Total posts: 65
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
fauxlaw, I can't blame you for ignoring the habeas corpus issue and continuing to go back to the treaty. We have no excuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@fauxlaw
parrot, fauxlaw, I'm not going to argue how we've overstayed our welcome and that our hosts want us to leave but, like the smell of old fish, we won't leave . . . ..But that we have found some contrived loophole to not honor our sacred Constitutional commitment is what shames US as a Nation. Don't think the World isn't taking note. We will have no complaint when we ask other Nations to honor their promise.
It's because I love my Country that I want US to keep our promises .. otherwise, we may as well be Russia, or China finding tiny, shameful excuses not to keep our word. Doesn't it embarrass you, what we've become ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Lemming, it's to our National shame that we claim to endorse habeas corpus to the extent that we put it in our Constitution, then we don't honor that principle on territory that we only occupy and control, not properly on US soil (which we asked to borrow and now won't give back).
What has happened to US since we were the shining city on the hill ? We've fallen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
fauxlaw, I suspect that even you don't really believe that your citing the history and the language of the treaty contradicts the fact that we are guests there and that we are beginning to smell like fish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We’re not being respected cause our leaders were stupid and getting ripped off left and right. Trump brought leadership. You don’t mess with him. Biden is a pussy lol
Thank you, Pie, for that thoughtful and reasoned consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes, isn't it shameful that a respectable Nation like ours is employing this underhanded tactic ? No wonder we're not respected so much anymore around the World. Either we follow the tenets of our Constitution or we become a distrustful Nation. There is no middle ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Shameful . . .
We need to put that sad bit of history behind US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The Constitution guarantees of habeas corpus dictate that, If we aren't going to try them, we must let them go. If Cuba wants to try them, then it's on them and their constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
It's time the US put the Guantanamo problem behind us. I've been "leasing" the naval base from Cuba for over 100 years. Cuba wants it back and it's a problem for US.
The solution seems simple to me. Give it all, the property, the facilities, the prison, the prisoners, everything back to Cuba and let them handle it. I'm sure they would agree to this to get their land back.
We're guests there. We're beginning to smell like fish.
Created:
-->
@coal
The US government does and has done plenty of things right. To name just a few :
The Space Program was a shining success. The US is still the only Country to putmen on the Moon.
Won WWI & WWII
The Thrift Savings Plan https://www.tsp.gov/
Rural electrification
The Hoover Dam
The Panama Canal
Social Security
The US can easily provide for public health as well as it does public security.
Created:
Posted in:
Admittedly, I don't know how a taser is activated but, it seems to me, if pistols are designed to be fired using the index finger, tasers should be designed to use a thumb trigger. This should go a long way to preventing the mix-up.
Created:
Posted in:
Here are some examples of cancel culture in the State of Georgia, USA. There are bills proposed by Republican lawmakers this session of the legislature in the State to make it harder for Democrats and minorities to vote. Some of the proposed new restrictions :
- Require that voters have an excuse to vote absentee — despite the fact that Georgia has offered no-excuse absentee voting without incident since 2005.
- Require absentee voters to get their ballot envelope signed by a witness and enclose a copy of their photo ID with the ballot.
- Empower the state to remove local election officials from their posts.
- Limit the use of mobile voting facilities to emergencies.
- Limit the early-voting period to business hours during the three weeks preceding the election, plus the second Saturday before the election; early voting would no longer be allowed any other day, including Sundays. Sundays, after services, are a popular time for voter registration drives with Black Churches.
- Clarify that no one can give food or water to people standing in line to vote.
- Allow ballot drop boxes at early-voting sites only, and only when those sites are open.
- Prohibit counties from accepting outside funding for elections.
- Throw out provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct.
- Limit the use of mobile voting facilities, such as buses, to emergencies.
- Limit the use of mobile voting facilities, such as buses, to emergencies.
- Throw out provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct.
- Prohibit counties from accepting outside funding for elections.
These, plus many others, are new proposals this legislative session. They are on the coattails of actions taken by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, while he was running for Governor in 2018, namely : the scrubbing of voter rolls in majority Black districts, reducing the number of voting locations in Minority precincts, putting, 53,000 voter registrations in suspense over small discrepancies, 70% of which were Black voters.
This is the real cancel culture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The "US taxpayers" only "have" to work for FOOD, CLOTHING, AND SHELTER.
