Constituents aren't part of the adversarial government triangle of checks and balances. At least, they're not supposed to be.
Sure they are. Depending on the situation, a constituent might have the executive, or legislature, or courts working on their behalf "against" one or both of the other branches. You might have your congressional representative helping you out with the IRS, or you may ask the courts to help you out with something the executive branch is or isn't doing.
So if we leave it up to their neighbors and their neighbors don't do a good enough job and we end up suffering another large-scale attack, well, at least we left it up to the right people?
In fact the very structure of our government, as chartered in the constitution, is as a three-way adversarial arrangement of checks and balances. It's by design.
Sure, we have lots of oil and oil-ish things here. But the problem is that oil sitting in the middle east is, when left up for grabs for groups like ISIS, an easily sold way to fund a whole bunch of evil shit they'd like to do both there and around the world.
No, most of us want law enforcement to enforce the law if it is violated. Their job is not to protect me, their job is to arrest you after you hurt me.
Except that in many cases, crime is committed by people (and organizations) that have committed crime before, and which are engaged in planning or conducting more crime. So while you may not have been a victim of one of those previous crimes, law enforcement may well be working to protect you from a future crime to be committed out of the same person/organization or their associates. Here in our county, we have a real problem with MS-13. They recruit new people all the time. Some 14 year old may not yet have committed a crime on their behalf, but is pretty much by definition being positioned to do just that. I very much want local law enforcement working to prevent that from happening when they have an indication of what's coming.
I'm seeing more and more references to "a software." Would you like to buy a software with your hardware? How will you be using your mobile device to update your time sheet... will you be using a software? And, "Uber used another secret software." Ugh.
Low-income people don't even come CLOSE to paying transfer taxes (like SS, etc) in the amount they receive. All other federal expenditures come out of income taxes, which they don't pay.
And yes, we call them "incentives" when we're trying to use the tool of tax policy to cause someone with a pile of money to spend it in government-favored ways. Choosing to take away somewhat less of their money in exchange for them spending it in certain ways isn't even remotely the same thing as simply giving people money. Please don't pretend you don't understand the difference.
While it is true that many low wage earners effectively pay no "federal income tax"
Not only do they not PAY it, they generally get credits out of the tax code that results in paying negative income taxes. They get "refunds" on taxes they do not pay. Those, of course, are just dollars transferred directly from other taxpayers.
The government ALSO loses even more money from the lack of workers not earning a wage (which is taxed), compounding the issue.
The kind of labor we're talking about, here (landscapers, burger-cashiers) DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES. Nearly half of the people in the country pay no income taxes, including people who make a lot more than minimum wage.
The thread was discussing companies that "push this problem onto the taxpayer".
Right. The thread is talking about replacing workers with kiosks. Thus, hiring fewer workers. And you think they should be taxed because they don't want to hire people they don't need. So, again, how many people they don't need should they none the less keep on the payroll so that you'll feel they're not pushing a problem somewhere else? Be specific.
We're not talking about the people who don't vote. We're talking about you. And your conscience tells you to throw your vote away and let other people make a decision you don't like. Are you really such a puritanical absolutist that you can't even muster the courage to look at the two candidates - one of which IS going to win - and decide which is on balance the better choice in the long term? You can't trouble yourself to think through the ramifications of one type of nominations to courts vs. another? You can't think through the general disposition to wards more, or less regulation? Vote your conscience by steering what IS going to happen in a more useful (or less destructive, whatever) way. Instead of patting yourself on the back for proudly throwing your vote away and leaving the decision up to other people you dislike so much.
The majority of people in developed countries want to pay for each others' medical care, and typically college education, and social safety nets, etc. The US is way out of line with the rest of the world here.
