|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 18 2014 02:51 oneofthem wrote:
yes, public trust is the most serious problem with the nsa. but that's just it, there is no serious substantive damage or harm to americans. there's the rabid libertarian propaganda directed against intelligence but this is not a serious position.
no tangible damage - yet. because, you know all they do is strictly hush hush and need to know basis and when people who oversee their activity ask they lie. to congress and the overseeing authority. yeah, trust is their biggest issue. rofl.
|
|
|
There is a big donut hole approx. $20k and $45k where if you are a single mother with kids, you get a ton of bennies if you stay right under the poverty line.
You go over that line, the you have to pay your own daycare, insurance (Medicaid), ect. you can't get subsidized housing.
It's not "just" food stamps. There are millions of people who want to stay right under the "poverty" line, depending on which state they are in. It's a truly perverse incentive.
Walmarts net income has been 14-17 billion for the last 5 years.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=walmart net income
So it's easy to say raising the price of a box of mac and cheese $.01 wouldn't cost next to nothing, but they employ a hell of a lot of people...and that tiny cost amounting to 4.8 billion in additional employee costs (number from vid).. that crushes their income by 33%.
|
The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages.
Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like.
Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically.
Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already.
|
On November 18 2014 02:51 oneofthem wrote:
yes, public trust is the most serious problem with the nsa. but that's just it, there is no serious substantive damage or harm to americans. there's the rabid libertarian propaganda directed against intelligence but this is not a serious position.
No. The biggest and most serious problem with the NSA is the same as it is with the CIA. Not enough governmental control, way too much power. It starts to get dangerous if those people actually start deceiving the government too - if that doesn't ring alarmbells for any sane person, then i don't know.
it's up to internal regulations and these are in place.
Should be easy to prove then that they actually are bound to those, right? Because from my experience, internal regulations don't mean shit the second they get inconvenient. An institution like NSA, CIA (or police, for that matter) should never be allowed to govern themselves. Ever.
edit: that's also the reason why secrecy of correspondence etc is not an internal regulation from your mailman, but law.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
fisc supervision is made of veteran district court judges, about as independent as you can get. nsa also has a compliance wing specifically to ensure enforcement of new oversight laws put into place a few years ago. there is no pattern or motivation for widespread abuse, not the same can be saidfor local police
and as for 'proof' you can look at executive review panels on both 215 and 704 programs.
|
nsa also has a compliance wing specifically to ensure enforcement of new oversight laws put into place a few years ago.
To whom do they answer? Honest question, since i didn't read about them.
|
It's unclear to me what would qualify as widespread abuse to you.
|
|
|
On November 18 2014 06:35 RCMDVA wrote:With the announcement from the Governor in Missouri + the 12 degree overnight temps... today is looking like they will announce the outcome from the Ferguson grand jury. Who is going to riot when it's 12 degrees outside? http://www.weather.com/weather/5-day/Saint Louis MO USMO0787
Anyone who is dumb enough to riot over this decision won't let a little cold weather deter their stupidity.
|
On November 18 2014 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages. Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like. Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically. Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already.
nobody takes this question at its literal meaning. except you I guess.
It's not a practical policy measure or punitive policy for any company, but a specific example showing what if. but good to know we got some wal mart fans in the house.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 18 2014 06:24 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +nsa also has a compliance wing specifically to ensure enforcement of new oversight laws put into place a few years ago. To whom do they answer? Honest question, since i didn't read about them.
it's an internal effort because they care, like it or not. the compliance officer is like a vice president of operations in rank and is in charge of this specific compliance stuff.
here's a faq http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2014/01/23/compliance-in-government-qa-with-john-delong-of-the-nsa/
btw on the overall question of how to keep government honest. the internal institutional culture is very important. if you truly care join the service, but not in the malicious and sabotaging way a snowden would. keep an open mind
|
having the compliance officer of the nsa giving answers in the article should put people's worries to rest?
also, an internal effort? so like, they monitor themselves.
haha I love the first comment on the article.
"How is it possible that this reporter does not ask about Snowden in an article about NSA compliance?"
//edit: sabotaging and malicious ways of snowden. well, that just shows us what kind of person you are.
|
On November 18 2014 06:38 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages. Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like. Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically. Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already. nobody takes this question at its literal meaning. except you I guess. It's not a practical policy measure or punitive policy for any company, but a specific example showing what if. but good to know we got some wal mart fans in the house.
It is not useful as a 'specific example' either. Businesses are heterogeneous. The specific impact on one will not be the specific impact on another.
Edit: Sorry, figured everyone already knew that.
|
Republicans and outside groups used anonymous Twitter accounts to share internal polling data ahead of the midterm elections, CNN has learned, a practice that raises questions about whether they violated campaign finance laws that prohibit coordination.
The Twitter accounts were hidden in plain sight. The profiles were publicly available but meaningless without knowledge of how to find them and decode the information, according to a source with knowledge of the activities.
The practice is the latest effort in the quest by political operatives to exploit the murky world of campaign finance laws at a time when limits on spending in politics are eroding and regulators are being defanged.
The law says that outside groups, such as super PACs and non-profits, can spend freely on political causes as long as they don't coordinate their plans with campaigns. Sharing costly internal polls in private, for instance, could signal to the campaign committees where to focus precious time and resources.