They don't even have to do that. They can lay down and die if they want.
What you "pay" in "taxes" is basically a "transaction fee" for the CONVENIENCE of using a system of MONOPOLY-MONEY that allows you to obtain FOOD, CLOTHING, AND SHELTER.
This is so far out in right field it doesn't deserve comment. It couldn't be more removed from reality .. just the same as the rest of your dreamy analysis.
The government doesn't "need" your "taxes" to "pay" for anything. They have the power to confiscate anything they want.
Maybe the Government could confiscate what they want and maybe they can't. The US does have a Constitution setting ground rules and limits for the Government and Citizens alike.
Regarding all the rest of what you say about the US Government turning our back, defaulting on our debt and sticking our debtors, is not what responsible Nations do and the US will never do it. It would be irresponsible of unimaginable magnitude. Our Nation's credit, respectability and influence would be trashed in an instant.
..But here's the thing : If the debt means nothing, as you seem to claim, why are we so concerned about raising it to help repair the economy due to the pandemic ? Why is Congress arguing about petty details ? Why don't we just borrow enough money to give everyone an extravagant wage, full healthcare and a Tesla in every garage. Let's just do it .. we could have Utopia on Earth . . .
I don't know what you've been reading, or smoking, Brutal, but it's somehow convinced you of a fantasy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the real World. If it did, it would have been done by now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...They called this NAKED SCAM . . . .
Brutal, does your creative explanation of how money works somehow relieve the US of her debts and interest payments, supported by taxpayers, in a practical sense, in your opinion ? Does it relieve US taxpayers from having to work, as we always have, for the funds to make these tax payments ?
I don't see how your explanation really changes anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain to me how you think money works.
Sure .. I will if you do.
Money is recognized by official sanctioning authorities as having the value of being a convenient surrogate for goods and services. Being so recognized, it is a tool used for purchase and sale of goods and services.
Now, without using my definition as a head start for your answer, give me your definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The only thing maintaining the illusion of stability is smoke and mirrors.
Your meaning escapes me, Brutal. Please explain. Who ? How ? Why ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is nothing keeping them from PRINTING ONETRILLIONDOLLARBILLS.
The only thing stopping them is that it would trash the economy with hyper-inflation, making that one trillion dollars and everyone else's money worthless. If it were as simplistic as you think, it would have been done long ago and retired everyone's debt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's monopoly money.It literally means nothing.
Brutal, if it's Monopoly money, why is the US paying 7.8% of taxes collected (nearly $400 billion, yearly, and going up) in interest payments to creditors ? Are the interest payments Monopoly money too ? If so, are our taxes Monopoly money ? Maybe all money is Monopoly money but then, of course, since it has buying power, it's legal tender.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I wasn't looking for an answer at all.
victor, forgive me for misunderstanding. I thought you wanted an answer .. you asked me twice and you admonished me for not answering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So who borrows from who?.....And who is in debt to who?
victor, I didn't understand you were seeking a material answer, I thought you were looking for an abstract response. You can get your information easily on the internet.
Here's what I found regarding who owns, specifically, the US debt, when I looked it up :
Foreign governments own about 23% of the US debt, mostly China and Japan. The rest is owned by domestic entities and individuals. The individuals, by and large, through US bonds and pensions. The institutional debt holders include the Federal Reserve, the Social Security fund, state and local governments, pension funds, insurance companies, banks and mutual funds. https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124
The borrowers, by your construction of the question, are National governments.
Does this help ?
P.S. Incidentally, an interesting, related tidbit : The US does not own most of our US National Parks. China holds the titles as collateral for their loans to US.
P.P.S. The US paid $376 billion right off the top (7.8% of our budget), before paying for any governmental services, in 2020, for interest on our enormous debt. https://www.thebalance.com/interest-on-the-national-debt-4119024 That amount will only grow as the years go by, especially due to the tax cuts during the Trump administration and the trillions spent on COVID economic relief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
victor, make no mistake, this is a real debt. It's money the US owes but, Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, don't seem to be concerned about it. The only time politicians are worried about our debt is when the other Party is in office. When their own guys are in office, they spend like drunken sailors and put it on the tab.
I have been railing about our out-of-control debt for years. No one is concerned, as I am. Indeed, every time a Republican gets in they cut taxes, putting us more and more in debt. If they were concerned about our debt they would make some effort to balance the budget.
