All that safety net addition in the last Administration did nothing, apparently. Likewise during the Clinton years - it wasn't until welfare reform was pushed through that the poverty rate started to drop. You sound all nice and intellectual and high-minded, but the reality is that if you make it easy to stay in the safety net - a good percentage of people will choose to do so. When you make staying in the safety net harder - you'll find a lot leave it, and the only ones that stay there probably truly need it.
Our Federal Government spends about $1000 per MONTH per man, woman and child in these United States. Of that $1000, about $700 of it is on social welfare (medicare/medicaid, social security, welfare, unemployment, SNAP, etc.). How much more needs to be spent - per person - to solve your issues? Do you have a number you can give us? Apparently $8,400 per man, woman, and child per year doesn't do it - how much more?
Assuming your statistics above are correct, if the spending was just on those who live in poverty, are homeless, and go bankrupt, that would be about $56,000 per year per person - those who need the safety net. That is well above the the median income in the US, and one would think it would empty the safety net entirely - yet it doesn't solve the issue. Why? Because of rampant waste and misuse of those social funds. Note that I am only talking about spending RIGHT NOW on social welfare - not redirecting EPA, transportation, debt interest, defense, etc. We are supposedly spending tens of thousands of dollars a year per person in the safety net - and we see their numbers increase, not decrease. Why is that? Why aren't we able to help people out?
I propose it's not because of the amount of spending being too little - but that we make it too easy to stay in the net. And there are strong political and financial benefits to many in Government by keeping that safety net full of dependents.
So I ask you: how much spending should we do to help those in the safety net - a nice solid number or reference (such as we should spend up to XX% of the median personal income), and should we help people out - or just leave them in it?
Hi there. Been bankrupt. Been homeless. Only one in my entire family (from four immigrant grandparents until today) to graduate from high school, let alone college. Oh, I know about safety nets. I also know that most of my family are below average income - but still provide for themselves. Yes, it can be done. It was a ton of effort and work to get back to where I am - a nice home in Ventura, a car, a motorcycle, and a nicely growing 401K. But it can be done.
You people dp not believe what you preach. You want to keep people down and dependent upon you and the Government because you get off on "being the white knight" saving people, and you want the power and dependency that comes with it. You see people in need of help and think "I can have them love me because I help them to be a bit better than they are today" rather than really desire to help them permanently escape the dependency your side relies upon.
Most conservatives in the US do not have a problem with infrastructure and safety nets. What we have a problem with is stupid spending on infrastructure (spending money on a high speed train - with no defined path - when we have crumbling bridges, roads and dams) and letting people live their lives on the safety net - which is supposed to be there to catch people who occasionally slip.
If you're pedantic, you insist on metric. If you're intelligent, you can actually do unit conversions... I bet having to use pi to relate radius to area offends you as well, no?
Local climate is affected in terms of temperature and rainfall. So as we try to combat climate change with wind farms, we end up changing the climate...
Gonna call BS on you. And anyone here can see why, as I will show how to prove you are wrong (and the EU is as well - this is just a way to skim some cash):
I see non-Google maps on the first page, and the second page has tons of non-Google map options. Third page already has maps for iOS. So yeah - it's a bit different than you claim. And easy for anyone to check - thanks to Google localizing their engines and making it easy for anyone to use the local engine...
PS: I am currently in Japan, and Google Japan has the maps search return lots of alternatives on the first page; maybe Google is tracking which link is used more for a given country and sorts based upon that, kind of like how their algorithm is always discussed as working?
I refer you to figure 1, from the article. It clearly shows a 1.8 deg C increaase in the ocean temperatures. Yet the data it came from - the Atlantic, Pacific, Southern, and Indian oceans - each show 0.2 to 0.6 deg C increase. Somehow an avarage of (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.6) has yielded 1.8 deg C. That's a bit of a problem...
So your complaints are that they are profitable and pay for all services rendered by the University (including scholarships for their athletes), but they are raising outside funds for a new stadium at zero cost to the University (in actuality, it will be a financial win for the University as it will receive even more payments and enhanced sales tax revenue which goes to fund higher education). Got it. It's the "optics" that matter, not the actual actions.
But you were ok with "your"? Oh for crying out loud....if you are going to criticize somebody's spelling, at least apply it consistently across the three words that were posted! (Also, criticize the lack of capitalization and punctuation.)