Link
Some sort of communication had to have taken place here. Wonder if we'll finally have a serious discussion about campaign finance laws...
|
On November 18 2014 07:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 06:24 m4ini wrote:nsa also has a compliance wing specifically to ensure enforcement of new oversight laws put into place a few years ago. To whom do they answer? Honest question, since i didn't read about them. it's an internal effort because they care, like it or not. the compliance officer is like a vice president of operations in rank and is in charge of this specific compliance stuff.
Wow, i tap out. That's just dumb now. It's an internal effort because they care? Where do you get that from? You could also say it's to put your mind to (false) ease. Because they care, rofl. They're an institution that's based on surveilance, secrecy and deception, and your answer is "because they care" - that'll take me some time to get over.
I say again:
Should be easy to prove then that they actually are bound to those, right? Because from my experience, internal regulations don't mean shit the second they get inconvenient. An institution like NSA, CIA (or police, for that matter) should never be allowed to govern themselves. Ever.
Which is exactly what they're doing. "Like it or not".
btw on the overall question of how to keep government honest. the internal institutional culture is very important. if you truly care join the service, but not in the malicious and sabotaging way a snowden would. keep an open mind
"Keep an open mind" from someone who pictures the NSA as selfregulating saints is kinda.. off. It's because malicious people like snowden, that we actually know as much as we do - and how much you wanna bet that this only scratches the surface?
edit: but spare us both the discussion, we won't get a conclusion. In my mind you're so far off the track that there's no way to have a constructive discussion.
|
On November 18 2014 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 06:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages. Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like. Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically. Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already. nobody takes this question at its literal meaning. except you I guess. It's not a practical policy measure or punitive policy for any company, but a specific example showing what if. but good to know we got some wal mart fans in the house. It is not useful as a 'specific example' either. Businesses are heterogeneous. The specific impact on one will not be the specific impact on another. Edit: Sorry, figured everyone already knew that.
it set out to answer what kind of wage walmart had to pay their employees to get them off food stamps, and what the impact of that would be. it did just that.
you jumping in on behalf of walmart, or any other "heterogenous business" is another story entirely.
|
On November 17 2014 22:01 Simberto wrote:
Dunno, the government not spying on you is a right that is pretty key to democracies in general. Why does this right suddenly disappear when new technology arises?
Consider the following scenario: The government takes every single letter sent by anyone to anyone else, has a giant database with all the connections, and copies every single letter. But they promise not to look at those copies unless you are an evil terrorist. Of course, there is no oversight over this process because it needs to be secret for your safety. But rest assured that there is definitively a court overlooking all of this, even if noone can know anything about this procedure because once again, your safety.
That is obviously absurd. Why does it stop being absurd once the letter is via the internet? The basic priciple is the following: If i have a private conversation with someone else, unless the police produces a warrent from a court before i do so, they have no right to listen in. It should not matter what medium this conversation takes place through, be it a letter, a phone call, or any modern digital version of those. I should also not be forced into taking complex measures to try to prevent the government from listening in, while they try their hardest to listen in. This should not be a competition between who knows more about digital data transfers. It should be a right that people just have, and that the government does not interfere with.
And it was, until the internet got invented. The secrecy of letters is protected by laws. The secrecy of phone calls is protected by laws. But for some legalistic reason, once stuff is on the internet the same rules no longer apply. And that is obviously utterly insane, and i can not fathom why someone would argue otherwise.
Good points. For myself it matters what data they're collecting (content vs meta data), the scope of the program (foreign vs domestic) and what safeguards are in place for when those things overlap (conversation between foreign and domestic parties). In other words, the details matter.
To give something that compares and contrasts, the IRS has been under scrutiny for running queries that targeted tea party organizations. Here, intent matters enormously. If you run multiple queries looking for patterns in tax code violations, and 'tea party' happens to be one of them, there should be no problem as you are simply looking for patterns. However, if you were to run the queries as part of a pre-determined effort to find issues with tea party groups in an effort to suppress their activities, you have a major problem.
|
On November 18 2014 07:48 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 06:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages. Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like. Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically. Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already. nobody takes this question at its literal meaning. except you I guess. It's not a practical policy measure or punitive policy for any company, but a specific example showing what if. but good to know we got some wal mart fans in the house. It is not useful as a 'specific example' either. Businesses are heterogeneous. The specific impact on one will not be the specific impact on another. Edit: Sorry, figured everyone already knew that. it set out to answer what kind of wage walmart had to pay their employees to get them off food stamps, and what the impact of that would be. it did just that. you jumping in on behalf of walmart, or any other "heterogenous business" is another story entirely.
Yeah, it set out to answer an irrelevant question.
|
On November 18 2014 07:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 07:48 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 06:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages. Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like. Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically. Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already. nobody takes this question at its literal meaning. except you I guess. It's not a practical policy measure or punitive policy for any company, but a specific example showing what if. but good to know we got some wal mart fans in the house. It is not useful as a 'specific example' either. Businesses are heterogeneous. The specific impact on one will not be the specific impact on another. Edit: Sorry, figured everyone already knew that. it set out to answer what kind of wage walmart had to pay their employees to get them off food stamps, and what the impact of that would be. it did just that. you jumping in on behalf of walmart, or any other "heterogenous business" is another story entirely. Yeah, it set out to answer an irrelevant question.
lol. and there I was about to call you Lisa Simpson. "The answer to a question that was never asked!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