If they aren't worried about it, I have no reason to be worried about it. It certainly seems like irresponsible management to me but, Congress will have spent over $5 trillion dollars to bolster the economy this year and next, due to the COVID virus. Where did that money come from ? They put it on the "card". There's no reason to examine our spending when politicians, who we can't seem to control, aren't worried about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
You cannot both increase the amount everyone gets from $600 to $2000 and NOT cut out a bunch of the bloat/pork in the Omnibus Spending Bill, doing so would cause a massive economic disaster.
Morning Star, what sort of disaster are you thinking of ? It seems to me nobody in Congress, Democrat or Republican, cares about the deficit or borrowing money to spend. They both borrow without reservation.
What disaster do you mean ? Just put it on the tab like we've done without giving it a second thought for the past 40 years (except Clinton's second term).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I have, in fact, participated in that effort.... You?
Of course. My wife and I do what we can. We are caring people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Naturally, I disagree, faux. I believe you're the one lacking compassion.
Stubbing your toe is a temporary pain. Being born into lifelong, painful, shameful, difficult, barely-escapable disadvantages is permanent for both the unfortunately-born child and the family that can't supply the basic needs for a meaningful human life. I would wish that condition on no one and I would try to save them from those circumstances if I could.
Please re-think, faux. Open your heart. Can't you feel at least some compassion for the agony of a family lacking the wherewithal to provide adequate sustenance for a child to live a normal life and for the child that must endure the void and the degradation ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
faux, I do acknowledge the large number of abortions. ..But you seems to press it as if it's a bad thing. Every abortion saves an embryo or fetus from a difficult, painful, unfulfilled life as a human. We don't have to subject them to that. We don't have to treat them that way. Let's be compassionate. Let's be humane. Let's not be so mean-spirited as to bring a life into the World just so they can suffer.
Abortion is a kindness for both the unprepared woman and the unwitting fetus. Sometimes death is a blessing. We euthanize animals to "put them out of their misery". It's why we have advance health directives, to speed up our deaths when life becomes too painful. It's a tool in our tool bag of choices.
Again, you don't have to acidify your comments to make a point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
faux, it's impossible to discuss an issue with someone who, despite making it as plain as I can, refuses to see or acknowledge the issue at hand. I'm concerned for the difficult, heartbreaking lives of children being forced to be born counter to more humane practices.
Also, your careless admonishments don't help your argument. They only display your lack of reason and seriousness. They never help an argument.
I'm not going to promote my compassion for disadvantaged children again while you ignore the issue and hurl unrelated blather. There's no more to this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
faux, well, despite your high minded admonitions of careless sex, it won't end. Nature has instilled in us the desire and the means to have sex. It won't stop despite societal browbeating. It's just too ingrained in us humans. It happens.
As a reality, we must be pragmatic and, while cautioning people to avoid sex without the desire to have children is good practice, it's only a start. We must also plan for undesired outcomes.
Over 100,000 children go unadopted each year. Most of these children live difficult, needy, unfulfilled, insecure, often violent, painful and short lives. Unwanted and unloved children often cling to gangs because that's the only place where they can get some semblance of family. Its a tragedy and an unforgivable malignity to make these children live these lives.
Abortion is a kindness for, not only scared, unwilling, unprepared young women, lacking the resources to provide a child with a meaningful, safe and fulfilled life, but for unborn children, as well, who would suffer these lives.
faux, please have some compassion and think of the future well beings of the as yet unborn children. Why would you want to bring them into the World to suffer ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
the woman willing engaged in sexual congress, and should bear the responsibility of consequence.
To characterize a pregnancy, with a human outcome, as a consequence objectifies, indeed, dehumanizes the child, as well as penalizes the woman and the child, doesn't it ? A child is not a consequence ; she's a life with feelings and agency.
If it would be dangerous or tragic to bring a child into the world unwanted and unloved, without adequate resources for a fulfilling life, often with debilitating handicaps or maladies. The child's future welfare should be considered.
It would be unfair and mean-spirited to bring a child into the World just to suffer a horrible deprived life with two strikes against her from the start. Better not to subject her to the suffering to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
On the other hand, is it in the purview of the state to institute regulations that require someone to look out for their own safety, their health or their life ? That is, of course, unless the loss of a life or an illness is a burden on the state or her Citizens in some way.
