I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
A University of Chicago study from October 2021, led by the economists Kevin Corinth and Bruce Meyer, concluded that if the child allowance was made permanent, 1.5 million parents would stop working. As a result, rather than child poverty falling by one-third, the decline would be 22 percent.
In a second study, from December 2021, that focused only on single mothers, the Chicago team found that 1.3 million would stop working if a permanent child allowance was enacted. Debate continues about the size of the employment effect in question. But it would be as striking as that short-term poverty decline.
A 22 percent decline in child poverty would still be an impressive figure — but that’s not the end of the story either. There would probably be unintended consequences to a child allowance apart from creating an incentive for parents to stop working: Some parents would continue to work but work fewer hours; some parents would choose to divorce or never marry in the first place; some would have a child they would not have had absent the additional benefits. All of those behaviors, however warranted they might be in individual cases, lead to greater poverty in general. That would further dampen the effect of a child allowance.
There are about 11 million single parent households in the USA and 80% of those are headed by women. Why are conservatives worried that 10% of those poor and vulnerable women might opt to stay home and raise their preschool children themselves? They are similarly concerned that giving poor people more money for children might cause them to have more children without one giving thought to the reality that their harsh and punitive laws regarding reproductive health access guarantees that poor and vulnerable women WILL have more children... they just won't have any additional support to raise them into responsible citizens.
We have years of evidence that conservative austerity doesn't build a middle class or benefit most Americans. Austerity makes life difficult.
Kinda ironic that some sanctuary cities, who have openly said they'll ignore or not enforce federal laws regarding immigration, now want federal money because they are overwhelmed with immigrants.
"Adams has called on the state and federal government for funding to help house asylum-seekers, saying that NYC has managed the flow and influx of seekers "entirely on its own."
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Just now, Beerman said:
Kinda ironic that some sanctuary cities, who have openly said they'll ignore or not enforce federal laws regarding immigration, now want federal money because they are overwhelmed with immigrants.
"Adams has called on the state and federal government for funding to help house asylum-seekers, saying that NYC has managed the flow and influx of seekers "entirely on its own."
The House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday voted 24-16 to release former president Donald Trump’s tax returns to the public, capping a protracted legal and political battle that began when Trump was in the Oval Office.
Democrats have for more than three years pushed to make Trump’s tax returns public, and the documents were finally made available to the Ways and Means Committee late last month after the Supreme Court denied a last attempt by Trump to withhold the records.
It's about time. The American people have a right to know about the financial entanglements or involvements of their presidents.
I had no problem with Mr. Trump being required to provide the requested tax documents to the Ways and Means Committee, but was concerned that they would either be leaked or released. Now that they have voted to release them, I'm not sure that I see any reason that these should be released publicly.
As you apparently agree with this decision, do you think there should be any restrictions on what personal information the president should be expected to release?
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
Other Presidential candidates have released their returns.
Commentary I heard on radio today was amount of losses reported on returns will surprise many people along with fact IRS audit did not occur UNTIL Ways and Means Committee requested 2015-2020 files. Will be viewable in a few days.
Other Presidential candidates have released their returns.
Yeah, because they are career politicians and know when they run for pres they'll have people looking at them.
The IRS has been aware of Trump for decades, and hasn't found anything. The average American, and Trump himself who hires people to do them, would never bother to try to understand his tax returns.
Kinda ironic that some sanctuary cities, who have openly said they'll ignore or not enforce federal laws regarding immigration, now want federal money because they are overwhelmed with immigrants.
"Adams has called on the state and federal government for funding to help house asylum-seekers, saying that NYC has managed the flow and influx of seekers "entirely on its own."
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, chare said:
I had no problem with Mr. Trump being required to provide the requested tax documents to the Ways and Means Committee, but was concerned that they would either be leaked or released. Now that they have voted to release them, I'm not sure that I see any reason that these should be released publicly.
As you apparently agree with this decision, do you think there should be any restrictions on what personal information the president should be expected to release?
Why shouldn't they be public? He ran for public office where release of tax returns is precedent and expected. I think that we have a right to know about the finances of the person we put in control of our federal government. Trump was dishonest about his tax returns... why... was he embarrassed or concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest?
What other personal information are you talking about? Divorces? Affairs?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:
Yeah, because they are career politicians and know when they run for pres they'll have people looking at them.
The IRS has been aware of Trump for decades, and hasn't found anything. The average American, and Trump himself who hires people to do them, would never bother to try to understand his tax returns.
In other words, no story here.
Trump was also aware when he first ran for the presidency that he would be expected to release his tax returns, he simply decided to not release them and lie about why. Apparently Republicans like yourself don't mind being lied to about that type of transparency.
Since we haven't seen the Trump tax returns yet we can't know that there's no story there.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, MaybeeRN said:
Liberals love virtue signaling, but whine and cry when they have actually have to suffer their own policies.
What is a sanctuary city (in your view) and why does that status mean that they shouldn't get federal funds for management of refugees, asylum seekers or immigrants?
toomuchbaloney
16,100 Posts
The True Cost of Expanding the Child Tax Credit https://nyti.ms/3BRiwn8
There are about 11 million single parent households in the USA and 80% of those are headed by women. Why are conservatives worried that 10% of those poor and vulnerable women might opt to stay home and raise their preschool children themselves? They are similarly concerned that giving poor people more money for children might cause them to have more children without one giving thought to the reality that their harsh and punitive laws regarding reproductive health access guarantees that poor and vulnerable women WILL have more children... they just won't have any additional support to raise them into responsible citizens.
We have years of evidence that conservative austerity doesn't build a middle class or benefit most Americans. Austerity makes life difficult.