Or, raise taxes on the rich to the levels they were under Reagan (or Eisenhower).
Or, don't eliminate the Estate Tax, just to benefit a few hundred wealthy families every year.
Or, charge Social Security tax on people's entire income.
If you want to address a wealth gap, adopt a tax policy that doesn't funnel wealth to the top 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Yeah..it's just super clever to answer every need with: tax someone besides me.
Maybe the forum can answer this question: When should government stop spending, and when should government stop taxing. How much should a wealthier person have to pay? 50? 70? 95? Who's job is it to decide who makes 'enough' and who ought to be punished for being successful?
Tax codes don't funnel wealth to the wealthy - that's a complete misunderstanding of taxation. You aren't allowed to keep what the government let's you, you earn your money and then pay what the government demands. Saying lower taxes funnels money to the wealthy is shockingly classist and supports a belief that no one's money belongs to them.
Also, our current system does exactly the opposite. The top 1% of earners pay half the bill, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the bill. The bottom 50% don't pay significant taxes, and the bottom 20% gain a "refund", even though they don't pay anything into the syste,. By giving money to people who don't pay taxes, and not charging taxes to half the population, our system is funneling money to poor people from wealthy people. Just not giving away free money each year would save us $36-50 BILLION dollars - more than a third of the $100b in udget cuts we were promised.
Finally, you have a sever misunderstanding of how SSI is supposed to work. Taxing wealthier people more would mean either giving those people a higher income later (at a -1 to 3% return), which is stealing money from them to pay it back at a rate less than they can earn themselves, or you'd just pay them the same and make SSI an even worse, more dishonest program than it already is. SSI was never supposed to get paid into the budget, it was supposed to flood the trust with money to pay current claims AND build a surplus to handle a larger generation of retirees.
Hey - rather than punishing successful people who pay almost the whole bill, why don't we cut spending? Maybe eliminate departments that dont' work and don't belong at the federal level, get rid of the Ad Council and endowments for the arts, stop giving free money to people who don't pay taxes, that sort fo thing.
What models of pitchforks are available? Do you happen to have the UStick-it Pitchfork with the Polycarbide Handle and Carbon Polymer Fork? If so, count me in for two!!!
Fine choice, sir! Tell your friends about us!
And if the torch salesman doesn't show up soon, I'll start selling the magical Flaming pitchforks! Got 'em off a wizard who was in a hurry to retire after an extended stay in some mist-shrouded land I ne'er heard tell of afore.PITCHFORKS! Ge-e-et your pitchforks!!!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
|
Saying racist things doesn't make a person racist.
I think, technically, you also have to burn a cross. Or get a swastika tattoo.
Hey..can I Godwin through mentioning swastikas? What if I say it in the context of showing that someone isn't a racist?
<Puts lynching kit back into storage>
No one forces people to work anywhere. Maybe if half the staff leaves to work for a competitor with better pay, they'd get the idea.You imply there is negative unemplyment, and that people are lining up at everyone's door offering jobs. Sadly, that is not the case. The exact opposite is more often true, especially for specialized jobs for which there might be 300+ applicants per open position.
In other words, maybe if half the staff quits en masse to find work with this phantom competetor, they starve to death looking for this "better job," and their families go without health care. Or were you going to offer them all welfare and free no-rejection health insurance?
Not to sound calloused, but that's life. We've all had jobs we didn't like but kept becasue it was what we had at the time. Never have I thought, "jeez somebody should MAKE these guys pay me more." Everyone has a BS to Pay ratio, and when that ratio reaches an uncomforatble point, you look for another job.
That aside, noones forcing them to be teachers, was my point. I know plenty of people that went to school for one thing got a degree, and never actually worked in that field becasue it was too saturated. They went and learned other skills to earn a living.
They can go do something else. They like the comfort of having a job that's secure, or as secure as it can be till the gov't can't pay them anymore.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
NAFTA
Where the argument on NAFTA is off course isn't who endorsed it, it's that NAFTA is a good idea. The alternative is screwing up our trade deficit even worse by having higher prices here at home and wondering why companies can't afford to manufacture when we spent so much energy 'protecting' them.