Yes, we're out of line because we've allowed one party to structure things so that only SOME people do the paying, while only some other people do the majority of the receiving. Nearly half the country pays no income tax, yet they have just as much influence over policy decisions (including things like who gets taxed) as the people who actually foot the bill. If everybody was actually invested (as tax payers) we'd be having a very different conversation. But the Democrats have a singular focus on the demographic that demands the fruits of other people's paychecks - not as a safety net, but structurally, permanently. In other parts of the "developed world" you're looking to emulate, they're actually sliding into that same situation, and it's coming apart at the seams. Which you know, but are trying to wish away.
Aaaaand this is why I vote third party; D & R are a lose-lose proposition, proven time and again.
So in order to avoid a "lose-lose" situation, you make absolutely SURE you'll lose by throwing away your vote and making sure that one of the people you don't like wins? NO candidate or party is perfect or even close to it. But you can do your best to, for example, make sure that someone like Clinton doesn't get to do what she promised, and use the Supreme Court like a surrogate legislature. But no, you'd rather throw your vote away. That's a shame.
You're changing the topic to avoid confronting your silliness. We're talking about a company that needs fewer people because they have better tools. So I'll ask the same question, and you should try to answer it honestly instead of being slippery about it. Should we tax companies who don't employ more people than they need? Yes or no.
And if you say yes, then... how many more people than a company needs should be considered the number they SHOULD be paying for, even if they have nothing for them to do, so that those employees don't have to go find different work? Should all employers keep 100% more staff than they need in order to avoid your tax penalty? 200%? Be specific.
How 'bout we tax them for the burden they put on us?
What? Let's say you run a landscaping company. And because you have good equipment, you need only a certain number of workers to get your contract work done. Should we levy a tax on your landscape company for not hiring more people you don't need, because you're using modern equipment instead of push mowers?
Yes, that's why in the real world the vast majority of senior jobs are held by black women. Except they're not.
Due entirely the lack of more-qualified-than-anyone-else black women applying for those jobs. The problem is the urge to hire them knowing full well they're not as qualified, because that checks off the SJW boxes the company's PR department says need to be checked. I care exactly not at all what color or gender anyone is, as long as they are the best candidate for the job. The problem is that there are companies and government agencies where a significant part of the job is now "being black" (or Polynesian, or Latina, whatever - just Not White and Not Male). That's the problem.
If you were launching a little start-up and finally had the budget to hire your first programmer, would you be looking for talent, or skin pigment? You seem to be obsessed with skin pigment.
So, if you worked in a company and observed a pervasive pattern of abusive behavior, and a layer of management that seemed to embrace it, and you sent a memo pointing that out - would you be "badmouthing" the company, or looking to help fix it?
Of course. That's what "at will" work is all about. You can fire the employer, and the employer can fire you. But the point is that he didn't "go around bad mouthing the company," he pointed out some very assholish behavior the company seemed to be actually embracing. By your standards, he was doing exactly what you'd want.
"Discrimination" against the majority is kind of difficult...
What? No it isn't. It's simple. Here: "Thank you applicants! You're all pretty good candidates for the job, but if you're male or white we won't be hiring you." See how that works?
It's such a relief to know that this same sort of delusional blathering is still being dished out by lefty shills. Because it's exactly what cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who'd had enough of the completely fake histrionics. Even destroy-Trump-all-the-time networks like CNN have moved on past your deprecated talking points about phony felony collusion that isn't even a thing and never happened, and are now trying their hardest to talk up psychological reasons for removal from office, because that's all they've got. Please, though, carry on. Because if we want to watch the Dems fall on their faces in 2018 exactly like they did in 2016, it's voices like yours that are going to get it done. Thanks!
Different tools for different circumstances and opportunities. There are all sorts of military tools that are more (or only) effective under certain conditions. They're also used regularly to great effect. Just because you can't use it all the time doesn't mean you wouldn't want the advantage of using it when conditions are good for it. That's the oldest story in military history.
Slashdot Mirror
Constituents aren't part of the adversarial government triangle of checks and balances. At least, they're not supposed to be.
Sure they are. Depending on the situation, a constituent might have the executive, or legislature, or courts working on their behalf "against" one or both of the other branches. You might have your congressional representative helping you out with the IRS, or you may ask the courts to help you out with something the executive branch is or isn't doing.
