posted by geeblockImagine having the stones to insist every year on 9/11 that you were at ground zero despite not one person seeing you there. In fact there is more evidence pointing that you weren’t there than pointing to the fact that you were. Amazing
Who did this? I'm under a rock these days.
posted by O-TrapWho did this? I'm under a rock these days.
Trump
posted by geeblockTrump
posted by geeblockImagine having the stones to insist every year on 9/11 that you were at ground zero despite not one person seeing you there. In fact there is more evidence pointing that you weren’t there than pointing to the fact that you were. Amazing
Maybe he was there in spirit :)
I've come to realize that Trump doesn't lie, but like Biden he tells "representative stories".
posted by geeblockImagine having the stones to insist every year on 9/11 that you were at ground zero despite not one person seeing you there. In fact there is more evidence pointing that you weren’t there than pointing to the fact that you were. Amazing
This doesn't actually surprise you, does it?
EPA rolls back obama’s overreaching water rule.
Another bad regulation off the books.
…under a new rule being advanced by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), applicants for unemployment benefits may soon have to pass a drug test in order to receive benefits. The rule is closer to becoming a reality after the DOL sent it to the federal budget oversight office for final approval.
posted by QuakerOats…under a new rule being advanced by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), applicants for unemployment benefits may soon have to pass a drug test in order to receive benefits. The rule is closer to becoming a reality after the DOL sent it to the federal budget oversight office for final approval.
Sweet. About time. You should have to turn in your cell phone and not be allowed to get cable TV either till you can feed your kids.
posted by SpockSweet. About time. You should have to turn in your cell phone and not be allowed to get cable TV either till you can feed your kids.
Cable I understand. It's absolutely a luxury. There's no real utility.
Your cell phone, however? That can be pretty helpful for getting a job and, thus, no longer needing unemployment.
Beyond that, this isn't exactly the same thing as other social programs. It's not sucked out of a slush fund or anything. It's paid into by employers specifically for cases of unemployment. I'm not sure I'm suddenly a cheerleader of big government regulating the decisions of private citizens just because I think the ways in which they'd spend their money might not be as frugal as others.
I do wonder how much it's going to cost to implement this, though. Not exactly a fan of spending dimes to make sure the nickels aren't being wasted.
posted by SpockSweet. About time. You should have to turn in your cell phone and not be allowed to get cable TV either till you can feed your kids.
They have you convinced that it’s poor people keeping you poor. Social programs not including Medicare cost u 100$ to 150$ a year. Eliminating them completely will do nothing to change your life. In fact helping people eat will reduce medical costs. It interesting you ignore where most of your money goes, (military/pentagon) even though our military is the size of the next 7 or 8 countries combined. Or the fact that corporations aren’t paying there share for example amazon/Walmart. But rather focus on the narrative that there is a person in welfare selling their food stamps to get high or driving around in a Escalade with an iPhone. If u actually look at the data, of the 13 states who tested participants, less than 1% tested positive for drugs and it was a huge waste of money. Just my two cents
posted by geeblockThey have you convinced that it’s poor people keeping you poor. Social programs not including Medicare cost u 100$ to 150$ a year. Eliminating them completely will do nothing to change your life. In fact helping people eat will reduce medical costs. It interesting you ignore where most of your money goes, (military/pentagon) even though our military is the size of the next 7 or 8 countries combined. Or the fact that corporations aren’t paying there share for example amazon/Walmart. But rather focus on the narrative that there is a person in welfare selling their food stamps to get high or driving around in a Escalade with an iPhone. If u actually look at the data, of the 13 states who tested participants, less than 1% tested positive for drugs and it was a huge waste of money. Just my two cents
I agree with about 80% of this, honestly.
I didn't realize that there were 13 states that had studied it, but I do remember that it ended up costing taxpayers more in Florida with testing than it did without, and yeah, it was under 1%.
I also agree that the amount we spend on the military is absurd. Sure, it means that we've become virtually indestructible from the outside, but if we weren't so involved in other nations, that would be even less necessary than it is now (and it's already not necessary now).
Made me think of this:
My contention is the notion of corporate taxes. This term ... "share" or "fair share" ... keeps getting thrown around. I still have yet to hear a logical argument to adequately articulate what a fair share would actually be. Granted, this isn't limited to corporate taxes. The same applies to personal income taxes as well. Shoot, basically all taxes.
posted by O-TrapMy contention is the notion of corporate taxes. This term ... "share" or "fair share" ... keeps getting thrown around. I still have yet to hear a logical argument to adequately articulate what a fair share would actually be.
For corporations, the number should be 0% - double taxation is unnecessary (and anti-investment). Similar reason to the "wealth tax" - we already have the ability to tax all that money downstream (estate tax), anyway. Stupid things politicians say that rile up voters who could and should know better, but don't.
The reason for corporate taxes are simply the ease of collection and enforcement, and more directly widening the tax base (because higher individual taxes generate more avoidance and illegal evasion).
Otherwise, you could offset a 0% corporate rate by raising or eliminating the capital gains tax and personal income tax brackets. Even with giant amounts of cash on a balance sheet, that money is reflected in the share price.
Trickle down economics as far as I can tell is free beer tomorrow... we have the middle class actually stumping for the top 1% as if they have some connection to them all so some poor person can’t get some cheese and milk while they continue to ship jobs overseas which will never change and they tell you hey well next year we will look into it
posted by geeblockTrickle down economics as far as I can tell is free beer tomorrow... we have the middle class actually stumping for the top 1% as if they have some connection to them all so some poor person can’t get some cheese and milk while they continue to ship jobs overseas which will never change and they tell you hey well next year we will look into it
There's a flaw baked into this idea. It's within this line:
"[...] we have the middle class actually stumping for the top 1% as if they had some connection to them."
This assumes that the only reason those in the middle class would ever side with the top 1% is because they identify with them. It precludes any notion that it's because those people believe that their position is ethically and philosophically more reasonable.
Worth noting: I know very few, if any, who are in lock step with billionaires on everything. Plenty who oppose tax increases on the wealthy, for example, also oppose those same wealthy individuals using their money to influence legislation.
posted by geeblockTrickle down economics as far as I can tell is free beer tomorrow... we have the middle class actually stumping for the top 1% as if they have some connection to them all so some poor person can’t get some cheese and milk while they continue to ship jobs overseas which will never change and they tell you hey well next year we will look into it
If that was directed at me, then I'm confused as to where you think I was stumping for the 1%.
Also, TAXES trickle down. Just ask the Democrats about Trump's tariffs.
posted by gutIf that was directed at me, then I'm confused as to where you think I was stumping for the 1%.
Also, TAXES trickle down. Just ask the Democrats about Trump's tariffs.
It wasn’t
posted by SpockSweet. About time. You should have to turn in your cell phone and not be allowed to get cable TV either till you can feed your kids.
I'd comment about how, if someone was looking to get a job, having a fucking phone might be of benefit, but since you don't seem to have the brain capacity to think before you type, regardless of the topic, I'm pretty sure that'd be a waste of my time.
posted by Heretic
I'd comment about how, if someone was looking to get a job, having a fucking phone might be of benefit, but since you don't seem to have the brain capacity to think before you type, regardless of the topic, I'm pretty sure that'd be a waste of my time.
So you need a phone to get a job? Wonder what people did 30 years ago?
posted by SpockSo you need a phone to get a job? Wonder what people did 30 years ago?
Yes, you need a phone to get a job.
posted by Fab4RunnerYes, you need a phone to get a job.
Yes, hiring processes have evolved. But mostly you don't need a smartphone - you need internet access (typically provided by libraries and employment centers) and a simple phone.
The inconvenience argument doesn't really apply, because they're unemployed they have time.