Free trade good. Penalizing imports is a terrible idea. The way to prevent that sucking sound of jobs leaving the country is to eliminate oppressive taxation and regulation on corporations.
Come on it has been already proven when the REPUBLICAN can't actualy come up with a arguement they go for the labels of racist....facist etc. You expect any different? This what they learn from their leadership.Typo fixed.
What's the color of the sky on Sanakht world?
Holy s!#+ people. Really? Let me save everyone some time. Choose A or B, then MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
(A) The rich earned their money. They already pay more than their fair share. We should lower taxes on the rich rather than jealously punish success.
(B) The rich didn't earn their money -- they exploited the system and fellow citizens. The tax burden on the wealthiest is near historical lows.
No, I don't want to hear your rebuttal AGAIN. I've already heard it. No, I'm not clueless -- I just disagree. Yes, that's possible. Honest.
|
What happened to that new guy I hired to keep you groomed? What was his name? Gruuuu? Dude needs to take another crack at your tail and hindquarters.Yeah, Sebastian Prime trotted up the rainbow bridge into the sun and absorbed it, all the while screaming "Taste the rainbow, B@#$%!" and mastering a green lantern ring. Sebastian Prime will never be wrong again.Any interest in being a publicist? I'd like to put out a press release with this statement.We're not taking comments about that right now... gruu left Sebastian's Horsey Innovations Team over artistic differences.
He was *my* Henchman! Did you guys even make a morale check for him? Dammit! Do I have to do everything myself? ::Gets out six dice::
2d6Edit: See, no problem. He probably just wandered off and will be back later. Just leave him written instructions specifying cleaning, wirebrush, etc.
Last I checked, Skaven leadership is only a 5.
This thread has derailed horribly. We're not glorfying Sebastian nearly enough.
Last I checked, Skaven leadership is only a 5.
This thread has derailed horribly. We're not glorfying Sebastian nearly enough.
Some people play wrongly. But you're playing the wrong GAME!
|
|
What models of pitchforks are available? Do you happen to have the UStick-it Pitchfork with the Polycarbide Handle and Carbon Polymer Fork? If so, count me in for two!!!Fine choice, sir! Tell your friends about us!
And if the torch salesman doesn't show up soon, I'll start selling the magical Flaming pitchforks! Got 'em off a wizard who was in a hurry to retire after an extended stay in some mist-shrouded land I ne'er heard tell of afore.PITCHFORKS! Ge-e-et your pitchforks!!!
Sir, you appear to be a reasonable salesman and I was wondering if I might inquire about, for a very reasonable fee, putting a small multi-hued imprint of a defiantly posed unicorn on your product? It's for a good cause, sir.
Holy s!&+ people. Really? Let me save everyone some time. Choose A or B, then MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
(A) The rich earned their money. They already pay more than their fair share. We should lower taxes on the rich rather than jealously punish success.
(B) The rich didn't earn their money -- they exploited the system and fellow citizens. The tax burden on the wealthiest is near historical lows.
No, I don't want to hear your rebuttal AGAIN. I've already heard it. No, I'm not clueless -- I just disagree. Yes, that's possible. Honest.
Not all rich people are A or B. I'd say most are A while a few are B.
Those that are B are usually and can be punished in a court of law, if they've truly "exploited the system and fellow citizens". These folks that do get away with it, do not operate along party lines and are just as likely to be senators or representatives as a corporate mogul.|
|
Some people play wrongly. But you're playing the wrong GAME!Last I checked, Skaven leadership is only a 5.
This thread has derailed horribly. We're not glorfying Sebastian nearly enough.
Improbable sir. Sebastian is never wrong, and as Sebastian's duly appointed speaker (much like the church is the "perfect bride of christ" I am most assuredly the "Perfect bride of being right all the time". Ipso Facto, YOU sir, are playing the game of error.
I do feel obliged to remind you that we both just lost the game. I can only assume that you figured it a small price to pay for the smiting of your enemies.
Some people play wrongly. But you're playing the wrong GAME!Last I checked, Skaven leadership is only a 5.
This thread has derailed horribly. We're not glorfying Sebastian nearly enough.
