quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yes. And?

Then, why are you seemingly upset that states aren't following "Welfare reform" that CLINTON pushed through congress?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And how about the corporations, the technical managers, the stockholders, the ultra wealthy who are using your dollars because it would cut into their billions pile to pay a living wage, you ok with giving your taxes to them?

The ne'er-do-wells on these programs we can agree have no need to be on them. However, we throw away more money on other things that should be looked at. One isn't breaking me, and one is. The issue is how to find people with the sack to fix it.

I don't agree with corporate welfare either, whether it be a so-called conservative corporation or a liberal/progressive boondoggle like Solyndra. I'm tired of hearing farmers butch about how they're conservative while taking money for corn for ethanol and tired of liberals whining about the "evils" of capitalism while climbing aboard the corporate subsidy gravy train.

quote:

Wonder no more. The ones you speak of? They're LAZY. They have no work ethic and can't be bothered to learn one. They are however, smart enough to scam the system and make available less money for those who do indeed truly need it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Pilgrims actually died. Until they cut themselves loose from the corporations that held them enthralled here in America.

Then we should be taxing the fuck and regulating the fuck out of corporations rather than give them all this welfare, unless one is forwarding a disingenuous nutsuckerism for the gulping by the feebleminded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And how about the corporations, the technical managers, the stockholders, the ultra wealthy who are using your dollars because it would cut into their billions pile to pay a living wage, you ok with giving your taxes to them?
The ne'er-do-wells on these programs we can agree have no need to be on them. However, we throw away more money on other things that should be looked at. One isn't breaking me, and one is. The issue is how to find people with the sack to fix it.

I don't agree with corporate welfare either, whether it be a so-called conservative corporation or a liberal/progressive boondoggle like Solyndra. I'm tired of hearing farmers butch about how they're conservative while taking money for corn for ethanol and tired of liberals whining about the "evils" of capitalism while climbing aboard the corporate subsidy gravy train.

Nobody agrees with corporate welfare, either. But entitltement programs are 62% of the federal budget- and are thus the biggest factor needing reform.
Interesting note, btw. I am (and always have been) completely against ethanol subsidies and tarriffs. An interesting article recently suggest the subsidies were unnecessary, because even without them ethanol was one of the cheapest octane boosters and oxygenators. The odds are thatremoving the subsidies would not kill the industry.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874
I certainly agree with you wholeheartedly about the ethanol industry/subsidies ..................we have sugar farmers here who are making next to nothing trying to sell their crop as sugar but who want the government to subsidise them if they grow the same crop for ethanol, for which they will probably receive a better price.
There again, our government is still faffing around like an old moll with the fleet coming in, setting up investigative committees to see if ethanol will really work and power internal combustion engines.................we are rushing madly into the 20th century *smile*.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yes. And?

Then, why are you seemingly upset that states aren't following "Welfare reform" that CLINTON pushed through congress?

So many factual errors in one short sentence.

First. Clinton did not "push" welfare reform through Congress. Thommy Thompson started it, and it was one of the cornerstones of the Contract with america *pushed* by Newt Gingrich. When the democrats got hammered in the '94 elections, Dick Morris advised Clinton he better triangulate - and clinton signed it, over the objections of most democrats.

Second. I am in favor of the welfare reform as enacted.

Third. However, the waivers that Obama granted are illegal, but in law, and in process.

The HHS claims authority under the social security act - a law which is UNRELATED to TANF. This is despite the fact that the law prohibits the administration from waiving the work requirements. A Ways and Means Committee summary of the 1996 reforms issued shortly after the law was signed is explicit on this point: “Waivers granted after the date of enactment [of the 1996 law] may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements.”

Yet, even if the waivers were legal, , it also is being implemented through an unlawful end run around Congress. The GAO determined the Obama administration’s proposal to waive work requirements should have been submitted to Congress for review and possible disapproval.


Time and time and time again this administration does illegal, unlawful things - whether making recess appointments while congress is in session, granting immunity to deportation, illegal waivers of work requirements.. the list goes on and on.

When are you - as a liberal - going to require your party to live up to the law - even ones you don't personally agree with...>?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And how about the corporations, the technical managers, the stockholders, the ultra wealthy who are using your dollars because it would cut into their billions pile to pay a living wage, you ok with giving your taxes to them?
The ne'er-do-wells on these programs we can agree have no need to be on them. However, we throw away more money on other things that should be looked at. One isn't breaking me, and one is. The issue is how to find people with the sack to fix it.