Created:
Posted in:
One of the responsibilities of a state is to protect its Citizens. To that end, they regulate the spread of viruses consistent with their virulence. I don't see this as a civil rights issue but a temporary, common-sense, regulation for the maintenance of public health to protect the state and its Citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Conway, what is it you're referencing ? What is the source document ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm pro-choice, very pro-choice
Me, too.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Brutal, people with low IQ are ultimately employable. This is being proven by industry today. They love and take pride in their precision of repetitive jobs. Employers like that they rarely call in sick, and can be trusted to do their jobs competently and thoroughly.
There are many jobs that would bore higher IQ workers and, over time, would be done less and less adequately or accurately by a worker with a higher IQ. No, I think lower IQ Citizens are an asset to the workforce. There are plenty of jobs for them.
Here's a discussion of the subject on Quora : https://www.quora.com/How-might-a-person-with-a-IQ-under-80-earn-a-living-wage
Anyone with an IQ below, say, 75 would be treated the same way as they are now. It's a disability that must be handled. Often they are institutionalized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Mopac, look, this will be so easy to resolve for us. Just show the proof. If God had wanted you to reveal Himself to me and all the other skeptics, He would have provided you with some proof rather than leaving you stranded, empty-handed. Just show me the proof. No more rationalization.
Just show me the proof. Time to put up or shut up. Show the proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you say there is no ultimate reality, that makes you a nihilist.
Please don't project on me, Mopac. My life has plenty of meaning. I have a family I love, I try to help the disadvantaged, I try to help the environment, I pursue my art .. plenty of meaning. If you think only belief in God gives meaning to life and existence for everyone, not just you and your ilk, you're plenty mistaken. Lots of people feel belief in a God is a life crutch. While I do not as I think it, indeed, helps some people deal with their problems, I have little support to deny the deniers. ..But that still puts God in the realm of personal realization not omnipresence.
Besides, I do hold to an ultimate reality, as ultimate as we can perceive .. I trust in science and I'm sure that science reflects and defines truth.
It's all about the firmness of real existence versus the vagaries of philosophy, as I see it. I realize you see it differently. That's what makes the World go 'round .. engaging in discourse. Thank you for this discussion. Let's keep it fresh and only engage in fresh arguments or, especially, evidence, if you have some. Let's not keep treading on old ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
OK, that is your opinion, Mopac. I respect your opinion but, please don't mistake opinion for science. Science deals in reality while opinion, well, you know what they say about opinions. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that anything can be superior to science to define reality. Once again, you've proven nothing.
Let's leave this discussion where it lays if no new evidence cannot be supplied. I appreciate and respect your opinion regarding your certainty of God as, I realize this is a forum dedicated to philosophy. Philosophy is all about rationalization and opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If "Ultimate Reality" (your term for God) exists outside of and independent of human minds, I invite you to prove it, empirically. You can't rationalize a concept for it to be real, you must prove it. That's how the scientific method, the acquisition of knowledge, works. If something can't be proven, it can't be assumed to exist. Either you're going to converse in terms of science or you're going to stick to the category at hand and converse in terms of philosophy and conjecture.
I realize it's a fine distinction but, if you can't prove "Ultimate Reality" (God) then, you can only discuss It as a possibility. You may conjecture about what He means and may be but, you can't assert His unquestionable existence .. that He's an actual phenomenon .. without being cultist.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a very interesting conversation. Thank you all for engaging in it.
I'm tending to lean toward the notion that, if an omnipotent, omnipresent God exists, for all people, regardless of faith or belief, a real Entity, then His existence must be able to be proven empirically. Otherwise, God only exists within the minds of believers. That is, everyone has their own God within them, for themselves, in their own way, and their God has no authority or sway over anyone else. Of course, individuals can compare their own constructions and manifestations of their Gods with others and they are free to imagine they are the same God.
Thank you for the chance to weigh in. I hope I'm not barging in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
parrot, it's incredibly incoherent for you to have this :
Make every child a ward of the state from the moment of conception
and this :
Stop bitching about not having 100% safety if you are not willing to live in a totalitarian state to achieve it.
in the same post. One side of your head can't stop fighting with the other side !
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
don't create fiction and then highlight it as something I said.
Please point out where I did that. I quoted you accurately.