Improbable sir. Sebastian is never wrong, and as Sebastian's duly appointed speaker (much like the church is the "perfect bride of christ" I am most assuredly the "Perfect bride of being right all the time". Ipso Facto, YOU sir, are playing the game of error.
I do feel obliged to remind you that we both just lost the game. I can only assume that you figured it a small price to pay for the smiting of your enemies.
There's ain't no Skaven in Basic D&D, son. Now toddle off for your mid-morning nap. This is time for the grogs to get their nard on.
And before anyone makes the obvious reply, I went back to Basic for nostalgia reasons, only after I had won Advanced.
Sir, you appear to be a reasonable salesman and I was wondering if I might inquire about, for a very reasonable fee, putting a small multi-hued imprint of a defiantly posed unicorn on your product? It's for a good cause, sir.What models of pitchforks are available? Do you happen to have the UStick-it Pitchfork with the Polycarbide Handle and Carbon Polymer Fork? If so, count me in for two!!!Fine choice, sir! Tell your friends about us!
And if the torch salesman doesn't show up soon, I'll start selling the magical Flaming pitchforks! Got 'em off a wizard who was in a hurry to retire after an extended stay in some mist-shrouded land I ne'er heard tell of afore.PITCHFORKS! Ge-e-et your pitchforks!!!
I would be happy to sponsor Sebastian's Pretty Flaming Pitchfork line, for a *reasonable* fee.
|
|
I would be happy to sponsor Sebastian's Pretty Flaming Pitchfork line, for a *reasonable* fee.Sir, you appear to be a reasonable salesman and I was wondering if I might inquire about, for a very reasonable fee, putting a small multi-hued imprint of a defiantly posed unicorn on your product? It's for a good cause, sir.What models of pitchforks are available? Do you happen to have the UStick-it Pitchfork with the Polycarbide Handle and Carbon Polymer Fork? If so, count me in for two!!!Fine choice, sir! Tell your friends about us!
And if the torch salesman doesn't show up soon, I'll start selling the magical Flaming pitchforks! Got 'em off a wizard who was in a hurry to retire after an extended stay in some mist-shrouded land I ne'er heard tell of afore.PITCHFORKS! Ge-e-et your pitchforks!!!
Excellent!
URGENT NEWS RELEASE
A new deal was just brokered between Sebastian Inc. and The Pitchfork Salesmen TM for Mairkurion's standard rate (three vials of Floursecent Adolescence).
Come on it has been already proven when the REPUBLICAN can't actualy come up with a arguement they go for the labels of racist....facist etc. You expect any different? This what they learn from their leadership.Typo fixed.
Thanks but those are the word Democrats use...Republicans use words like socialist....liberal(though that was mostly early 80's)...commie...pinko...etc. for the same situration.
I have never seens a republican call people racist or facist.
|
NAFTA
Where the argument on NAFTA is off course isn't who endorsed it, it's that NAFTA is a good idea. The alternative is screwing up our trade deficit even worse by having higher prices here at home and wondering why companies can't afford to manufacture when we spent so much energy 'protecting' them.
Free trade good. Penalizing imports is a terrible idea. The way to prevent that sucking sound of jobs leaving the country is to eliminate oppressive taxation and regulation on corporations.
I disagree that free trade is good, but the way to fix that is to make manufacturing HERE attractive to business. Make american made goods cheaper by more well thought out regulation and keep a good enough import tariff in place that we can benifit from imports without strangling our own producers.
|
|
Or, raise taxes on the rich to the levels they were under Reagan (or Eisenhower).
Or, don't eliminate the Estate Tax, just to benefit a few hundred wealthy families every year.
Or, charge Social Security tax on people's entire income.
If you want to address a wealth gap, adopt a tax policy that doesn't funnel wealth to the top 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Yeah..it's just super clever to answer every need with: tax someone besides me.
I never said tax someone besides me. I'd be happy to pay higher taxes, if those taxes would go towards healing some of our social ills, rather than buying one more stealth bomber. I consider paying taxes to be patriotic, but I want to see those who can afford to pay a higher share do so, before people who are living just above the poverty line have to pay anything.
Was the United States under Reagan so awful for the wealthy, that returning to those levels of taxation would be an undue burden on them? I don't think so.
But yeah, raise my taxes if necessary, before you tax people who can't afford it.