He spelled the word "your" correctly. He just used the wrong word. Just saying...;)
"There were no meltdowns in the United States’ voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or manipulation of vote counts."
So for all the angst and hand-wringing of the headline and opening paragraphs AND summary, we find the article itself states there IS NO EVIDENCE. But hey, it's the WaPo, so it has to be correct! But in this case, WHICH statement is correct - the attack-dog headline or the conclusion? They are diametrically opposed, so only one can be correct...
Stop with your use of facts and halt your reading of the actual article. This is Slashdot, we have no use for logic and reason and truth when there could be a good Trump-bash going on!
It's $54 billion from a $3.8 trillion budget. That's 0.14% of the entire budget. A budget where 75% is already spent on social services. And that $54 billion is 9% of what we borrow every year. The Federal Government is spending about $1,000 per MONTH per man, woman, and child in the US - and it's still not enough? The problem really isn't how much we spend, it's how much of it is simply wasted...
That is $500,000 minimum brought in from overseas, along with the formation of a US corporation/investment vehicle meaning more spent (outside the $500K) to set up and operate. President Obama's plan allowed that same Chinese "investor" to solicit $250,000 in US funding and do the same basic thing. Essentially "buying" a green card for $250,000 that was already inside the US, no outside investment needed.
The International Entrepreneur Rule, signed by former President Obama days before he left office in January
President Obama was able to completely architect, build, and implement an entire new category for immigration operations in just a few days? This is probably just President Trump stopping the first part of the process (architecting it), before anything else even started. But it does make great political grist for the mill!
Slashdot Mirror
All that safety net addition in the last Administration did nothing, apparently. Likewise during the Clinton years - it wasn't until welfare reform was pushed through that the poverty rate started to drop. You sound all nice and intellectual and high-minded, but the reality is that if you make it easy to stay in the safety net - a good percentage of people will choose to do so. When you make staying in the safety net harder - you'll find a lot leave it, and the only ones that stay there probably truly need it.
Our Federal Government spends about $1000 per MONTH per man, woman and child in these United States. Of that $1000, about $700 of it is on social welfare (medicare/medicaid, social security, welfare, unemployment, SNAP, etc.). How much more needs to be spent - per person - to solve your issues? Do you have a number you can give us? Apparently $8,400 per man, woman, and child per year doesn't do it - how much more?
Assuming your statistics above are correct, if the spending was just on those who live in poverty, are homeless, and go bankrupt, that would be about $56,000 per year per person - those who need the safety net. That is well above the the median income in the US, and one would think it would empty the safety net entirely - yet it doesn't solve the issue. Why? Because of rampant waste and misuse of those social funds. Note that I am only talking about spending RIGHT NOW on social welfare - not redirecting EPA, transportation, debt interest, defense, etc. We are supposedly spending tens of thousands of dollars a year per person in the safety net - and we see their numbers increase, not decrease. Why is that? Why aren't we able to help people out?
I propose it's not because of the amount of spending being too little - but that we make it too easy to stay in the net. And there are strong political and financial benefits to many in Government by keeping that safety net full of dependents.
So I ask you: how much spending should we do to help those in the safety net - a nice solid number or reference (such as we should spend up to XX% of the median personal income), and should we help people out - or just leave them in it?
Hi there. Been bankrupt. Been homeless. Only one in my entire family (from four immigrant grandparents until today) to graduate from high school, let alone college. Oh, I know about safety nets. I also know that most of my family are below average income - but still provide for themselves. Yes, it can be done. It was a ton of effort and work to get back to where I am - a nice home in Ventura, a car, a motorcycle, and a nicely growing 401K. But it can be done.
You people dp not believe what you preach. You want to keep people down and dependent upon you and the Government because you get off on "being the white knight" saving people, and you want the power and dependency that comes with it. You see people in need of help and think "I can have them love me because I help them to be a bit better than they are today" rather than really desire to help them permanently escape the dependency your side relies upon.
So's a freaking oven!
Most conservatives in the US do not have a problem with infrastructure and safety nets. What we have a problem with is stupid spending on infrastructure (spending money on a high speed train - with no defined path - when we have crumbling bridges, roads and dams) and letting people live their lives on the safety net - which is supposed to be there to catch people who occasionally slip.
