|
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. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
God says no freedom of speech apparently.
|
On July 01 2013 08:24 Souma wrote:
God says no freedom of speech apparently.
Unless it's freedom of speech for God. Duh.
|
On July 01 2013 07:00 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 01 2013 03:31 Rassy wrote:
It wont be a mutually beneficial agreement for the countrys in europe wich can not compete,as competition will greatly increase in a free tade zone, and there are quiet a few of thoose "not so" competitive countrys. The only ones who this will be beneficial for are international companys. Countrys wich can not compete already will be forced to have a usa style economy and social system where millions more will fall into poverty, difference between poor and rich will grow.
I dont see manny positive things come from this at all tbh, even though it probably is good for the netherlands with its export economy and major port.
It would be nice though to be able to buy say a corvette or cadilac for 40k euro instead of the 200k it is now.. but i think our government will still find ways to somehow tax it lol Not being able to compete depresses incomes. You can pretend it doesn't with unsustainable policies for a while, but eventually it will come back to bite. You mean the way that US salaries were depressed by 30 years of free trade for everyone not in the manager and up class of workers?
No, I mean reality.
|
A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.
For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.
But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.
These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators.
Source
|
On July 01 2013 14:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.
For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.
But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.
These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators. Source
How is that legal?
|
On July 01 2013 08:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Openly gay Pa. Rep. Brian Sims, D-Philadelphia, was blocked from talking about the Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday on the floor of the Pennsylvania House.
His comments to his colleagues were ended by a procedural maneuver.
In a part of the house session where members can speak on wide-ranging topics, Sims had just begun his remarks when he was shut down.
"I wasn't planning on chastising anybody. I wasn't planning on discussing how far we have to come in Pennsylvania or that we really have no civil rights in Pennsylvania," Sims said. "It was really just going to limit my comments to how important the cases were."
It takes just one legislator to end the impromptu remarks. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe was one of the House Republicans who objected.
"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," said Metcalfe, R-Butler. Source
I actually can't believe what I am reading.
|
On July 01 2013 14:27 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 14:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.
For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.
But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.
These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators. Source How is that legal?
You've obviously never been to a check cashing establishment. Those places are glorified robbery and this is a huge improvement by comparison.
That said, inactivity fees are bullshit and you should flee from any financial institution that wants to charge you.
|
On July 01 2013 19:38 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 14:27 aksfjh wrote:On July 01 2013 14:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.
For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.
But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.
These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators. Source How is that legal? You've obviously never been to a check cashing establishment. Those places are glorified robbery and this is a huge improvement by comparison. That said, inactivity fees are bullshit and you should flee from any financial institution that wants to charge you.
If your employer pays you in this way it might not be an option.
|
On July 01 2013 00:45 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 22:25 Gorsameth wrote:On June 30 2013 22:12 polarwolf wrote:
Seems like Germany is considered "a target" by NSA and there is heavy surveillance, just paralleled by the surveillance of China, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. :-o
I guess the real reason for this is not terrorism but industrial espionage.
As a German I always considered the US as a friend, but now I am really angry and I think I am not the only one. This will fuel anti-Americanism here in Europe quite a bit and right so.
Maybe the US government should be thinking whether pissing off allies like that is worth whatever intelligence they gather. Ofc its worth pissing off there allies. What are they going to do? sanctions that hurt themselves just as much? Tell em there naughty? Fact of the matter is the US can do whatever it feels like short of actual military invasion. A mutual beneficial trade agreement potwntially not going trough or at least having to give up a lot of concessions and the EU getting another diplomatic tool to use against the US is a massive loss. It's literally costing billions
Outside of the court of public opinion the EU has no diplomatic tools against the US, a sick continent in economic and demographic decline has no actual weapons against a continent that is still economically and demographically vibrant.
When it comes down to it the USA basically has not just its own resources to draw on but Canada's and Mexico's as well considering how deeply our economies are intertwined, plus the whole we still get the lion's share of the world's best and brightest immigrants thing along with all that cheap labor from Mexico.
It wont be a mutually beneficial agreement for the countrys in europe wich can not compete,as competition will greatly increase in a free tade zone, and there are quiet a few of thoose "not so" competitive countrys. The only ones who this will be beneficial for are international companys. Countrys wich can not compete already will be forced to have a usa style economy and social system where millions more will fall into poverty, difference between poor and rich will grow.
And that hits the nail on the head, Europe chose policies that make it less competitive and now it is in a decline.