As to when the government should stop spending, I think it's important to point out that both the Democratic and Republican plans for spending cuts are similar in one way...they both seek to save about a trillion dollars over the next ten years. The real difference is what they would cut to achieve this, and who would be victimized by the cuts.
I personally believe that you could easily trim a trillion dollars from the Defense budget over the next ten years, without making our country less safe, and without making those cuts on the backs of our servicemen and women. And we'd still be spending more on defense than the next 15 countries combined. Last year we spent $663 billion on our military.
But tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of massive deficits just doesn't work, and it never has.
The reason you work in a clean, well-lit workplace is because of unions.
The reason you have health insurance is because of unions.
The reasons kids don't start working at 4 years old is because of unions.
The reason mothers get maternity leave is because of unions.
The reason a single manager with an axe to grind does not hold your job and livelihood in the palm of his hand is because of unions.With respect, I think there is more rhetoric than fact in your beliefs about unions. First, the common assumption is that employers would be eating the jelly out of our eyes if it weren't for decent people, found only in unions. But that simply isn't true. The first unions organized to protest abuse, but they were an exception, not a rule. The power inherent in leading organized labor is what made them popular - telling your boss where to stick it is anawfully god gig when you can get it.
There's no evidence to suggest that we'd all be dirty and poor and singing "Where there's a whip, there's a way" if it weren't for labor unions. Like as not, when you're studying industrial age abuses in meatpacking plants, you're also studying yellow journalism, which is where an American press started to shape news rather than report it. And businesses are an easy target. Everyone, to some degree or another, likes to complain about the haves or about the boss. But the assertion that some or maybe even most bosses wouldn't treat their people with respect and rewards them honestly if it weren't for unions is absurd. Many Japanese manufacturers who don't allow union talk in the States pay their people well. No one is abused. I've only been abused by a boss when I let it happen. There's no such thing as a restaurant franchise manager's union - you either do the job and get rewarded, or you get fired for sucking (or perceived sucking) or you move on.
Interesting points as always, Mr. Helt- and I LOVED the eating-the-jelly-out-of-your-eyes part!
However, while it is easy(and perhaps necessary!!) to say that a lot of early abuses in terms of management/labor relations came to light through the lens of yellow journalism, it is also important to say that this does not mean that said abuses didn't happen. Some of the things(though not all!) that occured were disgusting, and there is no evidence that these practices would have ever stopped. Managers are just as human as the people they oversee- you are going to have good ones and bad ones, and in some cases really, really bad ones. I'm glad you brought up japanese manufacturers because japanese culture plays a HUGE role in the labor relationship in the workplace- abuses do indeed happen there too, but they occur on a level and in a fashion most americans would not recognize or even percieve as negative. And to say that you've only been abused by a manager when you allowed it to happen- come on now. I'm sure you took SOME action against that individual, even if it was just to hand in your resignation. I've never worked in a union job before, and I dont think I ever will, but I do think they exist for a reason. If you really want to get rid of unions or alter their activities, alter the reason for their existence.
|
|
NAFTA
Where the argument on NAFTA is off course isn't who endorsed it, it's that NAFTA is a good idea. The alternative is screwing up our trade deficit even worse by having higher prices here at home and wondering why companies can't afford to manufacture when we spent so much energy 'protecting' them.
Free trade good. Penalizing imports is a terrible idea. The way to prevent that sucking sound of jobs leaving the country is to eliminate oppressive taxation and regulation on corporations.
That's nonsense. Free trade exists in one market. The United States. Everyone else (even our strongest allies) protects industries and places impediments to free trade.
The sucking sound is NAFTA (and other free trade agreements).
Meaningful tariffs would help prevent the sucking sound, by removing much of the incentive to relocate overseas, making it just as expensive to sell goods here regardless of where they're made. It'd be bad news for the Dollar Store, but good news for American manufacturing.