If you're pedantic, you insist on metric. If you're intelligent, you can actually do unit conversions... I bet having to use pi to relate radius to area offends you as well, no?
Thus proving that Iran truly is Hell...
That wasn't the issue. You were claiming the blades are good for 25 years - no need to replace or maintain them. The facts are otherwise.
Vegans, annoying the rest of us forever...
I personally am a vegetarian. I just like my vegetables processed into pork, or beef, or chicken...
Local climate is affected in terms of temperature and rainfall. So as we try to combat climate change with wind farms, we end up changing the climate...
Well, that's what they say, but real life says they are wearing a lot faster. And in fact, wind turbine blade repair and replacement from normal wear-and-tear is a new and upcoming industry.
Gonna call BS on you. And anyone here can see why, as I will show how to prove you are wrong (and the EU is as well - this is just a way to skim some cash):
1. Go to http://www.google.nl/ - that's the Netherlands Google home page
2. Type in "Maps" and press Enter
I see non-Google maps on the first page, and the second page has tons of non-Google map options. Third page already has maps for iOS. So yeah - it's a bit different than you claim. And easy for anyone to check - thanks to Google localizing their engines and making it easy for anyone to use the local engine...
PS: I am currently in Japan, and Google Japan has the maps search return lots of alternatives on the first page; maybe Google is tracking which link is used more for a given country and sorts based upon that, kind of like how their algorithm is always discussed as working?
I refer you to figure 1, from the article. It clearly shows a 1.8 deg C increaase in the ocean temperatures. Yet the data it came from - the Atlantic, Pacific, Southern, and Indian oceans - each show 0.2 to 0.6 deg C increase. Somehow an avarage of (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.6) has yielded 1.8 deg C. That's a bit of a problem...
So your complaints are that they are profitable and pay for all services rendered by the University (including scholarships for their athletes), but they are raising outside funds for a new stadium at zero cost to the University (in actuality, it will be a financial win for the University as it will receive even more payments and enhanced sales tax revenue which goes to fund higher education). Got it. It's the "optics" that matter, not the actual actions.
According to this news article the athletic department makes money for the University, and pays about $16 million a year to the University.
But you were ok with "your"? Oh for crying out loud... .if you are going to criticize somebody's spelling, at least apply it consistently across the three words that were posted! (Also, criticize the lack of capitalization and punctuation.)
He spelled the word "your" correctly. He just used the wrong word. Just saying...;)
Has Netcraft confirmed it?
At the bottom of the WaPo story, you will find:
"There were no meltdowns in the United States’ voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or manipulation of vote counts."
So for all the angst and hand-wringing of the headline and opening paragraphs AND summary, we find the article itself states there IS NO EVIDENCE. But hey, it's the WaPo, so it has to be correct! But in this case, WHICH statement is correct - the attack-dog headline or the conclusion? They are diametrically opposed, so only one can be correct...
YOU THERE!
Yes, YOU!
Stop with your use of facts and halt your reading of the actual article. This is Slashdot, we have no use for logic and reason and truth when there could be a good Trump-bash going on!
It's $54 billion from a $3.8 trillion budget. That's 0.14% of the entire budget. A budget where 75% is already spent on social services. And that $54 billion is 9% of what we borrow every year. The Federal Government is spending about $1,000 per MONTH per man, woman, and child in the US - and it's still not enough? The problem really isn't how much we spend, it's how much of it is simply wasted...
The editors themselves have established a GoFundMe campaign so they can learn 3rd grade math...
That is $500,000 minimum brought in from overseas, along with the formation of a US corporation/investment vehicle meaning more spent (outside the $500K) to set up and operate. President Obama's plan allowed that same Chinese "investor" to solicit $250,000 in US funding and do the same basic thing. Essentially "buying" a green card for $250,000 that was already inside the US, no outside investment needed.
The International Entrepreneur Rule, signed by former President Obama days before he left office in January
President Obama was able to completely architect, build, and implement an entire new category for immigration operations in just a few days? This is probably just President Trump stopping the first part of the process (architecting it), before anything else even started. But it does make great political grist for the mill!
It's not every day you get to watch the slow-motion implosion of a $60+ billion VC baby...
Maybe I'm missing it, but has Tesla perfected it's auto business?
Mostly yes. Nothing is "perfect" but by many measures, Tesla is doing better than any other automaker.*
* Profitability not included in any judgment or statement about doing better...