Greta, like you and like many of your viewers, I'm aware of the supremacy clause in the federal constitution. But what we have here is an unprecedented uprising of the people and of the elected representatives of the people. The attorneys general of 20 states now are challenging "Obama care." This cannot be ignored!You want to get rid of health care? Fine. Have fun playing in your 6-foot ditch.
I agree with Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame in Tennessee, the legal scholar at the University of Tennessee, who says this is the forth great awakening in American history. We are rediscovering our constitutional roots. We are rediscovering the primacy of limited constitutional government. We're saying no more to an overreaching, overweening federal bureaucracy.
You know very well that corporations routinely shop around and formally relocate their assets to countries with lower tax rates in order to lower their tax burdens, ...Umm... of course the U.S. is going to require more revenue. But the U.S. also has more taxable persons and activity. It's not at all "bloody common sense" that the U.S. should require higher effective average tax rates in order to achieve that revenue. Furthermore, one might very well expect that economies of scale would make deliverying some services cheaper on a per capita basis.
That's not a reasonable argument for lowering corporate tax rates here because it's just bloody common sense that a nation the size of the Unites States is going to require more tax revenue to provide basic services than, say, a small island nation like the Caymen Islands.
Society is not an a la carte menu, from which you can pick and choose your benefits. It's all connected.It's true that some benefits can't be opted out of, but many benefits (for which premiums are paid) in the United States can be opted out of. Medicare part B for retirees for example, or the National Flood Insurance Plan for residents of Moderate-to-Low risk areas. This works when the cost of the premiums is lower than the cost of the program (that is, the program is already subsidized from another revenue source) and the externalities of allowing opt outs aren't too great.
An end table? So she's buying cars and furniture. -- blazingunicornShe bought a car two years before she was laid off. I know math is hard but the fact that 2006 is a smaller number then 2008 ought to be pretty obvious.
Yes, it is. But I am also frustrated because lost in this discussion is talk about the underemployed and freelancers who are not eligible for these kinds of benefits to begin with. When I was really struggling last year, having acquaintances talk about unemployment benefits seemed so... unfair. -- blazingunicornUnfair? Unemployment insurance is paid for by taxes on our salaries. It's your choice that you chose freelancing rather then getting a "real" job, so how can you go about blaming other people for their own choices while at the same time bemoaning the effects of your own?
Yet on every media site I see, everyone wants to blame President Obama. The people who get abused by Corporate America won't say a word about their employer who laid them off, but they love to blame the government. They really want to see corporations get more tax cuts and they think it will increase hiring instead of going straight into management's pockets. -- anniecatObama deserves a lot of the blame here. In particular, the stimulus at the beginning of his administration was way to small. There was "aide to states" but it wasn't enough to cover the loss in state revenue. preventing jobs from being lost ought to have been the most obvious way to stop problems, and preventing jobs in state governments would have been the easiest, least 'corrupt' way to go about doing it. But there wasn't enough money to go around and huge numbers of unnecessary unemployment was the result.
The sole reason I find it extremely difficult to find sympathy for people like this is because 99% of them are goddamned fucking Jesus-loving Republicans. Well, where's your God now, you homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic morans? -- Civil_DisobedientWow, that's one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever read? 99%? I don't know but I'd bet that a majority of these people aren't even white, let alone xenophobic republicans. Misogynistic? At least half of them are women, including the person featured here. (your links have nothing to do with unemployed people)
A chart based on the table demonstrates that, as the number of subordinates increases past four, the complexity of the relationships increases exponentially. This owes primarily to an increase in the number of direct group relationships created by adding a member to an existing group. For example, as noted above, adding a fifth subordinate roughly doubles complexity, increasing the total direct plus cross relationships from 44 to 100. Adding a sixth subordinate more than doubles complexity again, increasing the number of relationships from about 100 to 222. For 12 subordinates, the total number of relationships that might demand a superior's attention is an astounding 24,564.posted by saulgoodman at 10:22 AM on August 6, 2010
« Older ESPN takes a look at how Madden NFL became a franc... | "It's great to be alive!" - Pa... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
even foronly those who are hurting.posted by DU at 11:18 AM on August 5, 2010 [12 favorites]