Come to think of it, Universal Health Care would also help prevent that sucking sound, by leveling the playing field with other industrialized nations, and not forcing employers to bear those costs here in the U.S., but not elsewhere.
|
|
Lasseiz-faire government does not work. Wall Street today should be screaming that at you. Wall Street sucks up money like a vacuum and the government does NOTHING to stop it, because the overseeing agencies don't have the funding to do so. When government does nothing, business goes NUTS. It takes advantage of people, the environment, bends and breaks laws, corrupts everything around it. This is a proven fact. THe 'robber barons' were AMERICAN, and they lived in an edge where money got away with anything. The job of government is to tell business owners what they cannot do, because if you leave it to them, they will most definitely abuse anything and everything in pursuit of the almighty dollar..Actually the oversight problem is worse than lack of resources. Oversight committees tend to be staffed by Wall Street Insiders. Reagan, Bush, even Clinton, and possibly Obama as well have staffed regulatory agencies with the folks that are supposed to be regulated. Even more pervasive is the "pay to play" activity that goes on in Congress. The Supreme Court made matters worse when it lifted any serious limitation on the use of soft money in the electoral process.
+1
As for 'non-public' schools performing better, that's also a hogwash stat. What happens is charter schools actively recruit the wealthier and smarter students, and so 'inflate' their scores. Put those kids back in public schools and guess what? They perform just as well. Charter schools don't get any better results then most public schools. They ARE more exclusive.Can't let you get away with that old canard. i have a friend who tries that on me sometimes, but it turned out he was jsut told by his union to say that during the last election.
My oldest daughter goes to a charter school. Her school in the district we lived in is a failed school that gets demogogue money, and lack of parental involvement means no one cares if the school fails. it was one of those schools where the science lesson was just as often about a black scientist as it was about any actual science. And not jsut in February. Year-round, the science was more about the scientist than it was any meaningful discovery. The predictable end result was that my kids didn't learn anything about science. Every year, the first semester of math was a review of last years' math, and the second semester was a cram to prepare for testing, such that the kids didn't learn much math.
She went to the charter school and started learning. Now, she is pretty smart, and I make her work to learn instead fo doing her homework for her, which kids still try at younger ages. But she chose to move to another school, and we chose to move her to another school. No one came calling on her 98th percentile test scores to join a charter school. The same with the other smarter kids in her class. Their families fled the school becasue it sucked.
Our new state superintendant got a reputation for developing fantastic charter schools on a tight budget. She got tired of hearing the lie that charter schools cherry pick the best and brightest and have inflated performance indicators. She teamed up with other teachers and started a new school in a broken,...
I have nothing against charter schools, or perhaps to be more succinct, your daughters charter school, however, I think the situation with charter schools vs. public schools is highly, highly individual. I have seen the things you quoted happen with certain charter schools, and I do believe that these schools(again, not all) are moving goalposts on a lot of angles. Grades get artifically inflated all the time, and at least around where I live, it's getting easier for charter schools to do this and harder for public schools.
it was one of those schools where the science lesson was just as often about a black scientist as it was about any actual science. And not jsut in February.I'm sure you didn't mean that to be as racist as it sounds...
Indeed. I'm thinking this was just phrased poorly.
|
|
Not all rich people are A or B. I'd say most are A while a few are B. Those that are B are usually and can be punished in a court of law, if they've truly "exploited the system and fellow citizens".Holy s!&+ people. Really? Let me save everyone some time. Choose A or B, then MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
(A) The rich earned their money. They already pay more than their fair share. We should lower taxes on the rich rather than jealously punish success.
(B) The rich didn't earn their money -- they exploited the system and fellow citizens. The tax burden on the wealthiest is near historical lows.
No, I don't want to hear your rebuttal AGAIN. I've already heard it. No, I'm not clueless -- I just disagree. Yes, that's possible. Honest.
So, how many of the Wall Street banksters that nearly collapsed our economy a few years ago are languishing in a jail cell right now?
|
|
Come on it has been already proven when the REPUBLICAN can't actualy come up with a arguement they go for the labels of racist....facist etc. You expect any different? This what they learn from their leadership.Typo fixed.Thanks but those are the word Democrats use...Republicans use words like socialist....liberal(though that was mostly early 80's)...commie...pinko...etc. for the same situration.
I have never seens a republican call people racist or facist.
You've never heard Obama being called a racist against white people? You must never listen to right wing talk radio, or you'd hear Rupublicans use words like that...