So if we leave it up to their neighbors and their neighbors don't do a good enough job and we end up suffering another large-scale attack, well, at least we left it up to the right people?
And once the records have been suppeoned, isnt not turning them over, regardless of where they located contempt of court?
Yes (or of congress, etc). Unless you're Hillary Clinton. And then it's just "a matter."
In fact the very structure of our government, as chartered in the constitution, is as a three-way adversarial arrangement of checks and balances. It's by design.
We can't fight everyone's wars for them.
We don't. We pretty much stick to things in which we have a vested interest.
Sure, we have lots of oil and oil-ish things here. But the problem is that oil sitting in the middle east is, when left up for grabs for groups like ISIS, an easily sold way to fund a whole bunch of evil shit they'd like to do both there and around the world.
No, most of us want law enforcement to enforce the law if it is violated. Their job is not to protect me, their job is to arrest you after you hurt me.
Except that in many cases, crime is committed by people (and organizations) that have committed crime before, and which are engaged in planning or conducting more crime. So while you may not have been a victim of one of those previous crimes, law enforcement may well be working to protect you from a future crime to be committed out of the same person/organization or their associates. Here in our county, we have a real problem with MS-13. They recruit new people all the time. Some 14 year old may not yet have committed a crime on their behalf, but is pretty much by definition being positioned to do just that. I very much want local law enforcement working to prevent that from happening when they have an indication of what's coming.
I'm seeing more and more references to "a software." Would you like to buy a software with your hardware? How will you be using your mobile device to update your time sheet ... will you be using a software? And, "Uber used another secret software." Ugh.
Low-income people don't even come CLOSE to paying transfer taxes (like SS, etc) in the amount they receive. All other federal expenditures come out of income taxes, which they don't pay.
And yes, we call them "incentives" when we're trying to use the tool of tax policy to cause someone with a pile of money to spend it in government-favored ways. Choosing to take away somewhat less of their money in exchange for them spending it in certain ways isn't even remotely the same thing as simply giving people money. Please don't pretend you don't understand the difference.
While it is true that many low wage earners effectively pay no "federal income tax"
Not only do they not PAY it, they generally get credits out of the tax code that results in paying negative income taxes. They get "refunds" on taxes they do not pay. Those, of course, are just dollars transferred directly from other taxpayers.
The government ALSO loses even more money from the lack of workers not earning a wage (which is taxed), compounding the issue.
The kind of labor we're talking about, here (landscapers, burger-cashiers) DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES. Nearly half of the people in the country pay no income taxes, including people who make a lot more than minimum wage.
The thread was discussing companies that "push this problem onto the taxpayer".
Right. The thread is talking about replacing workers with kiosks. Thus, hiring fewer workers. And you think they should be taxed because they don't want to hire people they don't need. So, again, how many people they don't need should they none the less keep on the payroll so that you'll feel they're not pushing a problem somewhere else? Be specific.
We're not talking about the people who don't vote. We're talking about you. And your conscience tells you to throw your vote away and let other people make a decision you don't like. Are you really such a puritanical absolutist that you can't even muster the courage to look at the two candidates - one of which IS going to win - and decide which is on balance the better choice in the long term? You can't trouble yourself to think through the ramifications of one type of nominations to courts vs. another? You can't think through the general disposition to wards more, or less regulation? Vote your conscience by steering what IS going to happen in a more useful (or less destructive, whatever) way. Instead of patting yourself on the back for proudly throwing your vote away and leaving the decision up to other people you dislike so much.
The majority of people in developed countries want to pay for each others' medical care, and typically college education, and social safety nets, etc. The US is way out of line with the rest of the world here.
