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.
posted by Fab4RunnerYes, you need a phone to get a job.
No you dont. Does it help....sure. But you can get a job without a phone
posted by SpockNo you dont. Does it help....sure. But you can get a job without a phone
Ok, bud. It definitely makes sense to take away the most useful tool someone can have to find a job. We should definitely make it as difficult as possible for poor people to find employment.
posted by Fab4RunnerOk, bud. It definitely makes sense to take away the most useful tool someone can have to find a job. We should definitely make it as difficult as possible for poor people to find employment.
The most powerful thing is a phone? No its walking in someone's door looking for a job
posted by SpockThe most powerful thing is a phone? No its walking in someone's door looking for a job
It's not 1970 anymore.
I hope you also realize that not everyone owns a car and thus can't just drive around town filling out applications all day.
posted by O-TrapThere'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.
Better yet, it precludes the notion that those in the middle class understand they have the economic mobility to potentially one day move up to/toward the top ………so long as the Marxists do not get elected.
posted by Fab4RunnerYes, you need a phone to get a job.
Oddly enough, today you do not need a phone to get a job; you can literally walk in the front door of just about any business and be granted an interview because of the serious tightness of the current job market --- almost every employer is having difficulty finding enough workers (or should I say, people who want to work).
posted by Fab4RunnerIt's not 1970 anymore.
I hope you also realize that not everyone owns a car and thus can't just drive around town filling out applications all day.
So you are arguing with me the semantics of getting a job and you are going to bat for people that dont have a car but spend their money on a phone.....you see the irony in that dont you?
posted by SpockSo you are arguing with me the semantics of getting a job and you are going to bat for people that dont have a car but spend their money on a phone.....you see the irony in that dont you?
Do you think a phone costs the same amount as a car, insurance, gas and maintenance? A phone is $45 a month.
Again, I don't see the purpose of making it as hard as possible for a poor, unemployed person to get a job. If you actually want people to find work, get off unemployment and contribute to society, you'd make it easier, not harder.
posted by Fab4RunnerDo you think a phone costs the same amount as a car, insurance, gas and maintenance? A phone is $45 a month.
Again, I don't see the purpose of making it as hard as possible for a poor, unemployed person to get a job. If you actually want people to find work, get off unemployment and contribute to society, you'd make it easier, not harder.
I have 5 jobs rotating around that I choose to do. I can get a few more at any time. Getting a job isn't hard and surely doesnt require a phone.
Remember the conversation started about holding unemployed welfare takers to a high standard to get free money. Having the priorities of feeding your kids over a cell bill seems like a logical thing to ask for.
$1.2 billion coal-to-liquids facility to be built in WVA.
Change we can [really] believe in …
“You didn’t build that”
“We’re going to bankrupt your industry”
“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”