Take any position, any job, which is run by unionised and non unionised employees. The latter group will be inferior in every way to pay and benefits received. Collective bargaining power is the only leverage that can be employed against employer abuse. Without that, you don't have a union, you have a discussion hall that acheives nothing.I'm of the mind that while Unions served a purpose at one time, they are no longer necessary. All I've seen them do, in my experiences, is prevent people that can do a job better than the worker's with seniority from moving up and protect the people that abuse the so-called protections set-up by Unions.
This is simply false. I've worked with non union iron workers here in Colorado that were paid more and had better benefits than the union iron workers. I've also seen non union iron workers in Wyoming paid significantly less than their union counterparts.
I have also heard that Toyota's plants in the US pay better than their UAW counterparts.
Take any position, any job, which is run by unionised and non unionised employees. The latter group will be inferior in every way to pay and benefits received. Collective bargaining power is the only leverage that can be employed against employer abuse. Without that, you don't have a union, you have a discussion hall that acheives nothing.I'm of the mind that while Unions served a purpose at one time, they are no longer necessary. All I've seen them do, in my experiences, is prevent people that can do a job better than the worker's with seniority from moving up and protect the people that abuse the so-called protections set-up by Unions.
This is simply false. I've worked with non union iron workers here in Colorado that were paid more and had better benefits than the union iron workers. I've also seen non union iron workers in Wyoming paid significantly less than their union counterparts.
I have also heard that Toyota's plants in the US pay better than their UAW counterparts.
My only question is whether or not pay and benefits would remain as such if management lacked a union to compete with.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Uh, you guys have tons of protectionist measures in place... try selling softwood lumber into the states..
That's nonsense. Free trade exists in one market. The United States. Everyone else (even our strongest allies) protects industries and places impediments to free trade.
Go back to Canada, you commie! ;-)
Good work publicist! Can you please leak a story to the tabloids about how Natalie Portman and I may be an item. Please refrain from using the word "stalker," though "persistent unwanted admirer" is fine.
I take it you don't&!@ch Faux News?Thanks but those are the word Democrats use...Republicans use words like socialist....liberal(though that was mostly early 80's)...commie...pinko...etc. for the same situration.
I have never seens a republican call people racist or facist.
What is it with the boards today? Every time someone uses a contraction it makes it look like they were cursing.
A couple of gross misstatements about teachers I'd like to clear up:
1. The reason the union in Viginia opposed the "merit pay" approach is because the calculations used were so screwy. My students had a 93% achievement on the state Standards of Learning test for earth science -- one of the highest in the state. The next year they were still high -- 92% -- still near the top. I was rated one of the WORST teachers in the state, merit-wise, because of that 1% decline in test scores. See how that works? Baseline wasn't factored in, and the union said it should be. So, yeah, they opposed the merit-based standards that were currently in place. But it's easy to take that and say "See! Teachers unions are against merit-based pay."
2. Teachers didn't have the authority to "declare kids special ed." That took a psychiatrist, who in turn had to be independently retained by the parents. I knew of many parents who would "shop around" for a psychiatrist who was quick to make a designation of ADHD, because they could then come back to the school and demand special privileges -- I was then legally required to provide copies of all class notes, provide preferential seating, and work extra unpaid hours tutoring upon demand. A special ed designation was to the parents' benefit and the teachers' and schools' disadvantage.
--
Do a lot of teachers suck? Yes, beyond question. When you pay people $19K a year for 60-hour weeks and no summers off (I was always assigned "additional duties," per the contract), you can't expect to attract and retain the best and brightest -- that's why I ended up leaving the profession after only a few years. Industry treats people a LOT better. But the standards for teachers are as low as the pay, so you get some real slugs doing the job. Unions weren't the problem in Virginia -- statewide licensing standards and pay were. I don't know where general teachers are making $55K+, because the teachers with maximum seniority and the best merit ratings in my district were pulling in more like $45K.
So, how many of the Wall Street banksters that nearly collapsed our economy a few years ago are languishing in a jail cell right now?Not all rich people are A or B. I'd say most are A while a few are B. Those that are B are usually and can be punished in a court of law, if they've truly "exploited the system and fellow citizens".Holy s!&+ people. Really? Let me save everyone some time. Choose A or B, then MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
(A) The rich earned their money. They already pay more than their fair share. We should lower taxes on the rich rather than jealously punish success.