I don't agree with corporate welfare either, whether it be a so-called conservative corporation or a liberal/progressive boondoggle like Solyndra. I'm tired of hearing farmers butch about how they're conservative while taking money for corn for ethanol and tired of liberals whining about the "evils" of capitalism while climbing aboard the corporate subsidy gravy train.

Nobody agrees with corporate welfare, either. But entitltement programs are 62% of the federal budget- and are thus the biggest factor needing reform.
Interesting note, btw. I am (and always have been) completely against ethanol subsidies and tarriffs. An interesting article recently suggest the subsidies were unnecessary, because even without them ethanol was one of the cheapest octane boosters and oxygenators. The odds are thatremoving the subsidies would not kill the industry.

I read that same article, I'd bet.

The only reason I balk at all the talk about "ending corporate subsidies for Big Oil" is it singles out one sector, and doesn't apply the law evenly. I'm all for across-the-board loophole closing, except for charitable giving. That's the only loophole I'd be in favor of allowing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And how about the corporations, the technical managers, the stockholders, the ultra wealthy who are using your dollars because it would cut into their billions pile to pay a living wage, you ok with giving your taxes to them?

The ne'er-do-wells on these programs we can agree have no need to be on them. However, we throw away more money on other things that should be looked at. One isn't breaking me, and one is. The issue is how to find people with the sack to fix it.

I don't agree with corporate welfare either, whether it be a so-called conservative corporation or a liberal/progressive boondoggle like Solyndra. I'm tired of hearing farmers butch about how they're conservative while taking money for corn for ethanol and tired of liberals whining about the "evils" of capitalism while climbing aboard the corporate subsidy gravy train.

Nobody agrees with corporate welfare, either. But entitltement programs are 62% of the federal budget- and are thus the biggest factor needing reform.

Interesting note, btw. I am (and always have been) completely against ethanol subsidies and tarriffs. An interesting article recently suggest the subsidies were unnecessary, because even without them ethanol was one of the cheapest octane boosters and oxygenators. The odds are thatremoving the subsidies would not kill the industry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yes. And?

Then, why are you seemingly upset that states aren't following "Welfare reform" that CLINTON pushed through congress?

So many factual errors in one short sentence.

First. Clinton did not "push" welfare reform through Congress. Thommy Thompson started it, and it was one of the cornerstones of the Contract with america *pushed* by Newt Gingrich. When the democrats got hammered in the '94 elections, Dick Morris advised Clinton he better triangulate - and clinton signed it, over the objections of most democrats.

Second. I am in favor of the welfare reform as enacted.

Third. However, the waivers that Obama granted are illegal, but in law, and in process.

The HHS claims authority under the social security act - a law which is UNRELATED to TANF. This is despite the fact that the law prohibits the administration from waiving the work requirements. A Ways and Means Committee summary of the 1996 reforms issued shortly after the law was signed is explicit on this point: “Waivers granted after the date of enactment [of the 1996 law] may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements.”

Yet, even if the waivers were legal, , it also is being implemented through an unlawful end run around Congress. The GAO determined the Obama administration’s proposal to waive work requirements should have been submitted to Congress for review and possible disapproval.


Time and time and time again this administration does illegal, unlawful things - whether making recess appointments while congress is in session, granting immunity to deportation, illegal waivers of work requirements.. the list goes on and on.

When are you - as a liberal - going to require your party to live up to the law - even ones you don't personally agree with...>?

From Heritage.org

Cant get much more RW.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/12/president-clintons-commitment-to-welfare-reform-the-disturbing-record-so-far

It is indeed, as the President maintains, vital to end welfare as we know it.

The center piece of President Clinton's reform propos al

The President proposes to require those parents in the AFDC pro gram who have received welfare for over two years to perform community service work workfare) in exchange for continued A F DC benefits.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Maybe you should learn some actual history instead of sucking that pablum FOX feeds you like some sheep.

Learn to read.

I was referring to Clinton, not Obama.

2. I'm not a liberal, I just like making stupid people look stupid and the RW has so many easy targets.

quote:

However, despite the conservative rhetoric the actions of the Clinton Administration during its first year in office have gone in exactly the opposite direction. The Clinton Administration has in fact sought to expand conventional welfare pro g rams and to undermine existing work requirements for welfare recipients

quote:

96. Since all the work provis ions of the AFDC program undoubtedly will be completely rewritten before 1996, the Clinton Administration effectively was proposing to kill the o nly real work provision in existing law l5 The Administration claimed lamely that it was trying to postpone work re quimnents o AFDCiWP fathex3 because there were no funds to operate such workfare programs. Even assuming this dubious argument is correct, there were no funds to imple ment these workfare programs in FY 1994 precisely because the Clinton Administration requested none.

quote:


After the Clinton Administration failed in its legislative efforts to eliminate wor k re quirements for AFDC-UP fathers, it adopted a back-door strategy: If it could not wipe out the law, the Administration proposed to neuter it by permitting and encouraging an open violation of the law by state governments. This September, a few days be f ore the AFDC work requirements were to take effect, Clinton's HHS issued a new regulation which greatly weakened the requirernents.l6 Whereas the law requires participating AFDC-UP fathers to perform community service work at least sixteen hours per week t he Clinton regulations cut this to only eight hours per week. l7 Since these proposed regulations deliberately and clearly violated the law, they drew a firestorm of protest. Among the critics, Senator Alfonse D' Amato (R-NY) declared Now that they can't d elay any longer, the Administration is trying to water down these requirements. It is clear that this Administration is evading welfare reform

quote:

The bottom line is simple: the Clinton administration sought to do away with the only provision in current law that makes even a tiny number of welfare recipient s actually work

quote:

The key exception was the waiver request submitted by Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson fo r an experiment in two counties. In those counties, the Governor planned to convert the AFDC program into a program of tempo rary aid. AFDC recipients could receive benefits for two years, after which their AFDC benefits would be terminated.

In contrast t o President Clintons national reform proposal Thompsons experimental plan did not guarantee community service jobs to those who stayed on welfare over two years pledge to grant waivers for policies he did not fully agree with HHS attempted to crush the Wi s consin waiver request. HHS demanded that the Governor eviscerate his proposal by guaranteeing all AFDC recipients who remained on AFDC over two years the right to The response of Clintons HHS was predictable. Despite the Presidents explicit 18 Ibid. 19 Co ntrary to common conceptions the U.S. welfare system is almost totally federal, consisting of over 75 federal programs.

State governments merely contribute funds to these federal programs and operate them subject to federal law and regulation. At the reque st of a state government. the federal government may waive federal law and regulation governing a particular welfare program within the state in order to permit policy experimentation. 20 Clinton, op. cit. 21 Ibid 11 community service jobs. This would hav e converted the Thompson proposal from a unique experiment into a mere clone of what Clinton was proposing to do nationally.

Governor Thompson refused to yield to HHS pressure. HHS then sought to cripple the proposal by requiring thewisconsin government to entangle itself in thousands of dollars of due process litigation each time an AFDC case was actually terminated. Despite months of resistance, it was HHS rather thanThompson that finally buckled, and the aiYtynx~~-st+ms. granted without clipplug dif cat ions The Wisconsin waiver will initiate a bold experiment, but its scope is limited. The ex I periment is restricted to only two counties and does not begin until January 19

95.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And how about the corporations, the technical managers, the stockholders, the ultra wealthy who are using your dollars because it would cut into their billions pile to pay a living wage, you ok with giving your taxes to them?
The ne'er-do-wells on these programs we can agree have no need to be on them. However, we throw away more money on other things that should be looked at. One isn't breaking me, and one is. The issue is how to find people with the sack to fix it.

I don't agree with corporate welfare either, whether it be a so-called conservative corporation or a liberal/progressive boondoggle like Solyndra. I'm tired of hearing farmers butch about how they're conservative while taking money for corn for ethanol and tired of liberals whining about the "evils" of capitalism while climbing aboard the corporate subsidy gravy train.

Nobody agrees with corporate welfare, either. But entitltement programs are 62% of the federal budget- and are thus the biggest factor needing reform.
Interesting note, btw. I am (and always have been) completely against ethanol subsidies and tarriffs. An interesting article recently suggest the subsidies were unnecessary, because even without them ethanol was one of the cheapest octane boosters and oxygenators. The odds are thatremoving the subsidies would not kill the industry.

I read that same article, I'd bet.

The only reason I balk at all the talk about "ending corporate subsidies for Big Oil" is it singles out one sector, and doesn't apply the law evenly. I'm all for across-the-board loophole closing, except for charitable giving. That's the only loophole I'd be in favor of allowing.

I went through this is a previous thread. Big oil receives 4 "subsidies". The fact is that three of them totalling roughly 3 billion dollars, are programs to help poor people buy heating oil etc. The fourth is the standard depreciation allowed every american corporation.