Also the best way to prevent millions more from falling into poverty than already have in Europe would be to move towards a more US-style economy and social system, there's a reason the US economy is slowly improving while Europe's is slowly backsliding. US economy and social system is more dynamic and Europe's is more hidebound and stale.
|
This espionage issue will not amount to much in economical arena as there is nothing to be gained by limiting the trade. It will probably mean US will become somewhat more impotent in international arena as the relations with EU will cool down even more and thus support for anything US might want to do. But I doubt much will come of it.
@DeepElemBlues In what way is US social system more dynamic ? As for the rest you have like 10 unfounded conjectures based on ideology and not much more.
|
On July 01 2013 14:27 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 14:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.
For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.
But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.
These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators. Source How is that legal?
Legislative whack-a-mole. Every so often state or federal legislatures will ban or agencies will regulate some financial activity that is harmful to the poor, only to find that the poor migrating to some other 'bad' option.
Edit:On July 01 2013 19:43 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 19:38 coverpunch wrote:On July 01 2013 14:27 aksfjh wrote:On July 01 2013 14:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.
For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.
But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.
These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators. Source How is that legal? You've obviously never been to a check cashing establishment. Those places are glorified robbery and this is a huge improvement by comparison. That said, inactivity fees are bullshit and you should flee from any financial institution that wants to charge you. If your employer pays you in this way it might not be an option.
You should be able to transfer out. There'll be a fee for that, but you'll save in the end if you have a cheaper option to transfer into.
|
On July 02 2013 00:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 14:27 aksfjh wrote:On July 01 2013 14:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.
For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.
But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.
These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators. Source How is that legal? Legislative whack-a-mole. Every so often state or federal legislatures will ban or agencies will regulate some financial activity that is harmful to the poor, only to find that the poor migrating to some other 'bad' option. Edit: Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 19:43 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 19:38 coverpunch wrote:On July 01 2013 14:27 aksfjh wrote:On July 01 2013 14:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.
For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.
But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.
These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators. Source How is that legal? You've obviously never been to a check cashing establishment. Those places are glorified robbery and this is a huge improvement by comparison. That said, inactivity fees are bullshit and you should flee from any financial institution that wants to charge you. If your employer pays you in this way it might not be an option. You should be able to transfer out. There'll be a fee for that, but you'll save in the end if you have a cheaper option to transfer into.
Yeah, I meant that you cannot permanently leave them, you can though minimize your losses by moving each paycheck away from them. It would not fly here though as courts would say that they cannot pay them effectively below minimum wage. At least this would be reasonable interpretation of local laws, if it would actually happen, who knows.
|
I haven't had the chance to visit this thread much lately, so has there been any mention of the recent release of I.R.S. documents indicating liberal (and other political) organizations were targeted just like right-wing organizations?
The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in their titles also included groups whose names included the words “Progressive” and “Occupy,” according to I.R.S. documents released Monday.
The documents appeared to back up contentions by I.R.S. officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny. Instead, the documents say, officials were trying to use “key word” shortcuts to find overtly political organizations — both liberal and conservative — that were after tax favors by saying they were social welfare organizations.
But the practice appeared to go much farther than that. One such “be on the lookout” list included medical marijuana groups, organizations that were promoting President Obama’s health care law, and applications that dealt “with disputed territories in the Middle East.”
Source
Also, in what appears to be a politically-motivated approach by Republicans to investigating the issue:
The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”
Source (also here for a militant take on the matter).
|
Oh boy do I hope Issa takes some shit for his hilarious attempt at directing public focus. Sadly, it would appear that the media has largely moved on; the NSA is so much more attractive than the IRS.
|
On July 02 2013 04:22 farvacola wrote:
Oh boy do I hope Issa takes some shit for his hilarious attempt at directing public focus. Sadly, it would appear that the media has largely moved on; the NSA is so much more attractive than the IRS.
The only media that really paid attention after the initial report was Fox. Issa won't catch flack from the Republican news network.
|
WASHINGTON -- As promised, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) introduced legislation late Friday to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.
The bill already has 28 Republican cosponsors, none of whom are particularly surprising. But it remains to be seen whether House Republican leaders will throw any support behind it, particularly now that the Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) previously cosponsored a similar Federal Marriage Amendment that failed to advance in July 2006. That vote was the last time Congress has voted on such a proposal. Requests for comment from Boehner's and Cantor's offices were not returned.