Yes, we're out of line because we've allowed one party to structure things so that only SOME people do the paying, while only some other people do the majority of the receiving. Nearly half the country pays no income tax, yet they have just as much influence over policy decisions (including things like who gets taxed) as the people who actually foot the bill. If everybody was actually invested (as tax payers) we'd be having a very different conversation. But the Democrats have a singular focus on the demographic that demands the fruits of other people's paychecks - not as a safety net, but structurally, permanently. In other parts of the "developed world" you're looking to emulate, they're actually sliding into that same situation, and it's coming apart at the seams. Which you know, but are trying to wish away.
Aaaaand this is why I vote third party; D & R are a lose-lose proposition, proven time and again.
So in order to avoid a "lose-lose" situation, you make absolutely SURE you'll lose by throwing away your vote and making sure that one of the people you don't like wins? NO candidate or party is perfect or even close to it. But you can do your best to, for example, make sure that someone like Clinton doesn't get to do what she promised, and use the Supreme Court like a surrogate legislature. But no, you'd rather throw your vote away. That's a shame.
You're changing the topic to avoid confronting your silliness. We're talking about a company that needs fewer people because they have better tools. So I'll ask the same question, and you should try to answer it honestly instead of being slippery about it. Should we tax companies who don't employ more people than they need? Yes or no.
... how many more people than a company needs should be considered the number they SHOULD be paying for, even if they have nothing for them to do, so that those employees don't have to go find different work? Should all employers keep 100% more staff than they need in order to avoid your tax penalty? 200%? Be specific.
And if you say yes, then
How 'bout we tax them for the burden they put on us?
What? Let's say you run a landscaping company. And because you have good equipment, you need only a certain number of workers to get your contract work done. Should we levy a tax on your landscape company for not hiring more people you don't need, because you're using modern equipment instead of push mowers?
Yes, that's why in the real world the vast majority of senior jobs are held by black women. Except they're not.
Due entirely the lack of more-qualified-than-anyone-else black women applying for those jobs. The problem is the urge to hire them knowing full well they're not as qualified, because that checks off the SJW boxes the company's PR department says need to be checked. I care exactly not at all what color or gender anyone is, as long as they are the best candidate for the job. The problem is that there are companies and government agencies where a significant part of the job is now "being black" (or Polynesian, or Latina, whatever - just Not White and Not Male). That's the problem.
If you were launching a little start-up and finally had the budget to hire your first programmer, would you be looking for talent, or skin pigment? You seem to be obsessed with skin pigment.
So, if you worked in a company and observed a pervasive pattern of abusive behavior, and a layer of management that seemed to embrace it, and you sent a memo pointing that out - would you be "badmouthing" the company, or looking to help fix it?
Of course. That's what "at will" work is all about. You can fire the employer, and the employer can fire you. But the point is that he didn't "go around bad mouthing the company," he pointed out some very assholish behavior the company seemed to be actually embracing. By your standards, he was doing exactly what you'd want.
"Discrimination" against the majority is kind of difficult...
What? No it isn't. It's simple. Here: "Thank you applicants! You're all pretty good candidates for the job, but if you're male or white we won't be hiring you." See how that works?
It's such a relief to know that this same sort of delusional blathering is still being dished out by lefty shills. Because it's exactly what cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who'd had enough of the completely fake histrionics. Even destroy-Trump-all-the-time networks like CNN have moved on past your deprecated talking points about phony felony collusion that isn't even a thing and never happened, and are now trying their hardest to talk up psychological reasons for removal from office, because that's all they've got. Please, though, carry on. Because if we want to watch the Dems fall on their faces in 2018 exactly like they did in 2016, it's voices like yours that are going to get it done. Thanks!
Look out there, Mr., because President Oprah is coming for you.
Actually, the oldest story in military history is the guy who relied on his defenses but they came tumbling down.
What makes you think these are necessarily defensive tools?
Shall we start with rain & smoke ?
Different tools for different circumstances and opportunities. There are all sorts of military tools that are more (or only) effective under certain conditions. They're also used regularly to great effect. Just because you can't use it all the time doesn't mean you wouldn't want the advantage of using it when conditions are good for it. That's the oldest story in military history.