The link you provided says $22 trillion has been spend on poverty issues by the combined Administrations of the past 50 years. It said nothing about Keynesian economics. Your post indicated it was President Obama's budget that especially employed Keynesian techniques in the process of throwing $22 billion at poverty.
While I do agree that the War on Poverty has not helped to change the economics in America so that we have no more poor people, it has provided a safety net to poor children, addressing the conditions, as your article says, but not the causes of poverty. So, clearly, since that's terribly inefficient, as you correctly point out, I'd like to see your solution to not seeing children starve in the streets in front of us.
If your two short sentences are the only point with which you can take issue then I'd say we agree more than most people these days regarding politics. Maybe we can work on pushing a Balanced Budget Amendment together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
parrot (not thett), there's so much to comment on :
Keynesian [economics were used] during Obama's term, with little effect. 22 Trillion dollars spent on trickle-up policies with no noticeable effect on the poverty level.
First of all, $22 trillion ? Where did you get that number ? President Obama's predecessor, President Bush's eight budgets totaled $18.39 trillion. President Obama's eight budgets totaled $22.86 trillion. President Obama's eight budgets were $4.47 trillion more than his predecessor's eight. Inflation during the sixteen years of the two President's budgets averaged 2.81% per year. That means inflation accounted for $4.13 trillion (I used 8 years of inflation which is the difference in years between the two Presidents' budgets). That means, discounting for inflation, Obama's budgets were a mere $ .34 trillion ($340 billion) more than President Bush's over eight years. That means 1/3 of a trillion dollars of Keynesian economics .. not even close to your $22 trillion .. to help to raise our economy out of the Great Recession, not to raise the standard of living for the poor.
A more effective economic policy would aim at restoring the long-term growth rate by reducing uncertainty and restoring investor and consumer confidence.
OK, that sounds good. Please explain how you would "reduce uncertainty" in order to restore investor and consumer confidence ? Yours is an important statement. Please don't gloss over it.
...a 10-year program of government spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Permanent tax reduction can only be achieved by reducing government spending.
This sounds good, too. The first place to start reducing the deficit is the military budget. We outspend our closest military competitor by 2-1/2 times, and an amount equal to the military spending of the eight largest militaries below us in line, combined (including China). Six of those eight are allies of ours, and four of them are committed to help defend us by treaty. This is our greatest over-spending in the budget and where we should start cutting, in addition to other places.
Additionally, we must raise taxes, especially on the most wealthy Americans who recently got huge Trump tax breaks, to help pay the deficit down. Reducing spending alone will not do it. We should never be reducing taxes before we reduce spending. That's Failed Economics 101.
reduce corporate tax rates and expense capital investment by closing loopholes.
Again, I agree with you. We should reduce corporate tax rates to keep and return the residence of corporations in the US. To compensate, we should raise the taxes of the owners, the directors and the stockholders of the corporations, as they are less likely to leave the Country like a corporate headquarters can. Plus, even if they have an official residence off shore, if they earn their money in the US, they will be taxed.
I'd like to know what you mean by : "expense capital investment".
announce a five-year moratorium on new regulations.
Of course we could never do that. How could we know what's coming down the pike in the next five years to know what would be damaging or dangerous to the US and our Citizens ?
adopt an enforceable 0%-2% inflation target to allay fears of future high inflation.
You may remember Nixon tried this. It didn't go well.
One thing that really would help is a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Oops, sorry . . . ..Still getting used to who's a recipient and who's the owner of a post on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
thett, there's so much to comment on :
Keynesian [economics were used] during Obama's term, with little effect. 22 Trillion dollars spent on trickle-up policies with no noticeable effect on the poverty level.
First of all, $22 trillion ? Where did you get that number ? President Obama's predecessor, President Bush's eight budgets totaled $18.39 trillion. President Obama's eight budgets totaled $22.86 trillion. President Obama's eight budgets totaled $4.47 trillion more than his predecessor's. Inflation during the sixteen years of the two President's budgets averaged 2.81% per year. That means inflation accounted for $4.13 trillion (I used 8 years of inflation which is the difference in years between the two Presidents' budgets). That means, discounting for inflation, Obama's budgets were $ .34 trillion ($340 billion) more than President Bush's over eight years. That means 1/3 of a trillion dollars in Keynesian economics .. not even close to your $22 trillion .. to help to raise our economy out of the Great Recession, not to raise the standard of living for the poor.
