The current tax law favors the use of tips over charging higher prices and paying a better wage.

Restaurants that do not provide table service (such as fast casual chains) do not rely on tipped workers, but I am not sure those workers do any better than workers who live on tips.

Truth be told, at least 1/3 of the drivers out there should have their licenses yanked and be given generous access to public options: Buses, trains, rides, etc.

You still have the option to cook the eggs and deliver a free meal to a homeless person in the street. How are your culinary skills? Alternatively, if you know a family that needs a little help, you can directly give eggs to them.

There’s a handy online calculator to determine eligibility potential. https://www.snapscreener.com/screener/kansas

Budgie might be easier for someone who isn’t a technical user.

In a lot of rural places ~40% voted for someone else.

I think the root of this is a misunderstanding of Subsidiarity. Problems should be solved by the nearest, most local competent party available. That means I don’t barge in and try to solve another family’s problems when they are capable of solving them theirselves. The federal government shouldn’t regulate signs in my residential neighborhood. Neither should the state. It should be the local government, my neighborhood association, of me making a decision for myself.

Nowhere in subsidiarity are we understood to be relieved from the moral obligation to be charitable. Yes, if your funds are limited, you direct them to the area of your greatest competence & the greatest need. Give a coat to your neighbor next door before you give a coat to someone across town … but if you have the funds for two coats, give them both.

I think the bottom line is if your heart is in loving your neighbor, you are going to get it right. If it isn’t, you’ll find something in the above as an excuse to not give a care about someone else.

I have my flaws. Thank you. But what about the topic we were discussing? Is that all you had to contribute?

I support the disarming and surrender of Hamas very specifically because it is for the good of Palestinian people. This is the surest way to stop the genocide. One Hamas is eliminated, everyone should recognize Gaza as an independent nation. They should be made to have a pacifist constitution and no offensive military capacity as a requirement for recognition.

Actually, I do not support murder or rape. Israel does have a right to retaliate against Hamas, assuring their complete surrender or annihilation, but they also have a duty to civilians that do not cooperate with Hamas. My speaking out against Hamas should not be understood to mean I support all actions of Israel.

I’ll be honest, as a traditional Catholic, I’d be fine with Crusaders getting the job done, but I am willing to defer to the Ottomans. Either way, the children running Hamas & Israel need to be put in their place.

I’m not aware of ever having done that. Why?

I’m friends with American Palestinians and American Jews and I’ll say that the support of each side for their government is irrationally strong. Hamas is legitimately popular on its own. And very few say Hamas should turn in their weapons and release the hostages and surrender even though that would end the war overnight. In this regard, I feel they are similar to Russians & Putin. It just isn’t rational. Hamas is causing harm to Palestinians.

My solution isn’t liked by either side. I say bring back the Ottoman Empire so both can be ruled by someone else. Neither can be trusted to respect the lives of the other without an even bigger entity above them both.

There were a few Palestinians protesting against Hamas a few months ago but Hamas killed them. That said, Hamas does have broad support in Gaza.

Looking at the timeline, the legislation he introduced was before Dobbs overrode the Roe v. Wade ruling, so I think he was just promoting what he knew would be popular among his constituents and donators, thinking the legal landscape would not change in any meaningful way so as to make his law enforceable. I doubt he sincerely believed in his legislation.

Lobbyists cost money. One full time person plus expenses could easily cost $200k. If they employ any lawyers to review draft legislation, it’ll be more.

I’m surprised it isn’t a lot more.

He was honest when he said he doesn’t own individual stocks. He has a standard of ethics. It’s just that you only like a couple of them.

The seal requires they act outside the confessional as if they never received the information. Anything else could make apparent to others what happened in the confession through context and clues.