Some other notable Republicans who voted for the 2006 constitutional amendment aren't currently cosponsoring Huelskamp's bill. Among them are House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.). A McMorris Rodgers spokeswoman told HuffPost she was unclear on where the congresswoman stands on Huelskamp's bill. "At this time, I’m not sure if she plans to cosponsor the legislation," she said. A request for comment from Ryan's office was not returned.
Source
|
On July 02 2013 05:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- As promised, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) introduced legislation late Friday to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.
The bill already has 28 Republican cosponsors, none of whom are particularly surprising. But it remains to be seen whether House Republican leaders will throw any support behind it, particularly now that the Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) previously cosponsored a similar Federal Marriage Amendment that failed to advance in July 2006. That vote was the last time Congress has voted on such a proposal. Requests for comment from Boehner's and Cantor's offices were not returned.
Some other notable Republicans who voted for the 2006 constitutional amendment aren't currently cosponsoring Huelskamp's bill. Among them are House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.). A McMorris Rodgers spokeswoman told HuffPost she was unclear on where the congresswoman stands on Huelskamp's bill. "At this time, I’m not sure if she plans to cosponsor the legislation," she said. A request for comment from Ryan's office was not returned. Source
So amending the constitution is obviously different than writing a regular law, but how on earth would this get passed? Would the supreme court have any authority to strike it down?
|
On July 02 2013 06:19 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- As promised, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) introduced legislation late Friday to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.
The bill already has 28 Republican cosponsors, none of whom are particularly surprising. But it remains to be seen whether House Republican leaders will throw any support behind it, particularly now that the Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) previously cosponsored a similar Federal Marriage Amendment that failed to advance in July 2006. That vote was the last time Congress has voted on such a proposal. Requests for comment from Boehner's and Cantor's offices were not returned.
Some other notable Republicans who voted for the 2006 constitutional amendment aren't currently cosponsoring Huelskamp's bill. Among them are House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.). A McMorris Rodgers spokeswoman told HuffPost she was unclear on where the congresswoman stands on Huelskamp's bill. "At this time, I’m not sure if she plans to cosponsor the legislation," she said. A request for comment from Ryan's office was not returned. Source So amending the constitution is obviously different than writing a regular law, but how on earth would this get passed? Would the supreme court have any authority to strike it down?
As far as I know, no. SCOTUS would have no power to strike it down unless they found it directly conflicted with other amendments. Even that I'm not sure about though.
|
If I understand the route an amendment has to take correctly surely there should be no way for something this controversial to pass?
EDIT: To pass an amendment needs 2/3 in both houses and ratification by 3/4 states - correct?
|
On July 02 2013 04:20 kwizach wrote:I haven't had the chance to visit this thread much lately, so has there been any mention of the recent release of I.R.S. documents indicating liberal (and other political) organizations were targeted just like right-wing organizations? Show nested quote + The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in their titles also included groups whose names included the words “Progressive” and “Occupy,” according to I.R.S. documents released Monday.
The documents appeared to back up contentions by I.R.S. officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny. Instead, the documents say, officials were trying to use “key word” shortcuts to find overtly political organizations — both liberal and conservative — that were after tax favors by saying they were social welfare organizations.
But the practice appeared to go much farther than that. One such “be on the lookout” list included medical marijuana groups, organizations that were promoting President Obama’s health care law, and applications that dealt “with disputed territories in the Middle East.” SourceAlso, in what appears to be a politically-motivated approach by Republicans to investigating the issue: Show nested quote +The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.” Source (also here for a militant take on the matter).
They were softer on liberals:
The Internal Revenue Service scrutinized “progressive” groups less harshly than conservative groups, the Treasury Inspector General said in a letter to Congress this week.
J. Russell George, the investigator who carried out a probe into the IRS’ targeting of groups that applied for tax-exempt status, said he did not limit his investigation to tea party groups.
“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in a letter to House Ways and Means ranking Democrat Rep. Sandy Levin.
The revelations come after Democrats seized on a set of redacted spreadsheets released this week that detailed the “Be On The Lookout,” or BOLO, criteria used by the IRS tax-exempt group to screen applications. On that list was “progressive” as well as “tea party.”
Although “tea party” applications were sent to a team of specialists that looked into potential political cases, Russell says, “progressive” groups were sent to a different team within the IRS for processing.
During a hearing today at the House Ways and Means committee, Chairman Dave Camp said that so far the evidence only shows conservatives being “systematically targeted” by the IRS, rather than liberal groups that were simply flagged “to be on the lookout.”
Treasury audit also found that 292 Tea Party and 6 progressive groups were probed with extra questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