These subsidies, are anti poverty measures, that are supported by a broad cross section of america, but especially liberals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And how about the corporations, the technical managers, the stockholders, the ultra wealthy who are using your dollars because it would cut into their billions pile to pay a living wage, you ok with giving your taxes to them?
The ne'er-do-wells on these programs we can agree have no need to be on them. However, we throw away more money on other things that should be looked at. One isn't breaking me, and one is. The issue is how to find people with the sack to fix it.

I don't agree with corporate welfare either, whether it be a so-called conservative corporation or a liberal/progressive boondoggle like Solyndra. I'm tired of hearing farmers butch about how they're conservative while taking money for corn for ethanol and tired of liberals whining about the "evils" of capitalism while climbing aboard the corporate subsidy gravy train.

Nobody agrees with corporate welfare, either. But entitltement programs are 62% of the federal budget- and are thus the biggest factor needing reform.
Interesting note, btw. I am (and always have been) completely against ethanol subsidies and tarriffs. An interesting article recently suggest the subsidies were unnecessary, because even without them ethanol was one of the cheapest octane boosters and oxygenators. The odds are thatremoving the subsidies would not kill the industry.

I read that same article, I'd bet.
The only reason I balk at all the talk about "ending corporate subsidies for Big Oil" is it singles out one sector, and doesn't apply the law evenly. I'm all for across-the-board loophole closing, except for charitable giving. That's the only loophole I'd be in favor of allowing.

I went through this is a previous thread. Big oil receives 4 "subsidies". The fact is that three of them totalling roughly 3 billion dollars, are programs to help poor people buy heating oil etc. The fourth is the standard depreciation allowed every american corporation.
These subsidies, are anti poverty measures, that are supported by a broad cross section of america, but especially liberals.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


So, in summary:

Your article says nothing about Clinton trying to push welfare reform through Congress. Rather it documents time and time again how he tried to water it down, defeat, delay or impede it.

You really should read before you post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

(Reply to Thread, not mnottertail)

Yada, yada. More piles of typical judgemental and punitive Right Wing knee jerk responses to structural issues of contemporary society the Right isn't even aware of, much less inclined to remedy. Not that the Left is competent to do anything even approaching societal engineering. At least they Care about other folks.
If anyone should be doing 'community service', it's the tax freeloaders who are getting obscenely wealthy from corporate welfare and campaign contribution purchased tax breaks or complete immunity. And legalized larceny.
America had full employment when over 70-90% of the 'employed' were in agriculture. As technology and mass manufacturing affected Every aspect of production and consumption, we transitioned to a service economy which is now about to move to an AI/robot manufacturing And service labor economy. It was foreseen over 2 generations ago that there simply wouldn't be enough renumerative work for much of the population to support itself with as technology advanced. Instead of all working less and distributing the productivity gains to all, the controlling members of corporations managed to emasculate the counterbalancing Unions with propaganda and keep more than the gains to themself. With friends like Gov Christy moving even vital civil servants like teachers backwards in actual pay while cost of living keep rising, only the 'Owners' and big investors have any chance in the changing economic world. Even many professionals are now reduced to individual work contracts of short duration as Every employee is squeezed for more profit for the share holders and top management.
The cynical version of the new economics goes more like: "Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat."
This basic equation was only aggravated by Congress actually paying many US corporations to retrain foreign workers and ship their equipment and technologies to 'off-shore' locations. "Maintaining American Competitiveness" ended badly when the benefits all ended up with multi-nationals who paid what taxes they couldn't avoid, in the country of convenience with the lowest tax rate. Apple headquartered in Ireland???

Feeding the poor isn't a religious impulse or value, it's a HUMAN and social survival mandate. It's also how intelligent ruling classes keep starving mobs with torches and weapons away from the door, howling to take their heads. Which often happens when the repression isn't massively homicidal quickly enough. (Putin seems to have it all figured out!) Rome had the process dialed in with bread and circuses provided by the ruling families that all the Senators came from. TV, Netflix, cage fighting, 'Reality shows' and contact sports are the new circuses. SNAP is what keeps the unemployable, the structurally 'redundant' and the losers in the tax scams and 'Right to Work' changes the wealthy keep moving through legislatures impoverish the dying middle and working classes from violent revolt. It's just Cheaper to provide adequate welfare than to run a full police state to repress totally predictable rage at the concentration of wealth and the ignoring of the needs of the majority of the society.

