I agree. He's always constantly testing limits, exploring gray areas, bending rules and "breaking" gentlemen's agreements. We should take this opportunity to limit the rights of presidents. Apparently, the president can shut down half of the government departments via executive order. How? Because they were created by executive order. How can he just shut down the department of Education without congress? Because Carter created it by executive order without congress. A variety of presidents have had us invade foreign countries without Congress declaring war. Let's take this opportunity to tighten things up.
> Apparently, the president can shut down half of the government departments via executive order. How? Because they were created by executive order.
Please list the departments and cite the executive orders creating each, because I think you will find that this is far less than half (and, unless you are using a non-standard definition of what constitutes a department in the US federal government, that the proportion is actually 0%.)
(A sibling commenter has demonstrated that the single example you provided is wrong, but its not just a poorly-chosen example.)
> How can he just shut down the department of Education without congress? Because Carter created it by executive order without congress.
You are 100% incorrect.
> The Department of Education Organization Act is a United States federal law enacted in 1979, which created the Department of Education.
> In the Senate, 69 voted in favor and 22 voted against separating education from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.[3] In the House of Representatives, 215 voted in favor and 201 voted against.[4] President Carter signed the bill on October 17, 1979.[1]
I think what folks are getting at is that it might not have been an outright scam. Just a third-party company that charged for its help desk. Many folks are willing pay for services like email that they could have otherwise gotten for free. The "scam" may have been more on the part of Google which elevates paid links to the top of the search results.
In the 1980's IBM had some marketing promotion in the US and distributed brochures and posters at different computer seller chains. The prominently displayed phone number had a typo and it was instead my parents' land line.
Surprisingly, they didn't get that many calls, and IBM corrected the number in the next round of marketing. So they never had to change their number.
A family member helped start up a call center for UPS back in the 90's, for their shipping software. The problem she was working on was that the average time for a call to be answered was 60 seconds, and they were trying to get it to 45 seconds. They also had formal tiers of agents that could quickly escalate a call to a technical expert if needed. The golden age of call centers I guess.
Youtube as we know it will probably be dead in a few years anyway. Tiktok has shortened everyone's attention span. I shockingly found myself clicking away from one of my favorite classic rock songs from my youth because I didn't want to stay the entire 3 minutes.
There's some of us who look for long form video time stamps in our subscriptions list. I specifically like throwing on a good 20 minute video from a beloved channel while I do other things. Maybe the cure is a bandwidth limit on our "pipes".
Agreed. It seems like a supposed quote? If my elderly mom wrote that she went to a NY Mets baseball game in 1960, and Wikipedia says the Mets weren't formed until 1962, is a newspaper supposed to determine that the quote is not legit bacause my mom mis-wrote or was confused?
My dad tried out a 24/7 IV for a heart medicine. The pump and a bag with a 1 week supply of the medicine fit in a fanny pack sized bag. It worked well, but he's 90 and pulled out the IV line in the middle of the night. He didn't remember doing it. So we decided to discontinue the meds. But I'm sure it would have been fine for a younger, less confused person. Just a bit inconvenient for showering, etc.
Another issue is that super wealthy folks don't get their money from regular wages. They borrow money from banks using their assets (e.g., stocks) as collateral. They pay back the loan at relatively low rates. The borrowed money is not taxable income.
Also, I attended a university in Newark NJ. Our city campus was adjacent to a Newark public high school. If you walked on the nearby sidewalk, you had to watch out for items being thrown out of the upper story high school class rooms, such as chairs and even desks. So I assume the teachers at that school had their hands full.
A friend's son just started as a teacher in a middle school in a low income district in NJ. On back to school night, for one of his classes, not one parent showed up. So, yeah, the outcomes are dependent on more than money.
reply