The concern here is for the financial well-being of our country. Once a majority population of a Democracy has figured out that they can just vote themsleves gifts from the coffers of the country, that country will certainly head down a swift path to financial ruin. That's why we don't have Democracy.
The founders of the United States fortunately were aware of this history, so they slowed this phenomonon down by deciding upon a Republic. By voting only for Representatives, the direct control of the coffers is taken away from the voters in favor of stability. But even a Republic's financial solvency can be threatened by a majority of politicians out-promising each other over how many gifts they will give people in order to get elected.
The fiscally conservative side of the voting block is very concerned that a number like 70% receiving direct payments could be the tipping point to create the phenomenon I've described above. That may or may not be the case, as many direct payments are for direct goods and services (e.g. Farm subsidies, federal payroll, etc.) But it is a concern that is something we as a country should watch closely and discuss.
The POTUS has made a budget that he suggests to the House of Representatives. You can find and explanation of this on Wikipedia.
You can also know more about this if you would just RTFB that was posted today.
"Calls on the Congress to enact bipartisan commonsense, comprehensive immigration reform consistent with the President’s principles and that builds on the bipartisan legislation that has already passed the Senate, which the Congressional Budget Office has found would reduce the deficit by almost $1 trillion and increase the economy by $1.4 trillion over the next twenty years."
This sounds like Stephen Wolfram is angling for a buyout from an enormous search engine (that has the majority of market share).
Such a search giant busies itself with the trying to stay ahead of a curve that is contantly try to flatten itself. This would be quite the engine for solving that problem...
Just because you find one website on the fringes of the internet does NOT mean you have discovered parity. The social obsession to view women as victims at every turn doesn't apply to men. EVER.
Be welcoming and warm in our acceptance of anyone. But to push them toward something they are not really interested in, just so some people feel better about themselves, is absolute silliness.
Why would anyone pay for something that is required to make things work?
That is exactly how I feel too! In order to get MS Office to work, they claim I need a product key. Ha! Product key, Scmoduct Key.
I was also told that in order to get Ender's Game to work on my TV screen I needed to buy a digital copy off of Amazon Prime for $19.99. Oh these silly people. Luckily I know how to make this stuff work without their help.
Bring in some pre-conceived ideas from Slashdot readers and we have a real festive discussion ahead of us today! Popcorn time.
I'm taking wagers on how many posts this one gets within the next 2 days. My computer model puts the number at about 535.
This is fucking insipid. But as long as it adds to the mirage that Your Government Cares, then let the show go on right?
I think any communication between the public and our government that is open and transparent has value. Even if it does not get the desired result immediately, it influences public opinion in our government as the people observe the ebb and flow of government in action. Government officials are almost always influenced to at least some degree by their public perception.
Wrong. This is a class action suit on behalf of cell phone owner's. That gives this case standing.
Who specifically has been harmed in which specific manner? What were the specific monetary damages incurred?
Those are the questions of the case. But those are not the questions that lead to a ruling of lack of standing.
This is not only a political stance suit like his father's. This is a legitimate suit of a class that has been directly wronged. Standing will never be questioned.