Twitter shares fell not because it's a dead platform, but because Growth slowed below projections for the Quarter. It's still growing, particularly outside traditional First World markets. It just no longer has it's basic internet business model all to itself. China and India (Now the two largest net markets) are building their own local versions that compete directly. The Model is still explosive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And how about the corporations, the technical managers, the stockholders, the ultra wealthy who are using your dollars because it would cut into their billions pile to pay a living wage, you ok with giving your taxes to them?
The ne'er-do-wells on these programs we can agree have no need to be on them. However, we throw away more money on other things that should be looked at. One isn't breaking me, and one is. The issue is how to find people with the sack to fix it.

I don't agree with corporate welfare either, whether it be a so-called conservative corporation or a liberal/progressive boondoggle like Solyndra. I'm tired of hearing farmers butch about how they're conservative while taking money for corn for ethanol and tired of liberals whining about the "evils" of capitalism while climbing aboard the corporate subsidy gravy train.

Nobody agrees with corporate welfare, either. But entitltement programs are 62% of the federal budget- and are thus the biggest factor needing reform.
Interesting note, btw. I am (and always have been) completely against ethanol subsidies and tarriffs. An interesting article recently suggest the subsidies were unnecessary, because even without them ethanol was one of the cheapest octane boosters and oxygenators. The odds are thatremoving the subsidies would not kill the industry.

I read that same article, I'd bet.
The only reason I balk at all the talk about "ending corporate subsidies for Big Oil" is it singles out one sector, and doesn't apply the law evenly. I'm all for across-the-board loophole closing, except for charitable giving. That's the only loophole I'd be in favor of allowing.

I went through this is a previous thread. Big oil receives 4 "subsidies". The fact is that three of them totalling roughly 3 billion dollars, are programs to help poor people buy heating oil etc. The fourth is the standard depreciation allowed every american corporation.
These subsidies, are anti poverty measures, that are supported by a broad cross section of america, but especially liberals.

It doesn't matter, Phydeaux. I'm okay with getting rid of them, as long as we are getting rid of all subsidies for all companies. I'm okay with getting rid of all subsidies and tax breaks (individual or corporate), except for charitable giving.

I'm an equal opportunity loophole closer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


So, in summary:

Your article says nothing about Clinton trying to push welfare reform through Congress. Rather it documents time and time again how he tried to water it down, defeat, delay or impede it.

You really should read before you post.

I read the article.

As I said, it's a biased RW source.

One of Clinton's campaign planks was "Welfare reform" of exactly the type you crowed about in ME.
This was before Newt's "Contract with America".

My point is that even a RW source called it "Clinton's plan" not Newts. (of course you missed that but I expected no less.) It was watered down and passed by congress. (Remember from your 9th grade civics that only Congress passes bills).. OK, maybe you didn't make it that far.


The reason it ended up not being used was states were executing their "States Rights" that you support to not do so.

quote:

Welfare reform has been a signature issue for Clinton since he was governor of Arkansas, but his failure to push the issue early in his administration meant that he has had to accept a bill largely written on Republican terms.

Clinton's acquiescence to a bill far less generous to the poor than the one he initially proposed...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Yeah, welfare abusers really piss me off. Those people are just soaking up money that could have either gone to someone who actually needed it, or not been taken from a taxpayer in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, welfare abusers really piss me off. Those people are just soaking up money that could have either gone to someone who actually needed it, or not been taken from a taxpayer in the first place.

Me too;
The bank bailout cost TRILLIONS.
Last edited Mon Feb 1, 2016, 12:36 AM - Edit history (1)
Most people think that the big bank bailout was the $700 billion that the treasury department used to save the banks during the financial crash in September of 2008. But this is a long way from the truth because the bailout is still ongoing. The Special Inspector General for TARP summary of the bailout says that the total commitment of government is $16.8 trillion dollars with the $4.6 trillion already paid out. Yes, it was trillions not billions and the banks are now larger and still too big to fail. But it isn’t just the government bailout money that tells the story of the bailout. This is a story about lies, cheating, and a multi-faceted corruption which was often criminal.
After the original $700 billion bailout, the ongoing bailout was kept very secret because Chairman Ben Bernanke, argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma — investors and counterparties would shun firms that used the central bank as lender of last resort. In fact, $7.7 trillion of the secret emergency lending was only disclosed to the public after Congress forced a one-time audit of the Federal Reserve in November of 2011. After the audit the public found out the bailout was in trillions not billions; and that there were no requirements attached to the bailout money – the banks could use it for any purpose.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/#3064ca013723

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)