(B) The rich didn't earn their money -- they exploited the system and fellow citizens. The tax burden on the wealthiest is near historical lows.
No, I don't want to hear your rebuttal AGAIN. I've already heard it. No, I'm not clueless -- I just disagree. Yes, that's possible. Honest.
How many of them broke the law?
I think it's pretty universaly accepted the Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac and poor handling by those mortgage companies caused that, not Joe Random Wall Street guy.Due to spectacular over sight by Frank n Dodd.
Frankly, we SHOULD make interrogation legal IMHO, but until we are, we are breaking the law and morally wrong for what we are doing.
There is a difference between torture and interrogation. Interrogation, when done correctly, produces results. The guys who gave us lectures on the Geneva Conventions were interrogators. They found that they got better results when they "used honey". Torture, on the other hand, has been found to be counter-productive.
As a nation we can't scream "TORTURE!" when one of our guys gets waterboarded, forced to endure freezing temps naked, etc... and then try to use the same excuses when we get caught doing the same things to someone else. Torture is torture is torture.
Agreed... and we do it.
Let me tell you about "The Breaker." It's a favorite of our contracted "interrogators". They insert a glass tube down a man's urethra, and then they flick it, shattering it inside the man's body.
Torture works, because most of the time people will tell you ANYTHING past a certain point. The trick is to interrogate/torture groups of people at the same time so you can pick up the common threads.
Actually, using "honey" is part of torture, and is taught in torture resistance classes.
Good work publicist! Can you please leak a story to the tabloids about how Natalie Portman and I may be an item. Please refrain from using the word "stalker," though "persistent unwanted admirer" is fine.
HOLY CRAP! You're being stalked by Natalie Portman!?
|
|
Uh, you guys have tons of protectionist measures in place... try selling softwood lumber into the states..
That's nonsense. Free trade exists in one market. The United States. Everyone else (even our strongest allies) protects industries and places impediments to free trade.Go back to Canada, you commie! ;-)
Good work publicist! Can you please leak a story to the tabloids about how Natalie Portman and I may be an item. Please refrain from using the word "stalker," though "persistent unwanted admirer" is fine.
Sure thing boss.
Anyone who's pro union, or pro "tax the rich", should start up a small business and employ 20 people.
Me personally, I'd like to offer the following deal to Federal Union Employees:
A) We re-negotiate your contract to something sustainable.
B) You have two years in which to stay at your current job, and take classes on how to set up and run a small business. You have the right to take 50% of the value of your current pension program as a lump sum payment, to use to invest or start a small business.
I would also put a tax holiday for small businesses as follows:
Year 1: The employer half of employment taxes is waived.
Year 2: The employer half of employment taxes is halved
Year 3: The employer half of employment taxes is quartered
Year 4: Tax holiday ends.
To qualify for this, you must be a business with fewer than 25 employees. More than 90% of the American workforce works in businesses with fewer than 25 employees. You want to create jobs? This is a phased out tax holiday that would directly create jobs. It will never happen, because it doesn't involve paying off unions for political favors.
I write freelance for a living. I pay both the employer and employee side of payroll taxes. Nobody who hasn't had to pay the employer side of this has any clue what it's like. (Between paying both sides of the tax equation, I pay almost 40% of my income in state and federal taxes. I make quarterly estimated payments. I ain't rich in money, but I have a job I can do in my pajamas, don't have to work for anyone dumber than me, and get to do what I love.)
Insofar as not permitting automatic deduction of Union dues from paychecks:
All the Union has to do is go to PayPal and set up a subscription service. They have to ask. They do not get to presume.
You've never heard Obama being called a racist against white people? You must never listen to right wing talk radio, or you'd hear Rupublicans use words like that...Come on it has been already proven when the REPUBLICAN can't actualy come up with a arguement they go for the labels of racist....facist etc. You expect any different? This what they learn from their leadership.Typo fixed.Thanks but those are the word Democrats use...Republicans use words like socialist....liberal(though that was mostly early 80's)...commie...pinko...etc. for the same situration.
I have never seens a republican call people racist or facist.
Well, I remember Rev. Wright being caleld a racist, but funny thing there is HE IS. By association it was speculated that Obama might hold some of the same ideals seeing as how he attended that church forhowever many years.
This is supposition based on fact not blind BS "if you don't vote fer Obama yur a racist" or "if you don't support anmesty for illegal immigrants yur a racist" that the left often spews. This is rhetoric.
There is a difference.
A couple of gross misstatements about teachers I'd like to clear up:
1. The reason the union in Viginia opposed the "merit pay" approach is because the calculations used were so screwy. My students had a 93% achievement on the state Standards of Learning test for earth science -- one of the highest in the state. The next year they were still high -- 92% -- still near the top. I was rated one of the WORST teachers in the state, merit-wise, because of that 1% decline in test scores. See how that works? Baseline wasn't factored in, and the union said it should be. So, yeah, they opposed the merit-based standards that were currently in place. But it's easy to take that and say "See! Teachers unions are against merit-based pay."
2. Teachers didn't have the authority to "declare kids special ed." That took a psychiatrist, who in turn had to be independently retained by the parents. I knew of many parents who would "shop around" for a psychiatrist who was quick to make a designation of ADHD, because they could then come back to the school and demand special privileges -- I was then legally required to provide copies of all class notes, provide preferential seating, and work extra unpaid hours tutoring upon demand. A special ed designation was to the parents' benefit and the teachers' and schools' disadvantage.
--
Do a lot of teachers suck? Yes, beyond question. When you pay people $19K a year for 60-hour weeks and no summers off (I was always assigned "additional duties," per the contract), you can't expect to attract and retain the best and brightest -- that's why I ended up leaving the profession after only a few years. Industry treats people a LOT better. But the standards for teachers are as low as the pay, so you get some real slugs doing the job. Unions weren't the problem in Virginia -- statewide licensing standards and pay were. I don't know where general teachers are making $55K+, because the teachers with maximum seniority and the best merit ratings in my district were pulling in more like...
Maybe private schools are the answer? Do teachers who work there have better luck?
|
Anyone who's pro union, or pro "tax the rich", should start up a small business and employ 20 people.
Me personally, I'd like to offer the following deal to Federal Union Employees:
A) We re-negotiate your contract to something sustainable.
B) You have two years in which to stay at your current job, and take classes on how to set up and run a small business. You have the right to take 50% of the value of your current pension program as a lump sum payment, to use to invest or start a small business.I would also put a tax holiday for small businesses as follows:
Year 1: The employer half of employment taxes is waived.
Year 2: The employer half of employment taxes is halved
Year 3: The employer half of employment taxes is quartered
Year 4: Tax holiday ends.To qualify for this, you must be a business with fewer than 25 employees. More than 90% of the American workforce works in businesses with fewer than 25 employees. You want to create jobs? This is a phased out tax holiday that would directly create jobs. It will never happen, because it doesn't involve paying off unions for political favors.
I write freelance for a living. I pay both the employer and employee side of payroll taxes. Nobody who hasn't had to pay the employer side of this has any clue what it's like. (Between paying both sides of the tax equation, I pay almost 40% of my income in state and federal taxes. I make quarterly estimated payments. I ain't rich in money, but I have a job I can do in my pajamas, don't have to work for anyone dumber than me, and get to do what I love.)
Insofar as not permitting automatic deduction of Union dues from paychecks:
All the Union has to do is go to PayPal and set up a subscription service. They have to ask. They do not get to presume.
If your average tax rate is close to 40% you need to get to an accountant and do some tax planning stat because you are getting screwed, hard.
My data is old (~2000 - I don't think you guys have increased taxes substantially) but the top marginal rate for a self employed person federally should be around 42.5%, in illinois it should be like 45.5% and in california 50%.
Your tax holiday is an interesting idea. Here in Canada if you are running a small business, your corporate tax rate is only about 13.5% for the first 500k of income you make each year. Don't you yankees do something similar?
I take it you don't watch Faux News?
This always gives me a chuckle.
You know that's not how faux is pronounced, right?I know it's supposed to be clever, but it really lends to an opinion of stupidity.