You literally stated that Congress should be operating a research laboratory. Quite reasonable conclusion that you didn’t know the specifics of administrative law.
Oh did I? Where did I "literally" state it? Can you quote? Do you know what "literally" means?
Agency deference was literally not a thing for discussions on COVID lockdowns/mask mandates because there was exactly 0 statues that could at all be plausibly interpreted as authorizing the CDC to order a lockdown or a mask mandate (but not without a lack of trying - the CDC even interpreted the Public Health Service Act as giving it authority to ban evictions). The CDC didn’t put a single Federal Register entry that trial-ballooned the more restrictive COVID measures. At best, the CDC could’ve submitted legislative ideas to Congress (that would’ve gone nowhere).
So basically, your government gives no power to the leading authority on how something should be handled and when they made their recommendation, the recommendations were rejected. That's why I say your government's retarded.
All policies either implicitly or explicitly assume a certain level of heightened mortality in exchange for safety - any public health, environmental, or safety regulation necessarily assumes this. Pure safety-ism can fly with hyperliberal risk-averse regulators, it’s not going to fly with a conservative to left-of-center risk-loving electorate .
"Stay inside/wear a mask cus there's a deadly virus going on outside? Nah, I'm risk-loving. Besides, Faucci's an idiot. Trump says it can be cured with chloroquine and UV/bleach injected inside the body."
And you tried to make that look like rational thought LOL
I was explaining why even assuming “le president is senile” is true
"Even" LOL Who has doubt?
- why that operative effect is small.
Except the others working under him are stupid and he's actually making the US a laughing stock with what was at first "senior moments" but then became his default setting.
Their hate boner for China is because they are hawks. That’s it - and none of those 3 people are civil service employees so it’s broadly irrelevant.
Ohhhh, more irrelevent people because they're idiots. Wonder how long this conversation should drag until you've call all the American government officials irrelevent.
Think you mean 1) TikTok hearing and 2) even if it was a “trial” or a Congressional hearing, it wouldn’t implicate those ~2M people since the judiciary is not the executive and aren’t organized under the Pendleton Act or the Civil Service Reform Act (or for that matter, neither is Congress).
Oh ok ok so in the US government, everybody on TV with a name and a face is an idiot but the silent ~2M working behind the scenes, now those guys do great work, right? LOLOL
Short-run indicator of likely effectiveness.
"Likely" effectiveness? That's not reality, mofo LOL That's some people guessing if other people hit the mark.
Those lag effects take years but need Congress to get the ball rolling (and overcoming inertia and organizing an executive branch agency to be dedicated to a mission is a feat of itself).
So, once again, you would need to look at other projects for which the lag has already passed instead of guess on this one. That's called staying in reality instead of imagining your own success.
You’ve dismissed the laws as meaningless despite them being in force for a week or less. That’s quite the jump of logic. It will take time to see how policy developments play out (and Congress to change the laws accordingly) but passing laws in it of themselves to bundle together a series of technical reforms and organize an executive branch agency is newsworthy on its own terms (and a necessary first step for good policymaking).
I said we'll have to see but for now, they are nothing to brag about and certainly no evidence of competency.
Realistically, do you think the US is going to catch up with China building 27 advanced reactors to America's zero? Oh, that's right! Did you ever come to terms with the 27 number referring to the current build amount and not the total, which is 56 more? Did you come to terms with your inability to read charts?
They may “know to create”, that doesn’t mean they do it well - even with things such as universal birth registration. The oversight and reform that Congress continuously does both specific to agencies and broadly applicable to the executive branch writ large is significant since people do not organize themselves for public service.
That is a HUGE pat on the back for common sense. Which country with the sufficient means to do it, doesn't implement universal birth registration?
Even if they were “foreign imported” which ehh..questionable,
Had this convo; stomped you twice, back for a third helping already?
see Executive Order 11935 (limiting civil service positions to citizens only), that would still be from Congress setting up the 196
Not gonna bother, actually, there are many positions that do
not require citizenship, exceptions made when local talent is simply not enough, and citizens proving as loyal as you'd expect non-citizens. Like I said before, I am not a man of useless semantics. If half of the engineers in China were Chinese citizens of German descent and we were heading towards a conflict with Germany, I'd be terribly worried.
1) They simply aren’t living to paycheck-to-paycheck (a phrase with so many definitions, it has no meaning)
You're wrong, proven wrong many times, and what is without meaning is your mental gymnastics
2) it literally just is “risk-loving” and not “irresponsible” since if you operate under the assumption that you will always be employed outside of retirement (an completely reasonable assumption for most US households),
No, you can decide your PC American term, "risk-loving," and the rest of us will decide our down-to-earth term, "irresponsible dumbassery." You color your bubble, not the world.
literally why save except for the occasional capital expenditure?
It boggles the mind, right? Why do the wealthiest people in the world have massively positive bank accounts? It's just too difficult to understand by your logic.
Individuals with large amounts of precautionary savings (as you seem to have) would indeed be financially risk-averse.
OK, that is your American PC term. We call that "Financially responsible."
Thanks, I'm financially responsible, yay!
Guess how many nuclear reactors China has and is building
Your paycheck to paycheck definition of a household with a maxed out 401K and multiple years of living expenses
Ooops, don't make shit up. The article said to make reasonable contributions to the 401K,
not to max it out or to have multiple years of living expenses accessible.
would definitionally render just about every household in China living “paycheck to paycheck” since their incomes are going to be lower than the 401K contribution limit in all but the rarest circumstances and include an incredibly small share of the population that has very high savings rate and high income.
Why would China's pension contribution limit be higher than the income? Make sense. Talk human.
Also, since most households have some savings (even if in illiquid forms such as retirement accounts and home equity) which would break a textualist non-tautological interpretation of “paycheck-to-paycheck”.
No, the liquid savings have to exceed 1 month of living expenses to just touch the edge of paycheck-to-paycheck.
Even if you extend the argument to liquidity - American households have a fair number of on balance sheets at any given moment - treasuries, CDs, transaction accounts, accrued payroll, and accrued interest - as well as liquidity off-balance sheet in (that is, accounts receivables from family, if they so need it). Saving money is not virtuous nor is not saving money per se “irresponsible” in the context of most households (they have their big risks insured away, have near infinitely stable employment, and their worst case is that they couch-surf with relatives).
Nope, this coming back:
