Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 9, 2013, 01:54 AM   #76
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
And, when demographics explains perfectly well why there is a modest increase in the fraction of people with disabilities, why are people suddenly claiming fraud?
Because there is a correlation between the disability rate and unemployment.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
By the way, in certain fields right now that are in demand, if you are 20-30-something you are likely to get a job, but, if you are over 50, good luck. No one will ever, ever tell you that you are "too old". Directly. But, it is clear as day that you just wouldn't fit in. :grimace:
Which is completely ridiculous.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2013, 06:35 AM   #77
SMDBill
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
I don't know which politician first came up with this. Coburn I would guess, although he might have just repeated it from someone else. In any case, since I have seen at least one case of this, I can offer an example. Suppose you knew a qualified professional seeking work during a labor shortage in that specialty. As a favor, you forward a resume to potentially interested people. No one is ever interested. Occasionally, they mention a disability in passing, but, that is never the reason given that someone wasn't hired. They are always never hired for some perfectly innocuous sounding reason. But, when you see other, less-qualified people get hired during the same period, you have to wonder. When they never get the call, well, in the words of the detective shows, "Do you know what the odds are of that happening by chance?"

Bottom line: discrimination exists. Discrimination against people with disabilities exists. If someone with a disability doesn't get a job because of their disability, why are they not entitled to disability benefits?
Zero question that it happens every day in our country. I have seen it in at least 4 different companies where excuses had to be derived, based on some perceived lack of experience or directly applicable skill, when in reality it was done to discriminate based on someone being too old, not mature enough, the wrong "type" of person, too many tattoos, disabled so the employer assumes inability without giving them the opportunity to prove their ability, etc.

When I have seen it with my own eyes, and I truly have, I believe. People are not hired simply on merit, resume and how well they perform in interviews. Sure, sometimes it happens that way, but all too often one or more individuals are singled out for a position based on less reasonable reasons such as being related to someone, knowing someone on the inside who has power or influence, and so many other reasons. That's reality and the most successful at "getting in" when they need a job are often the best connected with people in different companies who can assist their search. It has worked for me more than once just like that and without that help I likely would not have just been hired there right off the street.

Reality sucks, but it's reality.
SMDBill is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 11:50 PM   #78
IGregory
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleisking View Post
The 14th amendment sanctions all debt by the U.S as valid, so how can there be a limit on how much we can borrow if our borrowing power is inherently approved by the constitution?
SECTION 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

So what do people think? Do we really need congress to give the treasury permission to pay the bills, or can we just go ahead and borrow more and use the 14th amendment as an excuse?
You raise a good point. In fact some knowledgable Constitutional scholars argued the President should have directed the treasury to pay bills without congresses approval. Of course, this would have presented another consituational crisis because the Republican house would have most certainly impeached the President.

It would be a bad precedence though to go around congress. Remember, the Constitution says all appropriations shall originate in congress. Giving the Treasury the authority spend at will is to much power in executive branch.
Additionally, if the Supreme Court did not declare constitutional the Treasury authority to borrow and pay the country's bills without congressional approval, then impeachment of the president would be warranted.
__________________
“The will to win, the desire to succeed, the urge to reach your full potential… these are the keys that will unlock the door to personal excellence.” ~ Confucius
IGregory is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 12:06 AM   #79
tunerX
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyMac1976 View Post
It's been hashed out in a couple places that the pres really does have the power to raise the debt ceiling in spite of congress. I'm not sure how much I like that idea but at this point I think the only way were going to have a functional government is to effectively limit congresses sway.
So we set up a three party system and then we limit the power of one party, in effect giving more power to the other parties.

The congress controls the purse. You get no money unless congress allows it. With generations of a democratic controlled house they abused the 14th amendment and incurred debt that is not payable by income. This has to stop, either by congress or by foreign/domestic policy that disables the purchase of a US treasury to cover the debt. How high do you think the global financial market will allow the US debt to grow... 50 trillion... 100 trillion... infinite. Unless we have infinite growth infinite debt is unsustainable.
__________________
Stuff!
tunerX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 12:21 AM   #80
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGregory View Post
You raise a good point. In fact some knowledgable Constitutional scholars argued the President should have directed the treasury to pay bills without congresses approval. Of course, this would have presented another consituational crisis because the Republican house would have most certainly impeached the President.

It would be a bad precedence though to go around congress. Remember, the Constitution says all appropriations shall originate in congress. Giving the Treasury the authority spend at will is to much power in executive branch.
Additionally, if the Supreme Court did not declare constitutional the Treasury authority to borrow and pay the country's bills without congressional approval, then impeachment of the president would be warranted.
The debt ceiling isn't about a limit on spending money - it's a limit on borrowing. Congress gives the Treasury authority to spend when they pass those appropriation bills you mention. However, the appropriations (generally) don't specify where that money comes from. NASA, the military, the FDA, etc., don't know or care if the money they get is from income taxes, business taxes, bond sales, or whatever. The Treasury can pay bills all it wants - but only if it has the money to do so in the first place.

Hitting the debt ceiling and not raising it would restrict the Treasury to revenues and funds on hand. They would still be able to spend money, but would have about 31% less money to spend. (Assuming they continue to pay interest on existing, maturing debt.) That's a huge change all at once. (Seems opinion on such a change range from no-big-deal to OMG-Great-Depression-was-nothing.) Not to mention that everybody currently purchasing Treasury notes would have to put their money elsewhere, creating a huge shift in the international economic landscape that could very well be to our severe misfortune. Or inconsequential.
elistan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 07:18 AM   #81
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 02:16 PM   #82
MyMac1976
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunerX View Post
So we set up a three party system and then we limit the power of one party, in effect giving more power to the other parties.

The congress controls the purse. You get no money unless congress allows it. With generations of a democratic controlled house they abused the 14th amendment and incurred debt that is not payable by income. This has to stop, either by congress or by foreign/domestic policy that disables the purchase of a US treasury to cover the debt. How high do you think the global financial market will allow the US debt to grow... 50 trillion... 100 trillion... infinite. Unless we have infinite growth infinite debt is unsustainable.
There has been a couple articles I've read that state the president can without congress. I'll look for them in my morning the rest is just white noise.
MyMac1976 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2013, 12:51 AM   #83
tunerX
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyMac1976 View Post
There has been a couple articles I've read that state the president can without congress. I'll look for them in my morning the rest is just white noise.

Have you managed to google any legal justification? Unless the supreme court already ruled in favor of the president, unilaterally, directing an increase in the debt ceiling then it is still a matter that only congress can allow.

The debt incurred does not include future appropriations. If congress did not allow the debt ceiling to be increased then "actual" income from the US tax system would be required to service the current debt and not pay for future spending. SS checks, pensions, and services for any month in the future are only appropriated, they are not already added to the debt which must be serviced. If the debt limit was not increased then we would have to stop adding to the debt... All programs would suffer and all debt would have to be serviced as per the 14th amendment.
__________________
Stuff!
tunerX is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Constitutional amendments lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 23 Feb 4, 2014 06:59 AM
Debt Ceiling validity questioned Michael Goff Politics, Religion, Social Issues 77 Oct 16, 2013 01:24 PM
U.S. Debt Ceiling, Part 79 malman89 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 21 Dec 27, 2012 01:30 PM
The Debt Ceiling Again, Sooner Than Expected itcheroni Politics, Religion, Social Issues 98 Sep 11, 2012 01:39 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC