Gaia Comment Stream 1-50

heh By Gaia - 04/17/2012 - 8:50 pm IB was first touted by a republican administration?
Kinda like the individual mandate for health care? Why does this not surprise me? "I was for it before I was against it...." view in original post I agree By Gaia - 04/10/2012 - 12:37 pm But the legislature chose not to apply the regulation to self-insured groups. That's the point. Leaving it up to each state does not guarantee the universal coverage that people are hoping for. view in original post It's not a complaint, per se. More of an observation. By Gaia - 04/10/2012 - 12:35 pm The point is that the average 18 year old today has far bigger economic challenges than the 18 year old of 20-25 years ago. Far higher expenses, and average income has not kept up with those expenses in any way whatsoever. It sounds funny, but the ACA actually helps young people succeed in their struggle toward independence. It temporarily takes one big economic hurdle off the table so they can tackle the rest of them - housing and every day living expenses on an entry-level salary. (Or no salary at the moment because of the unemployment rate for that age group. ) The hope is that by the time they hit 26, the other issues are under control because they've managed to work themselves into a position where they have benefits and can Log in afford their housing and other living expenses. to vote 1 It's transitional assistance. It's also one of the solutions you're asking people to scribble down. A solution exists already. Don't take it away. view in original post I don't know how long ago you By Gaia - 04/09/2012 - 11:35 am I don't know how long ago you were 18.... but even 15 or 20 years ago, things were different. A college education cost much less then, compared to average income. Jobs were easier to come by for an 18 year old. (You've noticed the unemployment rate for young adults, right?) Health insurance after you got a job was far less expensive compared to income. Housing was less expensive compared to income. Today's youth have it much tougher financially than we did. There aren't a lot of entry-level jobs that pay 5 enough to allow an 18 year-old to live on their own these days. The cost of everything has gone up fast than income. 22 year olds are also leaving college already 10s of thousands in debt. Allowing them to stay on parent's insurance has a huge impact for a very tiny cost. For most families it doesn't even cost them anything extra in premiums. They've got a family plan that covers employee,
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote
spouse and all children for one rate. Dropping the 18 year old from the coverage doesn't save the employee any money, unless it's a single parent and he/she is the only child. view in original post They have the power, but will the exercise it? By Gaia - 04/09/2012 - 11:32 am In NH, all private insurance had to cover the young adults. However, the State of NH is self-insured, so state employees did not get the benefit until the Affordable Care Act was passed. view in original post Gallup says 21%, and holding By Gaia - 04/06/2012 - 10:38 am Gallup says 21%, and holding steady for the past 3 years. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideologic... The thing I find interesting about this poll is that it's only measuring the way people label themselves. There's no standard definition of "conservative" and "liberal" used in this poll, so I think we have to be careful about how we interpret the results. I'm not saying that the population's beliefs on specific issues necessarily differ from these polls. I'm just saying that the poll doesn't prove how people would vote or what their answers might be to specific questions about economics or social issues. And I bet that if you asked 10 different people for their definitions of Liberal and Conservative, you'd get 5 different answers for each. Oh, and when that liberal walks into a room of 9 other people.... it might be true that only one other person 5 thinks the way he does ALL of the time.... but when he picks a specific issue, like same sex marriage, or abortion rights or "right to work," he may find that 4 or 5 others think the same way he does. Don't forget about that huge block of self-described "moderates." I don't think you can assume "if they're not liberal, they're conservative." See Gallup's poll on same sex marriage: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-MajorityAmericans-Favor-Le... view in original post Being "on Medicaid" is not By Gaia - 04/06/2012 - 9:25 am Being "on Medicaid" is not necessarily the same as "rec ieving Medicaid benefits." The state is only losing money if those dead people have actually racked up claims after dying. This reminds me of some of the on-line dating services. "See your matches for free!" they say. Yep, you get to look at their profiles and their pictures, but if you want to actually communicate with them you have Log in to pay a fee. You can't find out whether they're legit until you pay. So LexisNexis does a free audit, but won't let the state see the details to see if they're legitimate, unless the state pays for it. I wonder how much it will cost to get the actual data, and will the benefit be worth the cost? 7
Log in to vote Log in to vote
to vote
view in original post From what I've seen, Mr. Hunt By Gaia - 04/03/2012 - 11:51 am From what I've seen, Mr. Hunt (aka Blackdruid) is about as liberal as they come. As a co-liberal, I agree with his letter wholeheartedly. Parents should be responsible for their children. Why would you assume otherwise? view in original post The state already requires By Gaia - 04/03/2012 - 11:46 am The state already requires that a parent name the absent parent(s) of their children in order to get state assistance. That's what the Division of Child Suport Enforcement does - goes after the absent parent and garnishes their wages if necessary. view in original post I wasn't clear in my post, By Gaia - 03/27/2012 - 10:22 pm I wasn't clear in my post, but I wasn't thinking so much about the outcome of the Supreme Court case. I was thinking more about all the candidates who have pledge to "repeal Obamacare" even after it survives the Supreme Court. Log in
to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
view in original post It's no longer a bill. It's a By Gaia - 03/27/2012 - 12:15 pm It's no longer a bill. It's a law.
I agree it doesn't go far enough in the price control area, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is defective. Log in Instead of throwing out the current law, we should add the provisions needed to lower costs. view in original post How many adults in this By Gaia - 03/27/2012 - 12:12 pm How many adults in this country do you know who have NEVER needed to see a doctor or go to an emergency room? The point is that everyone eventually uses health care. You have a choice as to whether to by a car, but you don't have a choice about whether to get cancer or get hit by a bus while crossing the street. As long as we require hospitals to treat people who can't (or won't) pay, then requiring everyone to have insurance is the best way to make sure that those who are consuming health care are also paying for it. If you are against the individual mandate, but don't want your own insurance premiums to pay for other 2
to vote
Log in to vote
people's health care, then you have to allow hospitals to refuse to treat people that they believe (THEY BELIEVE) will not pay their bills. In the long run, which approach is in the best interest of all citizens of the country? view in original post
I had a generation of 4 By Gaia - 03/26/2012 - 10:04 am I had a generation of 4 elderly cats who all passed within a two year period. One of them was incontient for the last 18 months. In retrospect, I'm not sure how I held on so long with her. You just do what needs to be done, I guess. I so understand that desire/need to balance "too soon" with "too late" when it comes to the euthanasia decision. My current batch of kitties are spread out in age - 2, 6, and 12. By the way, I tried a number of pee cleaning products, and found Simple Solution worked the best for me. Log in to vote If it's in washable fabric, 20 Mule Team borax works amazingly well. Just make sure the odor is all out 0 before putting the item through the dryer. view in original post Thanks for the update By Gaia - 03/23/2012 - 12:03 am Very sad. view in original post two thumbs up By Gaia - 03/22/2012 - 1:40 pm and congratulations on your engagement. view in original post The simplest response to this article By Gaia - 03/22/2012 - 1:06 pm Maybe in 2010 a majority of voters wanted the law repealed. But now, in 2012, a significant majority wants it left alone. Thoughts and emotions about the issue have evolved. (And more quickly than I would have predicted 2 years ago.) All it needed was a little time and real-life proof that nobody's life would be ruined by same sex marriage. view in original post
Yup. By Gaia - 03/22/2012 - 11:25 am And now it's also between two men or two women. In other words, it's between two human beings. I presume that the rules against marrying a relative are still in place. Log in
to vote
view in original post What was the great revelation By Gaia - 03/21/2012 - 3:03 pm What was the great revelation or discovery that said all of civilizaton was wrong about human enslavement? What was the discovery that said civilization was wrong about the value of women and their right to vote in a democracy? Times change. Society evolves to understand that all human beings deserve certain fundamental rights... including the right to marry the person they are in love with.
There have been various reasons for marriage over the millenia - most commonly to define ownership of a Log in woman and her assets, and to promote sexual exclusivity so that a man could be fairly well assured that to vote his children were really his children (and therefore to define inheritance rights). Marriages have also been 7 arranged in order to secure treaties. Are any of these traditional reasons still considered primary reasons for marriage? What's your primary reason for marriage? Yes, you, personally? Is there any reason why a gay couple shouldn't have the same reason for marriage? view in original post When did it become a right? By Gaia - 03/21/2012 - 10:09 am In 1868, with the 14th amendment to the constitution: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-R... and upheld in 1967 by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority: The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ... History shows that "separate but equal" is not equal. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious institution, and if it's going to be reserved, it should be reserved for unions that have been blessed by a religious institution. Everything else would be a civil union. This would create a "separate but equal" situation as well, but at least it would be by the couples' choice, not dictated by their biology. In the long run, marriage for all is the most inclusive and least likely to create separate classes of people. As for your race examples.... I think the issue is that the black population is an historically subjugated and
Log in to vote
marginalized minority - same as gays. Whites, who don't need any additional power in this country when compared to other races, will be seen as abusive if they hold "white pride" rallies. It's the same with heteros, who don't need any additional power when compared to gays. view in original post ?? By Gaia - 03/21/2012 - 9:55 am I suppose you're saying that the right to marry someone of the same sex is a special new right that no one else has (or had). Nothing in the law says that only gays have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Everyone in the state now has that right, including you. Where's the special status you're worried about? view in original post Recovery.... By Gaia - 03/20/2012 - 1:41 pm If the police would publish more details about the stolen items - what they are, which shop they were sold at... the purchaser(s) might recognize and be willing to return some of them - especially if they were insured. Log in
to vote
Log in to vote
view in original post If true, it's inappropriate at best. By Gaia - 03/20/2012 - 10:58 am and sleezy at worst. I don't have any patience for misleading politics on either side of the aisle. view in original post Would you care to post a link By Gaia - 03/17/2012 - 6:30 pm so that I can see the whole story? view in original post What poor choices? By Gaia - 03/15/2012 - 1:48 pm
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
What poor choices are you protecting the taxpayers from when a woman chooses contraception? When a woman chooses an abortion? When two people of the same sex want to get married? What are the safety nets you're talking about in this area? I'm not talking about entitlement programs here, but you seem to be equating these two things. They're not equivalent.. The difference between us, as I see it, is that I believe the role of government is to protect the rights of all people to
make their own decisions, particularly in areas where their decisions affect no one else, and dont cost the taxpayers anything. The government should ENSURE their rights. Others seem to believe that the government ought to get involved in certain matters to CURB the rights of people to make their own decisions - particularly in areas where those decisions conflict with religious teachings. They're not saving the taxpayers anything, in fact they're costing the taxpayers money in enforcing some of those regulations. If you want to talk about entitlements ("safety nets") let's start a different thread instead of muddying the waters here. view in original post
I was with you until By Gaia - 03/15/2012 - 9:52 am I was with you until the bit about privatizing highways. Do you mean simply paying private companies to take care of the roads (constructing, repairing, plowing), rather than using State personnel and resources? [shrug] Sure. Worth a try to see if you can get the same (or better) results from the same (or less) taxpayer money. Here's my leftie plug. If we're going to continue to use cars, let's step up the pace on improving gas mileage and lowering environmental impact. view in original post I don't think insurance is a right By Gaia - 03/15/2012 - 9:38 am I think that unimpeded access to quality, affordable health care is a right. Health care is not the same thing as health insurance. Just like car repair is not the same thing as car insurance. view in original post "All these mandates?" By Gaia - 03/15/2012 - 9:31 am There's only one mandate being discussed in this bill - contraception without co-pays. I don't think the premiums are going to go up in order to cover contraception. As I've said over and over in these forums, contraception is far less expensive than pregnancy and delivery. It's in the insurance Log in company's interest to make contraception available without copay, and to encourage its use. to vote 0 view in original post "Right to work" (for By Gaia - 03/15/2012 - 8:57 am "Right to work" (for less) "Women's right to know" (exactly how the legislature feels about their right and competence to make their Log in
own medical decisions) "Smaller government" (except when it comes to the private lives of people who don't share the same religious or conservative beliefs) Republicans ought to at least be honest about that last bit. Yes, they want smaller government in the economic realm, so that businesses can flourish unimpeded (and unmindful of environmental, economic and social impacts). They absolutely do not want smaller government in the social realm. Republicans are quite authoritarian in that arena, and believe they must control the private lives of individuals. At least the Libertarians have got the social stuff right.... even if their economic policies scare the bejesus out of me. view in original post "free" is not "free" By Gaia - 03/14/2012 - 2:07 pm
to vote
12
When it comes to contraception in this context "free" means "without co-pay." The employee is still paying for the insurance coverage - money is coming out of the employee's pocket in the form of insurance premiums. Many insurance plans give you a yearly exam with no co-pay. That Log in doesn't make it "free." view in original post Oh please. By Gaia - 03/14/2012 - 1:39 pm I'm looking at this page from the site: http://cpusa.org/feeling-locked-out-of-the-american-dream/ (There's no specific page that outlines a platform, like the Republican & Democratic parties do.) This page, and others on the site make it clear that the main goal of the Communist party is to eliminate capitalism and replace it with an economy where all of the key industries are publicly owned. I don't see anything like that anywhere in the Democratic platform. (No, the bailout of the auto manufacturers and temporary ownership of those companies by the government does not count.) Some of the goals of the two parties may be the same: fairness, ending poverty, racism & oppression, improving education and opportunites.... but certainly the democrats are not advocating the wholesale elimination of capitalism. (Republicans want to improve education too. Does that make them democrats?) Log in 0
to vote
to vote
The Democratic position on the conomy is that capitalism is a good thing, just like the republicans believe. However, Democrats want to temper the abuses of an unbridled free market with some government control. SOME control..... not complete control. A true communist would laugh at your insinuation - Democrats are nowhere near what the communist party would like to see in this country. Otherwise, the communists would be democrats, with no need for their own party. view in original post who's changing tenets? By Gaia - 03/13/2012 - 8:17 pm
The Catholic church says Catholics are not allowed to use contraception. Ok, fine. I have no problem with that. If someone chooses to be a Catholic, then the rules apply to them. They don't apply to me. Log in
to vote
This law does not require that Catholics start using contraception. If it did, I would be fully against it. Religious freedom says that Catholics are free to eschew contraception - for themselves. Using contraception, and providing benefits so that someone else who doesn't follow your religion can get contraception are two completely different things. If you still think they are the same thing, you're still not understanding religious freedom. The rules of a particular religion apply ONLY to the followers of that religion, and no one else. view in original post Um... By Gaia - 03/13/2012 - 4:11 pm This amendment EASES the restrictions on chickens. It makes the existing ordinance easier to enforce. And it supports individual freedom. What's the problem? view in original post The full QUOTE By Gaia - 03/13/2012 - 3:21 pm "As long as an employer is providing prescription coverage, they need to follow the rules that are set out for all employers, provide all the benefits required by law, and treat all of their employees equally." This whole hullabaloo is about changing an existing law that requires employers who offer prescription benefits to provide contraception for free. As for hating liberty, I guess it all depends on whose liberty we're talking about, doesn't it? Where's the Republicans' love of liberty when it comes to same sex marriage, reproductive rights, the right to say "happy holidays," medical marijuana, or growing hemp? Personally, I'm totally in love with freedom of religion. Unfortunately, too many people don't understand what that really means. Like the writer says, "your freedom of religion ends where mine begins." It doesn't mean you get to control other people's behavior in the name of religion. That's a theocracy, the total opposite of religious freedom. view in original post So what? By Gaia - 03/12/2012 - 3:22 pm Does it matter what the venue was? Does it matter whether it was a hearing or a press conference? The Limbaugh reaction was still over the top and offensive, regardless of what you call the venue. view in original post agreed. By Gaia - 03/12/2012 - 3:09 pm Just like he has nothing to do with increased prices.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
10
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
view in original post An ounce of prevention By Gaia - 03/12/2012 - 1:44 pm
Covering preventative services with insurance means that the insurance will not have to pay out for quite so many catastrophes. Contraception is far cheaper than preganancy & deliver. Flu shots are cheaper than a flu epidemic. Nutritional counseling is cheaper than diabetes treatment. Perhaps if there were a great correlation between bad wiper blades and expensive car accidents, auto insurance companies would cover wiper blade replacement. view in original post
"Contraception" is being used By Gaia - 03/07/2012 - 12:01 pm "Contraception" is being used as a catch-all term. The primary form of prescription contraception is birth control pills. BCPs have a greater purpose than just contraception. If this law goes into place, employers will have the freedom to deny coverage for any prescription contraception - including diaphragms and BCPs - even when the BCPs are being prescribed for health conditions, rather than contraception. This makes it a health care issue. If I understand your question about the other 50% correctly, then for 100% of the other 50% it's still a Log in health care issue. Think about it this way: If influenza is a health care issue, then a flu shot is health care. to vote Same thing. You're providing a treatment that prevents a particular condition for which health care dollars 7 would be spent. Since you've brought economics into it - don't you think it's more economical to spend a small amount on BCPs and flu shots, than to spend a great deal of money on pregnancy & delivery, and influenza outbreaks? view in original post Yes, it's health care By Gaia - 03/07/2012 - 9:16 am 50% of birth control prescriptions are written for medical conditions that require hormone regulation, rather than for contraception. For the other 50% - If pregnancy is a health care issue, than pregnancy prevention is certainly a health care issue as well. view in original post
Log in to vote
As I understand it By Gaia - 03/06/2012 - 12:20 pm One of the barriers to distributing all that gas within the country is the lack of infrastructure to transport it from the gulf to the east coast. The pipelines are full to capacity, so the east coast still imports gas from other countries, (presumably by ship?) I can imagine that it would be possible to ship gas from the gulf to the east & west coasts by sea, so why don't they do that? The answer's obvious to me - they get a better price selling it abroad. The oil companies are looking out for their bottom lines and satisfying their stockholders. They have no obligation to "do the right thing" for the consumer. This is how free market capitalism works. http://www.npr.org/2012/03/05/147992053/u-s-a-gas-exporter-for-first-tim... view in original post And that's worse than..... ? By Gaia - 03/06/2012 - 11:46 am Oil companies get fed cash, sell oil and gas to foreign markets at great profits, give execs bonuses, and pay out large dividends to stockholders. It's time to stop the tax-payer supported subsidies to those oil companies and use the cash to pay down the debt. Log in
to vote
Log in to vote
10
What, you say? That would drive up gas prices? Yep. Free market capitalism at work. view in original post I never said it was in the By Gaia - 03/05/2012 - 12:06 pm I never said it was in the constitution. I said it ought to be considered a basic right. As in "if I ran the world, this is what I would do." But, since you brought up the constitution - the constitution defines the role, rights, and limitations of government and I agree that there's nothing in there about the government's right to be involved with health care. The Bill of Rights and several additional amendments address the rights of individuals. Theoretically, if the right to basic health care were passed as an amendment, then the government could become involved in carrying out equal access to healthcare, via the "necessary and proper" clause. view in original post In order to assess how Sweden By Gaia - 03/05/2012 - 11:33 am
12
Log in to vote
In order to assess how Sweden is doing with it's socialism, I think you have to look at what citizens get for their 50% income taxes - they get a lot. Most Swedes are enirely content with their standard of living and Log in believe they are getting their money's worth. to vote 2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/nov/16/sweden-tax-burden-welfare As for other countries - that's not what Rabbit asked. He/she was asserting that people in socialist countries don't work, premsumably predicting that socialist programs in this country would lead to rampant unemployment. So I provided unemployment figures that suggest his/her prediction is misguided. I never said I wanted to live in any of those countries. That said, however, Sweden seems like a fine place to live. view in original post The challenge was to look at By Gaia - 03/05/2012 - 11:07 am The challenge was to look at socialist countries and see how they're doing with unemployment. So I did. Now you want to change the terms. Tell me, are there any socialist countries that compare in population to the entire US? view in original post Ok. I'll do that. By Gaia - 03/02/2012 - 3:27 pm I picked one socialist country off the top of my head: Sweden. They currently have an unemployment rate of 7.6%. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&ctype=l&stra... And another for good measure: Venuzuela's unemployment rate is currently 6.5%. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/unemployment-rate Oh heck, one more: Vietnam's unemployment rate was 2.9 last year. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/unemployment-rate view in original post Personally, I'm not looking By Gaia - 03/02/2012 - 12:55 pm Personally, I'm not looking to "move up in class." At about $60K a year, I'm pretty much middle-middle class, and I'm content here and content with my job. However, I am single, so I bear all of my housing costs myself, which makes it a struggle. If I were to lose my job, not only would I probably lose my house, I'd would certainly lose my health insurance. I would then be one illness or accident away from total bankruptcy. One big thing, I think, that would help equalize people in the country and make it easier to exist on a lower income, would be to divorce health insurance from employment. Single payor, universal health insurance, where everyone has good basic preventative health care as well as treatment when sick or injured, regardless of how they are employed, would make a huge difference. People might not have equal incomes, but they will have equal health care, which I think ought to be considered a basic right of all Americans.
view in original post "Income distribution" is a By Gaia - 03/02/2012 - 12:41 pm "Income distribution" is a mathmatical/statistical term, not a philisophical one. Think graphs and scatter plots. It's a description of existing numerical facts, not a judgement or a recommendation. Jeez. You're really grasping at straws when you try to turn the use of a common statistics term into a mark Log in of socialism. to vote 2 view in original post Radical? Over the top? By Gaia - 03/02/2012 - 12:36 pm When did "equality" become a radical concept? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...." view in original post Sounds to me like Cynthia By Gaia - 03/01/2012 - 3:48 pm Sounds to me like Cynthia Nixon is bi-sexual. There is a fluidity in sexual orientation - it's a continuum, not an "either/or." For her, it may well be a choice. But for those who are closer to the "gay" or "straight" end of the continuum, it's not. view in original post Bates said. "Homosexuals have By Gaia - 02/29/2012 - 11:46 am Bates said. "Homosexuals have always had the same privilege and freedom to marry as anyone else, but it's their decision to be with someone else." Tell me, Mr. Bates: do you really think that sexual orientation is a choice? Do you think that you could choose to love and be sexually attracted to another man? Then why do you think that gays are making a choice to be attracted so someone of the Log in same sex? You can't choose your sexual orientation any more than you can choose your gender or your race. view in original post It's all a matter of perspective By Gaia - 02/29/2012 - 11:39 am As the right slides further and further to the right, the centrists appear to be further and further left. If you compare American polictics to the rest of the world, even Log in 5
Log in to vote
to vote
our "liberals" look fairly conservative. view in original post If you're talking about costs... By Gaia - 02/28/2012 - 11:13 am
to vote
From an insurer's point of view, 40 years of prescription birth control for a woman is a less expensive than even one uncomplicated pregnancy, followed by the the the cost of insuring that child through to adulthood. (50 per month * 40 years = $24,000) If you want to keep insurance costs down, cover birth control. view in original post And what about the millions By Gaia - 02/24/2012 - 2:44 pm And what about the millions of non-catholics who say "your rights end where mine begin?" WHY is it ok to let one religion dictate the employment and health benefits that can be extended to people who are NOT members of that religion? Why is that ok? view in original post They already do that. By Gaia - 02/23/2012 - 10:02 am Children are not allowed to enroll in public schools unless they've had their usual childhood immunizations. view in original post and what about the people who already work there? By Gaia - 02/23/2012 - 9:56 am For example, there are all kinds of lower-wage positions in religious organizations,that have nothing at all to do with the teaching or disseminating of the faith. If this law is passed, the non-Catholic married woman who was hired at $9 an hour to be a janitor at the big Catholic church may no longer be able to get reliable birth control. Or worse, may no longer be able to get the BCPs that were prescribed for a medical condition having nothing to do with contraception. Log in
to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote
10
Is that what we want? Should that woman have to change jobs just to get the medical care she needs? You know what? All of this controversy - ALL of it - would go away if our system did not stupidly tie insurance to employment. And it would solve a myriad of other problems too. What might happen if we
addressed the root of the problem rather than the branches? Or the individual leaves? view in original post Once someone replies to your By Gaia - 02/23/2012 - 9:44 am Once someone replies to your post you can no longer edit it. view in original post This brings back memories By Gaia - 02/17/2012 - 2:47 pm I took a number of journalism courses in college. For one course we had a list of different kinds of stories that we needed to find and write during the semester. One of them was a fire. My dad was a volunteer firefighter, so I had no problem finding a fire story - I just had to listen for his pager to go off. Interviewing for and writing the story was far more difficult than I thought it would be. The raw emotions of the homeowner were excruciating to deal with, and the whole time I was thinking "I have no right to intrude at this time." I was doing it for a class assignment, but even if I'd been writing for actual media, it Log in would have been hard to justify the intrusion, just so that others could read about their pain. Now that many years have passed, I can see how, in the right hands, an interview with a journalist could be actually start the healing process. People have to be able to talk about their trauma in order to heal, and a compassionate stranger could be useful in that process. view in original post You want to go the contitutional issue route? By Gaia - 02/17/2012 - 1:32 pm I am lifting, lock stock and barrel, someone else's comment from another story thread: ----------------Constitutional Issue? By cbristol1 - 02/17/2012 - 9:32 am This is posited as a Constitutional issue. Okay, let's go with that. Employment is a secular activity governed by secular law. When churches and religious organizations choose to engage in employment they become bound by those secular laws. For them to impose religious Log in canon over secular law is unconstitutional. Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion. -----------------------Perfectly stated. view in original post 3 1
Log in to vote
to vote
to vote
Do they think the only women By Gaia - 02/17/2012 - 10:10 am Do they think the only women who need birth control are the unmarried ones? Do they think the married women should be practicing abstinance as well? view in original post Itsa - I DO pony up for your dental... By Gaia - 02/16/2012 - 3:05 pm If we have the same dental insurance, then yes, my premiums are paying for your checkups. If we have the same health insurance, my premiums help pay for fixing your bum hip. This is the way insurance works. My question for these male republicans - if sex is a choice, and a moral one at that, then why in heaven's name do insurance companies pay for viagra? How can we be sure that those men who are having sex are having it with their wives? If you're going down this road with women and contraception, why aren't we Log in to vote going down the same road with men and viagra? 2 Why should I have to pay for some guy's "fun?" view in original post revenue vs. expense By Gaia - 02/12/2012 - 2:26 pm 3% of resources are spent on abortion. 37% of revenue comes from abortion. I see no contradictions here. I'm not vetting either of these numbers, but it's clear to me that both can be true at the same time. Just remember what the revenue is spent on. 3% goes to abortion. 97% to other things, including general health care for both women and men. view in original post It's one thing for a Bible By Gaia - 02/04/2012 - 8:24 pm It's one thing for a Bible class to be "available," as you put it. It's quite another for the class to be REQUIRED, which is what this bill does. It is blatantly unconstitutional for the government, through its public schools, to require study of any specific religious text by any students. view in original post
12
One tiny little correction By Gaia - 02/04/2012 - 8:16 pm I don't believe the bill would allow a town clerk (a government official) to refuse a marriage license. But the rest of your points about businesses are spot on. view in original post Soo... By Gaia - 02/04/2012 - 1:58 pm Where do you stand on the International Baccalaureate program in public schools, which purportedly teaches critical thinking? view in original post As far as I'm concerned By Gaia - 02/04/2012 - 1:57 pm As far as I'm concerned, Romney can change his mind about anything he wants - that's his prerogative. I'm not making any accusations about his motives in that area. He says, essentially, that his views have evolved on abortion, and I'm willing to take that at face value. It might be interesting to hear why his beliefs have changed.... but frankly I'm not interested enough to research it. [shrug] Your question about churches not recognizing a civil right is very interesting. The US Supreme Court has recognized marriage as a civil right. Churches perform a religious marriage rite, but a religious marriage, by itself, is not valid under the law. The couple must have a civil marriage license as well. The state offers the convenience of allowing Churches to perform both the religious and civil aspects of a marriage at the same time, but only the civil aspect is required. The religious rite is optional. Log in
to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote
Churches have always had the right to refuse to perform a marriage rite for anyone they deem not entitled 1 to a marriage within their church - for example, non-members of the church or denomination, or people who were previously divorced. It's the civil aspect of the marriage that's a civil right, so a church can continue to refuse to marry anyone, just as it always has. As long as the STATE makes marriage available to all, civil rights are upheld. view in original post [snort]The interesting thing By Gaia - 02/03/2012 - 1:48 pm [snort] The interesting thing is that in many ways I've gotten more liberal as I've gotten older. In my case anyway, experience and the "wisdom of age" have moved me to the left. At this rate, by the time I hit 75, I'll be a full-on socialist. : ) Actually, in all seriousness, it's a different scale that I seem to be making the biggest change on. Picture an Log in to vote x-y axis. The horizontal line runs left to right - socialist to capitalist (in terms of how much control the 1 government should have over the economy). The vertial runs top to bottom - authoritarian to libertarian (in terms of how much control the government should have over people). I'm already firmly in the bottom left square, but moving further toward the libertarian end of the scale every year. But.... for some reason I prefer to be seen as a socialist than as a libertarian.... probably because most of the libertarians this
country is familiar with are also fairly extreme capitalists - the bottom right square of the grid. That's definitely not me. But enough about me. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program. view in original post What I heard By Gaia - 02/03/2012 - 1:29 pm I heard the Governor making broad statements about his beliefs and intentions. Declaring that he will veto anything that takes away someone civil rights is a clear and commanding statement all on its own. It covers a whole range of possible issues, including same sex marriage. Same with collective bargaining. He believes in it, and is stating his position that he will veto any legislation that limits or removes that right. I think it's a good thing when leaders (not just politicians) are clear about their values. When you know that someone values civil rights, you can pretty well predict their response to a whole bunch of different questions. What can you conclude about a person who has to make individual judgements about each civil rights Log in issue, or each collective bargaining issue? It would be hard to understand what that person's values really to vote are, wouldn't it? 3 BTW - as for the shift in his positions on civil unions and same sex marriage - I see this as the natural result of his weighing the issue against his values... and deciding that it really was a civil right issue. We all change our minds about some things as time goes by. I don't know of any 50 year old who still holds the same opinions about everything that he did at 20. Refusal to evolve one's thinking in the face of new evidence and differing perspectives is.... stubborn at best. view in original post What our founding fathers believed By Gaia - 02/03/2012 - 12:44 pm Everyone who asserts that this is a "Christian Nation" really ought to brush up on their history: http://deism.com/deistamerica.htm view in original post I'm 51. Does that make a difference? By Gaia - 02/02/2012 - 4:16 pm The reason your arguments do not hold up is that you can not show a a cause and effect relationship between same-sex marriage and ANY of the societal ills you have listed. How does same sex marriage make any of those things any worse? Gays did not cause the divorce rate to rise. Gays did not cause 70% of black children to have no father in the home. Gays have not caused single mothers to be poor. Same sex marriage won't change any of those things, except perhaps for the better. More mothers might
11
have marriage partners, which might help keep them out of poverty. More black children might have 2 parents in the home. I don't know what the divorce rate, so far, is on same-sex marriages, so I can't comment on that. Sure, parenting quality directly drives the outcome. But again, there is NO evidence that the parenting quality of gays is lower than of heteros, or that the children of gays have worse outcomes. You are making convenient assumptions and pretending that they prove something. And one more time: How, in heaven's name, will banning same sex marriage prevent gays from raising children? Those children will be born, and they will be raised by one or both parents, married or not. So yes, I say "so what?" Unless you make laws that prevent gays from having children, the situation you are trying to prevent cannot be prevented. You're barking up the wrong tree. view in original post Facts not in evidence By Gaia - 02/02/2012 - 1:10 pm You've made a bunch of assertions, claiming them to be facts, when they actually have NOT been proven There is no evidence that children raised by same sex couples have worse outcomes than those raised by hetero couples. And where does it say (other than in anti-marriage propaganda) that the traditional family unit is universallly known as the foundation of civilization? For that matter, what's the traditional family unit? How far back are you going to go? If you go back to old testement times, a family was 1 man, as many women as he could afford to keep, and all of their children. You seem to be re-writing history to conform to an ideal that proves your point.
Log in Even if I accept your assertion that love is not a fundamental reason for marriage... I have to say... So to vote What? All kinds of people raise children, at all levels of competence. It's not the gender and orientation of 14 the parents that make them good parents. Gays are going to continue raising children, with or without the benefit of marriage.
Even if I were to accept that gays are worse parents, I again say, So What? With all of the horrible parenting that goes on with some hetero parents, are you going to say that gay parenting is even worse? How about we require people to pass a parenting test before they get married? See how those two things aren't even connected? view in original post I'm not sure you really understand what ADD is By Gaia - 01/31/2012 - 1:43 pm I'm not saying that everyone who claims to have ADD really has it, and I'm sure that some who have been diagnosed don't actually have it. True ADD is NOT managed by diet and exercise, although they can take the edge off. My middle-class upbringing meant that, while I was in high school I didn't have to work during the school 4 year, only during the summer. Therefore, I had the time that I needed to put into school work, which was a challenge. In my day, they didn't talk about ADHD or ADD, but it certainly existed. I had the benefit of
Log in to vote
parents who were not drastically stressed by financial issues (it was tight, but we got by.) That meant they had the time to put into helping me learn how to get and stay organized. Of course, they didn't know quite what they were dealing with, but their efforts helped me develop some discipline in spite of the ADD. I was able to go to college and, again, only have to work minimally - a few hours a week - so I could put the time into my school work. By the time I had my own child, because of my college education, I was able to focus on helping her and giving her the extra she needed rather than having to put all of my time and energy into housing and feeding her. BTW- eating healthy today is NOT free. It's way more expensive than a junk diet. That's 1 reason obesity is higher among the poor. Not everyone can have a subsistence garden. view in original post Wow, that was pretty condescending By Gaia - 01/31/2012 - 9:32 am I am an adult with moderate ADD. I have a child with moderate ADD and an anxiety disorder. Nether of us is hyperactive. I had perfectly fine parenting, and so has my child. We're both doing ok, but it's a struggle sometimes. I've had the benefit of of a middle class upbringing, which gave me a few more advantanges than a more impoverished family would have had. Did it ever occur to you that in the "dysfunctional" families, perhaps the ADD came first? Undiagnosed and/or untreated ADD could certainly make parenting a challenge. Combine that with the challenges of low income and you've got a double whammy - and a cyclical trap that's hard to get out of. view in original post "Endowed by their creator" By Gaia - 01/30/2012 - 3:48 pm First, remember that God is not mentioned once in the Constitution, except in the date of ratification - "The year of our Lord...." And that was just a cultural convention, not a declaration of any kind of religious influence on the Constitution. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and included the words "endowed by their creator." If you were to read up on Jefferson's religion, you would see that he believed in "nature's God," not necessarily the God of the Bible. In fact, he re-wrote the new testement to strip it of any supernatural elements like miracles and virgin births. The "Creator" in this sense can easily mean "Nature." Besides, he said "men" are endowed with those rights, meaning the entire species. He didn't say "Americans" are endowed with particular rights. I doubt that global thinking would have been an alien or distasteful subject to him. Check out Deism - see what the founding fathers really believed. www.deism.com is one place to start. view in original post No, it's a fact. By Gaia - 01/30/2012 - 11:58 am The only thing mildly in dispute is the cause.
Log in Log in to vote
view in original post I wish I could vote directly By Gaia - 01/30/2012 - 11:51 am I wish I could vote directly for the letter. I'd give it a gold star with no further comment, because it was perfectly said. view in original post Or at least tunnel vision By Gaia - 01/30/2012 - 11:46 am
to vote
Log in to vote
New businesses = new jobs. New jobs. New jobs. Doesn't seem to matter if those new jobs result in the loss of other jobs - moving jobs around and in the meantime driving up costs until some other hospital shuts down its cancer treatment program in order to equalize supply with demand. New jobs does not necessarily = more jobs. Not in the long run, anyway. view in original post Please offer proof By Gaia - 01/27/2012 - 1:10 pm that the IB program is "wasteful." I haven't heard that argument before. It seems to be all about some people being afraid that the program will create independent thinkers. Independent thinkers can be a threat to extremism... so all the more reason to teach it, don't you think? view in original post Yeah, this makes a lot of sense By Gaia - 01/27/2012 - 12:58 pm Take a woman on TANF, impede her ability to get contraception (or abortions) by de-funding Planned Parenthood, then punish her if she has another child. Then blame her if the lack of resources results in her staying on assistance longer than it might otherwise have taken to get back on her feet. If one were paranoid, one might think Rep. Kurk has control issues when it comes to women and their sexuality. He's already said it's not the money, it's "the principle" of the thing. view in original post Where's your intellectual honesty? By Gaia - 01/27/2012 - 10:20 am Can you say, with a straight face, that two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the housing crash resulting from lack of regulation (from the clinton era) were NOT the root causes of our enormous deficit and current crappy economy? Can you honestly ignore the fact that a huge portion of Obama's "spending" has been to service the debt
Log in to vote
10
Log in to vote
that was incurred under the previous administration? Can you honestly say that a republican president would have this "all fixed up" by now?" And could he have done it in the face of a divided congress, in which half the members made it their stated mission to make him a one term president? There is NO black and white here. (I'm not talking race, please.) You hollar about the truth, people on the other side hollar about a different truth. The real truth is in the middle, deeply in the land of gray. Blaming gets us nowhere. We all need to recognize that there were a lot of contributing factors. The solution will require a two prong approach - raise revenue AND cut spending. Partisanship just delays action, and allows the situation to get worse and worse. view in original post If you want to stick to hyperbole By Gaia - 01/27/2012 - 9:53 am then conservatives only have one answer to every problem - cut taxes AND cut spending. There IS a middle ground that many of us occupy, yet no one talks about it. Raise taxes AND cut spending. I'm a flaming liberal (socially), yet I am in this middle-ground camp economically. view in original post You missed the other half of the equation By Gaia - 01/25/2012 - 5:00 pm The incentive for those same businesses to bring their jobs home. They may lose one tax break, but they gain another if they provide those same jobs at home. Do you oppose the concept of creating jobs at home, rather than outsourcing them? view in original post Correct me if I'm wrong By Gaia - 01/25/2012 - 4:50 pm As a business owner, I am currently allowed to say to any customer: "I'm sorry but I'm not able to meet your needs at this time. I can suggest that you contact xxxx, as he/she may be in a better position than I to provide the goods/services that you require." I have said this to people when I literally did not have the resources to take on a new customer. I've also said it when I didn't particularly want to deal with that potential customer because they seemed like they could be a big ol' PITA. As a business owner, I cannot be forced to provide services to anyone. It's my choice. However, as a matter of self-protection, I should not tell one person that I can't meet their needs, then tell the next person in line that I CAN meet their needs. That kind of statement will raise eyebrows and questions, and lead to messy discussions. This bill is asking for the ability to directly tell someone that you don't want to provide them services
because they are gay, and to be excused from any natural fallout from that statement. "Codifying discrimination" is exactly the right description. view in original post At the very least, it's censorship. By Gaia - 01/24/2012 - 2:51 pm Telling a rep that they are not allowed to speak about a particular topic on the floor is not appropriate either. I don't care if it does hold up things a bit. Reps have the right to voice their opinions and stifling that right is censorship. And no, it doesn't matter who does it. Wrong is wrong, regardless of the letter in the parentheses after their name. view in original post deleted By Gaia - 01/24/2012 - 2:05 pm n/t view in original post deleted By Gaia - 01/24/2012 - 2:04 pm n/t view in original post 70% are against it today By Gaia - 01/24/2012 - 12:09 pm That doesn't mean that there will always be 70% against it in the future. Only a fool paints himself into a corner by taking future options completely off the Log in table. view in original post No. By Gaia - 01/23/2012 - 10:57 pm "proof" is for the courtroom. You only need probable cause to arrest someone. If you needed proof before arresting, there would be no need for a trial. view in original post Do you hear yourself? By Gaia - 01/21/2012 - 9:25 pm "no conservative would champion .... people trying to get as much as they can for as little effort as they
Log in to vote
to vote
can expend." Yet you are certainly championing the idea of non-union members getting the benefits that union members have paid for, without paying for them themselves. You decry public employees getting a "free ride," yet you think it's ok for non-union members to get one at the expense of union members. view in original post Itsa By Gaia - 01/21/2012 - 12:09 pm No public employees are forced to join a union. No public employees are forced to pay union dues. Agency fees are not union dues. Fee payers are not union members. They are paying for a service that has been provided to them, and from which they benefit. Why should they get the service for free? Haven't I heard you rail against people who expect to get the benefits of someone else's work, without doing the work themselves, or paying for it themselves? Agency fees are the anti-socialism, I should think. No free rides here. view in original post Your last paragraph reminds By Gaia - 01/21/2012 - 12:05 pm Your last paragraph reminds me of all the accusations of "class envy" leveled against "the 99%." You resent paying for the health insurance of public employees. Who do you think is going to pay for it? They're public employees. The employer, the public, pays for their wages and benefits.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Did you forget that public employees are also tax payers? They are paying the same freight you are. And every time they make a purchase of privately produced product or services, they are paying, in part, for the wages and benefits of the company's employees. Public services are a product, consumed by the public. There's no way to get around that. As long as the services are going to be provided, they have to be funded by those consumers, just as you pay for products you consume from Walmart or your lawyer, or your Log in doctor. to vote 2 "... don't realize the same benefits...." Hmmmm. Kinda like I don't realize the same benefits as people who are wealthier than I am... even though I pay a higher rate on my income taxes than many of them do..... I sometimes resent that too. But when I say so I'm accused of class envy, or feeling entitled to things that others have worked for. view in original post Hmmmm. By Gaia - 01/21/2012 - 11:54 am You say the democratic party says we can't think for ourselves.
Log in
I say the republican party says we're not allowed to think for ourselves. I say the democratic party recognizes that some people will be unable to fend for themselves and their children in this world, and will need help. The democratic party believes it is the duty of government to assist those people. They are not willing to sacrifice the truly needy just because there ARE some who take advantage of the system. I say the republican party thinks those people who aren't able to fend for themselves are simply lazy or envious, and they (and their children) get what they deserve. And further, they believe it is the duty of government to limit people's choices in certain areas, to avoid some theoretical societal collapse or divine retribution that might occur if people are allowed to make their own choices. I says the democratic party believes in protecting the little guy (and the environment) from the big guy, because the big guy will often run roughshod over the little guy and the environment. The republican party believes that all's fair in capitalism. The little guy isn't working as hard as the big guy, and gets what he deserves. And the environment? If it gets in the way of profits, it's expendable. Besides, it's all a big liberal scare tactic anyway. [/rant] view in original post Lest you forget By Gaia - 01/21/2012 - 11:31 am State & municipal employees last year took a 2% across the board CUT in their take home wages, in order to spare taxpayers the cost of part of the cities' & towns' portion of retirement. Payments the cities and towns were supposed to have been making over the past couple decades, but refused. The employees are now bearing that cost. a 2% pay cut is not small potatoes.
to vote
13
This was on top of a wage freeze that's now in it's 4th year, and will continue into through 2013. This was negotiated in the state employees' collective bargaining agreement. The employees agreed to this. They also made concessions that increased copays and premiums in their health insurance. But, they also found Log in to vote ways to save costs behind the scenes as well, to lower the cost of health care for state employees. And we 1 understood the 200 or so layoffs last year. They had to be done in order to save the state money. Please don't say that we have not shared in the sacrifice. view in original post I can assure you By Gaia - 01/21/2012 - 12:20 am that I have regular performance reviews and regular supervision where the quality and quantity of my work is assessed. If I didn't do my job, if I didn't meet deadlines, or if the quality of my work was inadequate, I would be fired. I have seen coworkers fired for poor performance. No one in the public sector can take their jobs for granted. If they do, they're stupid. And will probably eventually screw up and Log in be fired. to vote 1 view in original post
I have never used those terms By Gaia - 01/20/2012 - 11:36 pm to describe anyone. Except for actual terrorists and hostage takers. And, thank you, I use the term tea partier or "member of the tea party," not the other one. If I actually saw someone describe a member of the republican party as a terrorist, I would probably take them to task on it. Hostage-taker is a gray area. You can legitimately hold a non-human hostage, e.g. holding health benefits hostage in return for concessions on pay. I'd have to see it in context before objecting. view in original post Bully it is. By Gaia - 01/20/2012 - 11:29 pm Bully is a better description of what you are accusing union members of. I don't happen to agree with your accusations though. One person's assertiveness is another person's bullying, I think. It's a matter of perspective. view in original post There are certainly many perspectives By Gaia - 01/19/2012 - 6:57 pm To add to the conversation... from my perspective, those liberals who want a big safety net are attempting to protect people - sometimes from themselves, sometimes from others. It's also about opening up opportunities and promoting free choice. They are generally social libertarians, but not economic libertarians. Also from my perspective, when it comes to social issues, the conservative view is often about restricting opportunity and choice. The complete opposite of the liberal approach. Cons are economic libertarians, but not social libertarians. There are difficult gray areas. Generally, if an issue requires a choice between liberty and protection, I think libs lean toward protection at the expense of liberty. Cons go the other direction. Gun ownership is Log in good example. Interestingly, both parties' reps fell on the protection side when it came to the Patriot Act. to vote 1 When promoting a civil liberty/opportunity requires that someone pay the bill, libs will lean toward promoting the liberty/opportunity and having the government pay for it. Cons go the other direction. With a social issue that has no significant economic cost, libs will usually choose freedom of choice for all, and cons will measure it against a subjective moral code. They will favor that moral code over free choice, possibly to guard society against a feared social collapse - a fear that libs don't share. view in original post Rabbitt By Gaia - 01/19/2012 - 4:16 pm I said nothing in favor of continuing people's dependency on the government. Nothing at all.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
I said the concept of equal opportunity is a myth. Nothing you've said here contradicts that. When you are so poor that you can go to school free, you're pretty damned poor. And you still have to get in to the school - which means you have to have had a good HS performance, both academic and extra-curricular. I don't know why you conclude that I want to continue down the govt. welfare path. I didn't mention welfare at all. I've come to a conclusion. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are two sides of the same controlling coin. Conservatives seem to want to control the populace by dictating their version of morality, with a whole list of "thou shalt not's" about marriage, contraception, abortion, etc. And recently "thou shalt not examine the growing gulf between the haves and the have nots." Liberals have a different control approach - trying to control people's finances through taxation, regulation, etc. Unfortunately many of the government programs created to "give people a leg up" financially have also had the effect of keeping some people dependent. Which can be a form of control. The question is, are liberals actively trying to use that control, in the same way that conservatives are trying to exercise their form of control? Maybe some are. I don't know. view in original post cause and effect are always slippery By Gaia - 01/19/2012 - 2:19 pm I'm not saying higher taxes caused a great economy. I'm saying higher taxes did not hurt the economy. I'm saying that as taxes have fallen, the economy has gotten worse. Has there been any period in the past 100 years where the economy got worse when taxes were raised? Has there been any period in the past 100 years when the economy actually got (and stayed) better when taxes were lowered? Those who say that higher taxes will hurt the economy clearly are not using history as a guide. If they were, they'd be singing a different tune. view in original post Seriously? By Gaia - 01/19/2012 - 2:04 pm Are you going to tell me that a female child from an impoverished family, attending a school in a poor town where only the bare minimum is spent on education, and who does not have access to adequate health care and contraception, and must work full time in order to pay for a college education is on a level field with the male child of wealthy parents who can send him to private school then on to medical or law school without ever having to work? The concept of "equal opportunity" in this country is a myth. We are headed toward a two-class system - the ruling wealthy, and the peasants. How did we get out of that two-class system in the past? First with industrialism (home-grown), then through public education (socialism!), women's suffrage, racial integration in schools, and union activism that solidified decent wages and conditions for all those workers who moved from self employment on farms into
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
employment by others in industry and business. Job outsourcing, cutting of or uneven application of educational funding, control of women through control of contraception and abortion, and erosion of worker rights through attacks on unions will all have an effect on reversing those middleclass gains. view in original post Definition of thug By Gaia - 01/19/2012 - 12:49 pm Look it up for yourself if you'd like. thug /g/ [thuhg] noun 1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India Log in to vote who strangled their victims. 6 Using this term to describe union members is simply over the top, and frankly offensive. view in original post That's the way it is now. By Gaia - 01/19/2012 - 12:45 pm Only union members pay dues. view in original post Sail - he's right By Gaia - 01/18/2012 - 4:35 pm It's right in the first paragraph. http://www.wisconsingrandsonsofliberty.com/Mission.html view in original post I agree. This worries me. By Gaia - 01/18/2012 - 1:14 pm Yes, for the short term, I enjoy getting an extra 2% in my paycheck... but at what price? Ideally, we find the right mix of increased revenue and decreased spending that will balance our budget and begin to fill in the debt hole. Borrowing from SS is not a long term solution. I don't think it should even be done for one more year. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that reducing taxes does NOT significantly stimulate the economy. Continuing to do the same ineffective thing over and over is one definition of insanity.
Our economy rocked when taxes were a whole lot higher. We need to stop listening to "the sky is falling" and raise the damn taxes. On everyone, if necessary. The sky has already fallen, but not for the reasons people scream about. The mantra of "increased taxes kill jobs" is patently false, I think. If you look at the history of tax rates and the health of the economy, it would appear to be exacly the opposite: Decreased taxes kills jobs because then the government doesn't have the money it needs to do things like fight wars, and goes into great debt. Then, without the proper revenue, it can't pay off the debt. People complain about overspending on social entitlements, without one word on how spending on the wars has affected our economy. view in original post I don't know about God's definition... By Gaia - 01/17/2012 - 11:46 am But the Biblical definition is one man and as many women as he could afford. But that's beside the point. This is not a theocracy. We are not allowed to pass laws in this country when their only basis is someone's interpretation of what their god wants. And the second thing that's missed here, is the fact that no one, gay or straight, is required to be married before bearing or raising children.
Log in to vote
Banning same sex marriage will make absolutely no difference in whether and how same sex couples 7 choose to raise children. It's time to drop that argument, since it's completely irrelevant to the subject and only serves to distract people from the true issue - that of equality for all citizens. view in original post Wow. I agree with Sail By Gaia - 01/17/2012 - 11:25 am At least with the "taxing is to raise money to fund govt" part. "Make it more expensive" is the lazy way to get people to change their behavior. Why should we change behavior? Because all this obesity costs us, as a society, and as taxpayers, a great deal of money.
Log in
So, if we were to tax soda, I would say the purpose should be to better fund our medical system in order to to vote respond to obesity. 5 view in original post That would be great By Gaia - 01/13/2012 - 7:05 pm if we were a referendum state. But we're not, so the challenge is moot. view in original post
Log in to vote
"Defense?" By Gaia - 01/13/2012 - 4:56 pm I'm not defending anything here. I freely admit that if someone wants to commit voter fraud, there are ways to do it. What I'm trying to say is that this little bit of video "journalism" proves none of the things that people think it proves. It does not prove that voter fraud, widespread or not, is happening in this state. It only suggests that it COULD happen in this manner. Before you craft a solution to a problem, you need to demonstrate that there's an actual problem. Not that Log in there COULD be a problem. to vote 1 I think it's possible that the LOB has been invaded by very sneaky feral cats that could be stealing the Democrats' donuts. I let a cat loose in the LOB and it sniffed Sylvia Larson's donuts, (although I stopped it before it could actually eat the donut). Does that mean we should buy have-a-heart traps and bait them with donuts? No, not until someone proves the donut-stealing feral cats actually exist. And that the benefit of trapping a cat or two outweighs the cost of doing so. view in original post Misplaced comment By Gaia - 01/13/2012 - 4:53 pm nt view in original post That's not what people are objecting to By Gaia - 01/13/2012 - 4:45 pm If someone actually has an ID, I don't think they would object to showing it. There are other issues: Some people don't have IDs. They do cost money to get. Who will be required to pay for the ID? If it's the individual, does that not become a "poll tax?" And if the town has to pay, it's a taxpayer expense. The cost of implementing the various proposed laws has not been fully explored. What will it cost the towns to jump through the various hoops? And is the cost worth the benefit, when you take into consideration that "impersonation" has been shown to be an almost negligible form of voter fraud. Again, I say.... how big is this problem in NH? Can anyone say? Nope, they can't. view in original post sooo.... By Gaia - 01/12/2012 - 3:19 pm If that's the case, why don't we change the marriage laws for heterosexuals? Must Log in be able to prove that there's a reason other than love for them to get married? 2
Log in to vote
to vote
What do you think the modern marraige SHOULD be based on? view in original post Ok, I'll dial it back to "simmer" By Gaia - 01/12/2012 - 3:09 pm You're right - you didn't say the EPA and Unions should be eliminated. I stand corrected. I've been mulling over Earthling's suggestions about how to improve the economy, and more and more I'm thinking he's on the right track. Regulations are necessary to protect our future. However, if businesses could get out from under the burden of providing health care, they could lower the cost of their product enough to start competing with overseas markets and bring many of those outsourced jobs home. They might be able to lower their costs AND provide Log in to vote a modest pay increase to their employees to offset the increased income taxes that 2 would be required to pay for their healthcare.... The same old "lower taxes, less regulation" mantra has not improved our lot over the past decade. Why should it be any different now? We're barking up the wrong tree, I think. view in original post No, it didn't By Gaia - 01/12/2012 - 2:55 pm The film did not prove they were able to vote without an ID. It does not show them voting. It only suggests they were able to have a ballot handed to them. Who knows what happened when the cameras were off? And who knows what happened that was edited out? That's the whole point of my reserving judgement. It may very well be that everything that people "think" happened really did happen. But way too many people are willing to take incomplete and unverified "evidence" as proof of an entire pudding. Or they're willing to use that "proof" to bolster their own opinions, even if it's not yet proven. That's even worse, IMO, because it tells me they think I'm a gullible idiot. view in original post I'm waiting until all the info is in By Gaia - 01/12/2012 - 12:09 pm before making a judgment. The video does not show the impersonators actually voting. We don't know whether they chose not to vote, or if they were stopped in some other way from voting. I suspect they did not actually vote, since doing so would be a felony and they would have delivered the proof on tape.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Just because something is easy to do doesn't mean that there are bunches of people actually doing it. The fact that someone who wants to make a point was able to get a clerk to hand them a ballot... does not prove that others are risking felony charges by getting a ballot and actually voting. Would you take the chance that the clerk would recognize you're not the person you say you are, just to sway an election? Would you take the chance of paying people off to vote twice, since those who would take the payoff would probably also point the finger directly at you if caught? view in original post We have the cleanest water and air now... By Gaia - 01/12/2012 - 11:48 am We have the cleanest water and air now than we ever have.... Because of those regulations that force polluters to either clean up or shut down. Saying that we don't need EPA regulations because we've got clean air and water is like saying we don't need unions because we've got worker's rights. Clean air and water, and worker's rights did not appear out of nowhere, and they're not going to magically continue without the regulations and unions that created them in the first place. Let's see. We don't need police because the crime rate is lower now than ever. We don't need contraception because the birth rate is lower than ever. We don't need stores because there's more stuff in our homes than ever. .... you get the idea, right? view in original post What if... By Gaia - 01/12/2012 - 11:06 am What if we took in 3 trillion and spent 3 trillion. Would that work? view in original post Taxes are lower now By Gaia - 01/12/2012 - 11:04 am Taxes are lower now than they were 10 years ago. 10 years ago unemployment was very very low. How is it that today's lower taxes are "job killers," while the higher taxes of 10 years ago were not? That dog just don't hunt no more. view in original post
conflation By Gaia - 01/09/2012 - 11:54 am It drives me bonkers that people continue to equate HCR to "government run health care." Health care and health insurance are two different industries. Nothing in HCR, as far as I can see, makes the government responsible for your actual health care. It's like saying you're going to have someone from the Insurance Commission taking your vitals when you Log in go for an office visit. to vote 3 The government is not going to "manage your health care." view in original post The "liberal-conservative" By Gaia - 01/09/2012 - 11:26 am The "liberal-conservative" scale is insufficient to describe today's politics. There are at least 2 additional scales - one for economic views, and one for social views. The economic scale runs from socialist to capitalist. The social scale runs from authoritarian to libertarian. Think about it as a grid, with the economic scale running horizonally ( socialism on the left, capitalism on the right). The social scale is vertical - authoritarian at the top, libertarian at the bottom. Most of today's "conservatives" are in the upper right. They are capitalists who believe the government should control the people, with regard to things like abortion, marriage, etc. The "self responsibility" part is all about their economic beliefs. If you want to extend "self-responsibility" to the social scale, you drop down into the libertarian half of the 1 grid. That's where Ron Paul sits. A capitalist who believes that government should NOT control social issues. I don't know enough about Huntsman to plot him on this graph, but I suspect he's up there in the top right, just maybe close to the center of one or both scales. "Liberals" tend to cluster in or toward the bottom left of the graph, depending on their degree of socialist and libertarian beliefs. This is why Paul can appeal on some level to "both sides. - the libertarians and the capitalists, but is not ideal for eithter. view in original post I understand everything you're saying By Gaia - 01/09/2012 - 11:01 am And don't disagree. My main point (which I guess I failed to make) was that I can't see how the State would benefit financially Log in to vote from this law. It seems to me it would create expenses rather than eliminate them. 1
Log in to vote
I don't believe this is being done as a "workers rights" measure. It's not about an individual's right to choose - there's something more going on here. My best guess is that it's a stepping stone to eliminating unions (or their influence) entirely. If there were no state employees union, the state could, theoretically get away with saving money on wages and benefits. Of course, it would have to deal with the concept of "you get what you pay for." Sometimes cheaper is not less expensive. It's just cheaper. view in original post That's refreshing to hear By Gaia - 01/06/2012 - 2:18 pm However, I don't think I've ever read anything in this forum or in the papers, or heard any Republican give any blame for anything to Bush. If they believe it, they're sure keeping quiet about it. Incidentally, you've said two things here - Bush can be blamed for some stuff, but it's a cop-out for Obama to actually place that blame. view in original post I was a female college student By Gaia - 01/06/2012 - 1:58 pm on a campus that had a string of sexual assaults. I remember one big thing from that time period. We had the local cops giving us self-defense tips. Someone asked about carrying weapons. The cop said "just remember... any weapon you carry can be turned against you." In other words, if someone is close enough to you to sexually assaut you, they can take away a gun, a knife, a can of mace, a baseball bat, brass knuckles, and anything else you're carrying. You could then find yourslef raped AND shot, stabbed, maced, or beaten. He recommended 2 defensive weapons - a strong flashlight, and something that makes a lot of noise, like a whistle or an air horn. That advice still makes sense to me today. view in original post Society in general benefits By Gaia - 01/06/2012 - 1:44 pm Society in general benefits from a well-educated citizenry. That's why we have a public education system. (Not going to get into a debate here about the quality of that system, and where the faults for the deficits lie.) Just suffice to say that the idea is that everyone benefits when all children can be educated to a certain standard. Then, if they are financially able, those with the standard education have the foundation to go on for more advanced education. Businesses are some of the first to benefit from the public education system. Log in (Again, not going to debate the quality, but imagine if the only children who got a to vote basic education were those who's parents could afford to pay for it? Where would 4 you get the workforce to run anything that requires a good basic education, or worse, an advanced education?) Building on that.... The reason we have a comfortable society is because those businesses can hire people who've been educated to a certain standard, those employees can earn a decent living, and then they can turn around and buy more
Log in to vote
product, produced by those business. Compare our situation, with our socialized education, to something like.... feudal Europe. Or today's third-world countries. You do benefit. And by the way, have you ever driven on a freshly paved or plowed highway? Just sayin'. Your tax dollars at work. : ) view in original post Excellent point By Gaia - 01/06/2012 - 1:30 pm Those who are pro-business ought to be in favor of unburdening business of that cost. view in original post As I understand the proposal By Gaia - 01/06/2012 - 1:19 pm A state employee who does not want to be a member of the union or pay a fee as a non-member would not be subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Collective bargaining agreements have some very good benefits for both employee and employer. One of the benefits for employer is that they don't have to inidvidually negotiate salary and benefits with each employee (saves time and money), and they don't have to tailor their computer system to accomodate different rules fro different employees. Everyone gets treated the same. (And how do you apply negotiated safety standards to some and not all employes, for example?) For the state, someone (the commissioners? the governor?) would have to decide whether they would allow individuals to negotiate their own benefits. The likely result, with resources strapped due to economics, would be that they would say no. (Time = money. Time spent by managers/directors negotiating individual employment conditions, and time & money spent updating computer systems to accomodate them.) The end result would be a return to pre-agency-fee days. Some employees would join the union and pay dues, and the resulting contract (which they alone paid for) would apply to everyone. The majority would get the benefits without having contributed to the negotiations. view in original post Sooo.... By Gaia - 01/06/2012 - 12:44 pm Is there anything about today's situation that Bush should get the blame for? Anything? Anything at all? view in original post Comment blocked by moderator Policy Violation
The post violates the Discussion Guidelines. degenerates this thread even further The parable of the ham By Gaia - 01/04/2012 - 12:08 pm A young couple was preparing a ham dinner. The wife cut both off both ends of the ham before putting it in the pan. The husband asked why she did that. "I don't know," the wife responded. "It's the way my mother always did it." Full of curiosity, she called her mother and asked her why she cut off the ends of the ham. "I don't know," the mother answered. "It's the way my mother always did it." Undaunted, the young woman called her grandmother and asked the same question. The grandmother snorted in amusement and replied "because I never had a pan big enough to hold the whole thing." "Because it's always been done that way" is, quite frankly, the lamest and weakest reason for continuing a behavior. At best it is lazy and demonstrates a profound lack of imagination. At worst, it is an insidious Log in excuse to continue a behavior that, from all other perspectives, has outlived its usefulness to society. to vote 4 Who has been injured by the legalization of same-sex marriage? Anyone? Bueller? (Injured, and "offended" are not the same thing) More importantly, who benefits from denying same-sex marriage, and why? At the end of the day.... perhaps when we eliminate second class citizenship for gays, there are some people who keenly feel the shift. If there are no second class citizens, then, in comparison, there are no first-class citizens either. view in original post Neither are they polar opposites By Gaia - 01/04/2012 - 11:10 am My common sense is just fine, thank you. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I lack common sense, good judgement or Yankeeness. If we're going to get into a peeing match about lineage, I win. 1625 in Massachusetts. 1637 in Dover. Lots Log in of branches going back to the 1640's. Now, can we return to the grownup world? view in original post Just asking... By Gaia - 01/03/2012 - 1:54 pm Do we know that McCabe or others from within the department actually applied? view in original post
Log in to vote
to vote
As I see it By Gaia - 01/03/2012 - 1:00 pm Paul is not a traditional conservative. There are those who believe in government regulation and control of the people (the "authoritarians) and those who believe in less government control and regulation (the libertarians). There are two different definitions of "big government" - government that has a lot of control and regulation, and government that provides a lot of services. They're really two different things. People who want the government to provide a lot of services are generally called socialists. Those who want the government to provide less services, and businesses to take up the slack are capitalists. So, you can have an authoritarian capitalist - which is what most of the republican candidates are, and are Log in "traditional conservatives". Or you can have a libertarian capitalist - which is Ron Paul. to vote 1 Picture an x/y graph. Left to right is the Socialist/Conservative continuum. Top to bottom is the Authoritarian/Libertarian continuum. Most of today's politicians (including democrats/progressives) are in the upper right - the capitalist authoritarians. The democrats are in there too, but they're closer to the center of the graph. Ron Paul is in the bottom right. The bottom left is the libertarian socialists (the "Green Party" for example), and in the upper left are the authoritarian socialists - like Stalin and Pol Pot. view in original post From another old time yankee By Gaia - 01/03/2012 - 12:36 pm Itsa has a problem with stereotyping. He/she has very specific ideas about what Democrats are, what Republicans are, and what "Yankees" are. He/she cannot seem to understand that each of those categories includes a broad range of backgrounds, beliefs and behaviors. He/She also can't seem to believe that people exist outside of those stereotypes. For instance, he/she can't wrap his/her head around the fact that I am a proud Yankee, yet I'm also a progresive, and I don't fall into his stereotype of progressive. All he/she Log in to vote sees is a cartoon figure, not the humans behind the label. 1 view in original post Huh? By Gaia - 01/03/2012 - 12:09 pm And what does this have to do with the editorial? Is this a misplaced response or spam? view in original post "Same-sex couples don't do as good a job raising children" By Gaia - 01/03/2012 - 12:01 pm Excellent editorial, but you forgot one very obvious thing. Denying gays the right to marry will not prevent them from having children. Gays have been bearing and raising children since the dawn of time, without the benefit of same-sex marriage. The inability to marry the person they love has never stopped them from having children in the past, and it
Log in to vote
won't stop them in the future. This makes it a completely pointless argument. view in original post Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't By Gaia - 01/03/2012 - 9:33 am Having a " finger in the air" is just another way of saying he's listening to what the populace wants, right? So according to you, if he listens to the populace, he's a pansy. But I'm sure that if he went against the populace (or against what you personally want) he'd earn some other derroguatory title. "Governor" is not a synonym for "dictator." That fact that he listens to what the citizens want is a good Log in thing. And the fact that he doesn't give in to mob rule on moral issues is another to vote good thing. 0 view in original post Since when does NH state By Gaia - 12/30/2011 - 2:37 pm Since when does NH state government qualify as "Big Government?" It's nearly the leanest state government in the country. Maybe a bigger government might have had the manpower to foresee and avert the tragedy. Log in
to vote
[tweak!] view in original post interesting By Gaia - 12/30/2011 - 1:40 pm
Like they say, when the only tool you have (or can imagine) is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. view in original post I still see nothing in the By Gaia - 12/29/2011 - 2:36 pm I still see nothing in the article that says the union is against the training, or against the mandate. I think you are assuming facts not in evidence, and basing your outrage on that assumption. Given the opportunity, the union might very well have the reaction you want - and be happy to include it in their contract, which is binding on employees as well as the employer. view in original post What a powerful man By Gaia - 12/29/2011 - 2:31 pm Did you forget that Obama didn't take office until January 2009? What an amazing affect he had, simply by running for president. If there had been an eclipse the day after the election, would you have credited
Obama? That 4x increase was on Bush's watch. But by that time, the economy had become a runaway train. I think numbers are slippery things. I won't deny that many have dropped out of the workforce. But please remember that we've been using that formula for decades - it's not an Obama invention. Previous presidents would have benefited from the formula as well. Besides, how do you accurately count people who would like to be working, but are not? And how many of those 310,000 are retirees? I would be happy to find a set of numbers that no one can criticize. I'm not sure we can ever get a report that everyone will have confidence in. If you find it, let me know. view in original post Rabbit By Gaia - 12/29/2011 - 2:07 pm What is it about this president that has you immediately blaming his policies rather than looking at the big picture and considering other possibilities? Im not naive. I know that nobody is perfect, including President Obama. I dont agree with everything hes done, or not done. But that's another discussion. When I jump to the Presidents defense, its usually because Im trying to counteract the black-and-white, perfectionist, and immediate-gratification thinking that I see so prevalent on this forum. Im trying to get people to look at the big picture and consider that it might not be that the policies are wrong it might be that problem is too big for any one person, democrat or republican, to fix in 3 years.
