4509 pts ยท January 14, 2013
If you want infinite paid sick leave, it should be handled by disability pay or welfare
It's a huge hardship on small business to have to pay for an extra employee that is not contributing
Assuming you actually do something useful for the conpany, they are going to have to hire another worker to replace you
That's not how tax write-offs work. They still have to pay taxes on all the money earned that is not donated.
Take out the "Dad and" part to see why "me" is right. "Dad and me" are objects, not subjects, because of the implied "Photo of" before
Any major anti-PRC activists in HK could be accused of crimes and extradited to China for a "trial"
She used to be a real judge though, and she doesn't seem like the type to change her opinions for the show
Link me? Because the fund is active now, just running low on money, which is why they need a new bill
The fund has been continuously re-approved and funded every time it expires. They haven't been "running away from duty"
There is no scenario. I still think as a general principle budgets should be time limited. This one is actually limited, its just 80 years
I think its always a good thing for Congress to have to re-authorize spending. In this case, its not much of a question that they should
Much shorter than 4 to 8 years
You do realize that as per the Constitution the military budget is only allowed to last 2 years, and must be re-approved
Thats not what I said. I said I support Congress re-authorizing the funding every 4 to 8 years
If it was up to me, they wouldn't be allowed to budget things for longer then 4 or 8 years
Call me crazy but I actually prefer when congress has to re-approve spending rather than funding something indefinitely
2015 when they extended the fund by 5 more years and allocated over $7 billion to it? Cool yeah
Well before Stewart's speech more than half of the House were cosponsors on the bill
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/546/cosponsors
It already has 8 Republican cosponsors in the Senate. That makes a majority even if the rest of the Repubs vote no
It has over 80 Republican cosponsors, though...
The senate bill already has 8 Republic cosponsors, so it will pass if all Dems vote for it. The bill has a lot of bipartisan support
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1327/cosponsors
He doesn't. The bill was already scheduled for a vote and already had over half of the House as cosponsors.
Also the bill already had well over half of of the house as cosponsors
Almost half of the republicans in the house are cosponsors on this bill, and were before Stewart's speech. The bill has bipartisan support
If you want infinite paid sick leave, it should be handled by disability pay or welfare
It's a huge hardship on small business to have to pay for an extra employee that is not contributing
Assuming you actually do something useful for the conpany, they are going to have to hire another worker to replace you
That's not how tax write-offs work. They still have to pay taxes on all the money earned that is not donated.
Take out the "Dad and" part to see why "me" is right. "Dad and me" are objects, not subjects, because of the implied "Photo of" before
Any major anti-PRC activists in HK could be accused of crimes and extradited to China for a "trial"
She used to be a real judge though, and she doesn't seem like the type to change her opinions for the show
Link me? Because the fund is active now, just running low on money, which is why they need a new bill
The fund has been continuously re-approved and funded every time it expires. They haven't been "running away from duty"
There is no scenario. I still think as a general principle budgets should be time limited. This one is actually limited, its just 80 years
I think its always a good thing for Congress to have to re-authorize spending. In this case, its not much of a question that they should
Much shorter than 4 to 8 years
You do realize that as per the Constitution the military budget is only allowed to last 2 years, and must be re-approved
Thats not what I said. I said I support Congress re-authorizing the funding every 4 to 8 years
If it was up to me, they wouldn't be allowed to budget things for longer then 4 or 8 years
Call me crazy but I actually prefer when congress has to re-approve spending rather than funding something indefinitely
2015 when they extended the fund by 5 more years and allocated over $7 billion to it? Cool yeah
Well before Stewart's speech more than half of the House were cosponsors on the bill
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/546/cosponsors
It already has 8 Republican cosponsors in the Senate. That makes a majority even if the rest of the Repubs vote no
It has over 80 Republican cosponsors, though...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/546/cosponsors
The senate bill already has 8 Republic cosponsors, so it will pass if all Dems vote for it. The bill has a lot of bipartisan support
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1327/cosponsors
He doesn't. The bill was already scheduled for a vote and already had over half of the House as cosponsors.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1327/cosponsors
Also the bill already had well over half of of the house as cosponsors
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1327/cosponsors
Almost half of the republicans in the house are cosponsors on this bill, and were before Stewart's speech. The bill has bipartisan support
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1327/cosponsors