A more effective economic policy would aim at restoring the long-term growth rate by reducing uncertainty and restoring investor and consumer confidence.
OK, that sounds good. Please explain how you would "reduce uncertainty" in order to restore investor and consumer confidence ? Yours an important statement. Please don't gloss over it.
...a 10-year program of government spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Permanent tax reduction can only be achieved by reducing government spending.
This sounds good, too. The first place to start reducing the deficit is the military budget. We outspend our closest military competitor by 2-1/2 times, and an amount equal to the military spending of the eight largest militaries below us in line, combined. Six of those eight are allies of ours, and four of them are committed to help defend us by treaty. This is our greatest over-spending in the budget and where we should start cutting, in addition to other places.
Additionally, we must raise taxes, especially on the most wealthy Americans who recently got huge Trump tax breaks, to help pay the deficit down. Reducing spending alone will not do it. We should never be reducing taxes before we reduce spending. That's Failed Economics 101.
reduce corporate tax rates and expense capital investment by closing loopholes.
Again, I agree with you. We should reduce corporate tax rates to keep and return the residence of businesses in the US. To compensate, we should raise the taxes of the owners, the directors and the stockholders of the corporations, as they are less likely to leave the Country like a corporate headquarters can. Plus, even if they have an official residence off shore, if they earn their money in the US, they will be taxed.
I'd like to know what you mean by, "expense capital investment".
announce a five-year moratorium on new regulations.
Of course we could never do that. How could we know what's coming down the pike in the next five years to know what would be damaging or dangerous to the US and our Citizens ?
adopt an enforceable 0%-2% inflation target to allay fears of future high inflation.
You may remember Nixon tried this. It didn't go well.
One thing that really would help is a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Underdog, what does that 10-word response mean ? How does it fit ? What importance do you put on it ? How does one draw a conclusion from it ?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Some women don't even know they're pregnant until the 6th week. A decision that important to the family's future can't be reckless. It's a serious decision ; plans and contingencies must be made. Hands are to be wrung and life-changing considerations indulged. Why should it be rushed ?
What's wrong with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade definition of 28 weeks, or the 23~24 weeks they set in PP v. Casey, which is the earliest possible point when a fetus might survive without the support of it's mother ? Why be so hurried for a wrong decision to be made ?
Created:
I'd rewrite the Second Amendment to make it resemble how the Framers envisioned it to mean in a more clear way. See Federalist No. 29 for reference.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don't think a family could survive on a $8 ~ $10 per hour job, Nate. That's only $17 ~ $21 thousand per year, working full time.. In no way could a working mom afford childcare in order to work for an income like that.
Created:
Posted in:
I hate to see Tom Toles retire. He came up with a clever cartoon most every day .. very prolific and thoughtful.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Brutal, what if the government were to be the employer of last resort ? This would create near full employment and livable wages for all workers who are serious about wanting and holding a job.
That is, give everyone who has applied for unemployment insurance, or anyone who wishes to work, a job providing public services. There is an inexhaustible list of services that we could use, such as maintenance and clean-up of roads and bridges, public buildings and public spaces, child and elder care so no one would be prohibited from getting a job because they have to care for their children or parents, transportation services so everyone could get to their job. The list is truly endless.
At $15 per hour, these jobs would not be cushy. They would require 40 hours of hard, regular work per week. They would be true jobs and, at the same time, the government employees would be free, and encouraged, to take jobs in the private workforce. Private employers looking for workers would have to compete for them, offering better wages, working conditions or benefits.
If a worker does not live up to the requirements for the job, is prone to come to work late or call in sick too often, they would be fired just like any other employer would do. A private company could hire these malcontents at whatever wage they wish (there would be no minimum wage) but they would have to put up with the shoddy work ethics that were the cause of the termination.
For this, we would eliminate all unemployment insurance, welfare, housing subsidies and food stamps. Everyone who wants to work would be able to work as there would be a variety of transportation options as well as plenty of child- and elder-care available. All could be subsidized or free.
In exchange for a guaranteed job and to help to pay for the program, all tax deductions could be eliminated (simplifying taxes to one page) resulting in no costs of tax preparation and reduction of the size and complicated job of the IRS.
We could have a beautiful, well-maintained America with everyone who wants a job, working and earning a livable wage.
Created: