other had, Griffith could have made the growth sound more dramatic if he had started his comparison in 1970, when the EPA was born.
Yeah, but those people with facts are "dildo"s, not the people who ignore them.
.08% Not much of a cut, and it does not pertain to any of the space programs. I would strongly recommend people read or listen to Directory Mulvaney's Q&A session for answers, as apposed to reading some propagandist's opinion of the briefing.
From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%. Funding for the EPA is up 51% during just the Obama administration. The total number of employees "reduced" over the last 40 years is almost all in military service personal cuts. Every other agency has grown, as have their budgets. The EPA, as an easy target, has projects and funding for things like "clean energy" redundant with at least a dozen other agencies. That is just one area of dozens of redundant projects and redundant bureaucrats handing out tax payer money to pet projects.
Citation and first interesting quote. "From 1972 until 2011, the number of EPA employees increased by 107 percent while the number of total federal personnel decreased by 15 percent," he said on March 25 during testimony before the House Budget Committee. Today that office is at an estimated 18,500 employees.
The only staffing reductions in Washington over the last 40 years happens to be the dwindling Military. The second quote is only covering up until 2011, and since then there has been growth in every single agency in Washington. "Executive branch civilian employees numbered 2.82 million in 1972 and 2.76 million in 2011, a drop of 2.1 percent. Meanwhile, uniformed military personnel numbered 2.36 million in 1972 and 1.58 million in 2011, a decrease of 33.1 percent. So the reduction in federal employees has more to do with a smaller fighting force than with a shrinking bureaucracy.
I think an important point here is that the President's budget matches exactly what he said during the campaign. A whole lot of people are in shock that a President is doing what he claimed he would during the campaign. That really has to blow people's minds after nearly three decades of years of "read my lips, no new taxes" (Bush SR.), "we will increase transparency" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will fix immigration" (Sr. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will balance the budget and work on the deficit" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), and since we isolated the first Republican I'll close with "Hope and Change" (Obama).