Log in to vote
If McCain had won. and if we were yet in this very same position. would you be looking first at Log in McCains policies and saying he was a failure, or would you be willing to consider that it might just take a to vote little longer to dig our way out of this hole, regardless of the approach taken? I think I can honestly say 2 that I would give the man the benefit of the doubt. I know, its hypothetical. We can never know how things might have been under McCain/Palin. Im just wishing for people to have reasonable expectations, rather than simply flaming the fires of partisanship. A total turnaround of the economy in 3 years is not a reasonable expectation. view in original post Because this is still a chauvanist society By Gaia - 12/29/2011 - 1:39 pm Despite women's suffrage and all the piecemeal laws that have been passed to provide "equality" for women, they still lag behind. They are still discriminated against and controlled in subtle ways that cannot be legislated away. Ignoring women in selective service is just another symptom of a society that cannot bring itself to truly treat women the same way it treats men. In this way, we are very much like some Islamic and very conservative Jewish societies that claim to be "protecting" women by denying them Log in equal rights. Protection is a particularly insidious way of controlling an entire segment of the population. view in original post 2
to vote
cause and effect? By Gaia - 12/28/2011 - 9:58 am Yes, the unemployment rate skyrocketed - but it was already on it's way up when Obama took office. He had to get behind the wheel of an out-of-control 18-wheeler. You can't expect that he was going to be able to hit the brakes and cause an instant reversal of that trend. The more important thing to look at is the fact that unemployment peaked 9 months later, and has been trending downward ever since. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-politics-of-the-une... view in original post My read here By Gaia - 12/28/2011 - 9:11 am is that the employees are not objecting to learning or staying certified in the technique - they're already doing it as a pilot program. My understanding is that the union believes that the requirement ought to be part of the upcoming contract, that it be negotiated in good faith. I see nothing here that says the union would vote it down if it were negotiated as part of the contract. A contract outlines the expectations of an employee. If this is an expectation, why shouldn't it be in the contract? view in original post No, you don't need a Kindle By Gaia - 12/19/2011 - 3:27 pm No, you don't need a Kindle reader (Fire, or otherwise) to access Kindle content. However, once you have a Kindle, your options for obtaining content are fairly limited. You can get it through the Kindle store on Amazon, you can access some large collections of free, public license books, or you can borrow from some libraries. With the libraries, the same borrowing rules apply - only one person at a time can check out each title, and it's due back after a specific period of time. So Amazon gets the best of both worlds - they allow people without Kindle readers to buy Kindle content, 0 and they pretty much lock you if you do have a Kindle. view in original post Other towns have them By Gaia - 12/19/2011 - 2:49 pm I'm thinking about other towns that have roundabouts at "major intersections" and they seem to work fine - Keene, Milford, and Dover come to mind. I don't drive through those towns often, but when I do, I don't have any problems with the roundabouts. Log in
view in original post
I keep wondering how putting By Gaia - 12/19/2011 - 10:35 am I keep wondering how putting all of those people in those departments out of work will help the economy? view in original post "No corporation or small By Gaia - 12/15/2011 - 9:56 am "No corporation or small business will hire anyone, nor will any new business start up, unless and until there is a demand for that particular product or service. No one will make a product or perform a service for which there is no demand. Also, unless there is ability to pay for that product or service, it will not be produced." I just had to repeat this very basic fact. And I will add that all the tax cuts in the world for the "job creators" will not change that basic fact. Personally, I think that extending payroll tax cuts ad infinitum is a baaaaddd idea. I understand that it was an easier thing to get through the congress, and a shortcut to what really needs to happen:
We need to raise the top income tax bracket by a couple percentage points. (No to vote 8 one will die - see above basic facts.) We need to raise the capital gains tax on those whose income is over.... say.... $5M a year? (I can't tell you the exact amount, because I don't have the proper calculators and facts in front of me. ) We need to lower the middle and lower INCOME tax brackets by whatever amount is freed up by raising the top bracket. That's a sustainable way to free up the cash people need to get the economy moving again. The middle class are the job creators. When they can spend, companies will hire. view in original post OMG By Gaia - 12/15/2011 - 9:40 am I reserve that term for moments when I truly can't find any other words. OMG. All of you - you all seem to be in some kind of hysterical frenzy with just one goal in mind. You've identified the President as the source of all evil in the country, and that "everything will be fine if he's gone." This kind of mentality is almost never true. The fault never lies with just one person, or one situation (like retail theft). If you've ever read anything about Systems Theory you would recognize this. Bruce - Yes - that $112 a month could go to credit cards and mortgages. Why
Log in to vote
would that be bad? Wouldn't you rather people be able to stay in their houses than to be foreclosed? Isn't the tide of foreclosures one of the big problems in this country? If they pay off their credit cards, then maybe they can put some money in the bank. And if they get a little financial padding, then maybe they can start thinking about buy a washing machine, or going out to eat. That's when you start seeing the economy improve. There are no instantaneous cures! It took a decade (or more) to get into this hole, it'll take more than 2 or 3 years to get out of it. Whoever is elected in 2012 will face the same problems - the economy's not going to be cured overnight, but at least the next president will have a 4-year head start on the slow climb. view in original post What about the Republican leadership? By Gaia - 12/15/2011 - 9:22 am We've got more than one leader in this country, yanno. You cannot put all the blame on the president when the Republican leadership has publicly dug in their heels and vowed to never give Obama anything he wants, in order to make him a one-term president. Isn't it obvious? Do they think they're being clever by attaching the pipeline deal to the payrol tax bill? Log in What a bunch of childishness. All I see is a group of grown adults giggling, sticking out their tongues and to vote saying "nyah, nyah, na nyah nyah." 1 view in original post so let me get this straight. By Gaia - 12/15/2011 - 9:17 am You're complaining that the President is reducing federal spending? Isn't that what Republicans are all about - cutting spending in a big way? Or is it only the Republicans who are allowed to reduce spending? If he's not allowed to cut spending, and not allowed to raise taxes, exactly how is he supposed to address the debt crisis? Oh, I see. No, you're not at all transparent. view in original post Yep, I think that's what he (she?)'s saying By Gaia - 12/15/2011 - 9:11 am I know that in Sweden, for example, every public school teacher in the country is paid on the same scale, and has the same qualifications. It's a national standard, and paid for by both local taxes, and by national taxes that make up the differences between the local taxes and the national standard. Every child in the country gets the same standard of education. view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Chiming in late, but By Gaia - 12/14/2011 - 9:39 am You forgot the very simple anti-argument that neither gays nor anyone else are required to be married before they bear and raise children. Gays have been doing so since the dawn of time, and will continue to raise children even if they are never allowed to marry. Banning same-sex marriage will never prevent a Log in single gay person from raising children if they want to do so. view in original post sure, but... By Gaia - 12/14/2011 - 9:31 am i don't think the constitution says the religious societies are entitled to tax payer support of those teachers, does it? view in original post Oh please By Gaia - 12/14/2011 - 9:20 am [edit - this was intended as a reply to ItsaRepublic] Do you know of any of those kinds of circumstances - do we even know if a group of anti-abortion folk ever had such a public conversation with candidate Obama? I seem to remember the monitor covering things like Hillary crying during the campaign, and "outing" her on her claim that she had to duck a sniper. No media outlet can possibly cover EVERY news story from every angle. You know that the Monitor, when it leans, tends to lean left. It's their right to do so. There's no requirement for them to be absolutely neutral. And you aren't required to read the paper. You also know that FOX and the Union Leader lean right, as is their right to do. do you criticize them for their bias? Go ahead and offer an alternative view if you want, but continuing to harp on the Monitor's alleged bias is pointless and makes you look like a three year old having the same tantrum over and over. BTW - it's your own wild interpretation that says the column intimates that Romney is "unqualified" for the office of the President. The article focuses much more on Mr. Garon and his interaction with Romney, than on Romney himself. view in original post If it's all or nothing... By Gaia - 12/13/2011 - 3:48 pm Then I vote for doing away with "school choice." view in original post
to vote
Log in to vote
Wow. Third world, here we come By Gaia - 12/13/2011 - 3:45 pm I believe it's only the third world countries that require everyone to pay tuition to send their children to school. Seriously? You do realize that would mean the widening of the gap between rich and poor right? Poor people would either not send their kids to school or, if forced to send them, they would go to "the poor school" where they get only as much education as their parents can afford to pay for. Then, those poorly education kids would, for the most part, remain poor. The wealthy, on the other hand, would have cadillac educations (and even better than the private schools they're already attending because the parents would have all that saved tax money to put into funding the schools). Their kids would be set up to stay rich. Log in What happened to the concept of equal opportunity in this country? I know how you stand on public unions. But really, these are two different issues. You don't have to "desocilaize" public education in order to deal with what you perceive as a public union "problem." They're not joined at the hip. So what's next? De-socialize police and fire protection? Make it a fee-for-service operation? view in original post What's missing here for you? By Gaia - 12/13/2011 - 3:35 pm I don't understand why you take this position. If everyone were pagan, I would be saying "Good Yule," or "Blessed Solstice." Instead, I say Merry Christmas to Christians, Happy Hannukah to Jews, and Happy Holidays to those whose religion I'm unsure of. None of these things diminishes my religion, nor do they poke holes in it. "Happy Holidays" is a compromise on EVERYONE"s part. No one is being singled out. It's voluntary, and it's intended to be sensitive to others, not to force them to conform to something they don't want to conform to. 0
to vote
Log in to vote
"Changing traditions?" Please. Nodding and smiling when someone offers you the blessing of "Happy 5 Holidays" is nothing. It's no sacrifice at all, compared to what could actually be going on in this country if the Constitution did not allow freedom of religion. (I said I was going to try to be done with this argument. I lapsed. *sigh*) view in original post "Public School" is, by definition, funded by the public By Gaia - 12/12/2011 - 1:26 pm If everyone who chose to send their kids to private school were exempted from paying school taxes, then "public schools" would no longer be public schools. They would be privately funded, but publically controlled. Is that the direction you really think the state should go? Log in
to vote
Surprisingly, I agree with everything you just wrote By Gaia - 12/12/2011 - 1:13 pm To me, the most reasonable "common bond" would be the constitution, which transcends religion and unites as as citizens or residents of one country. The constitution says we all get to practice the religions we want, and that the government can't endorse one religion over another. That seems perfect to me, and ought to be non-controversial. I wonder.... if one of the reasons so many people get bent out of shape about all of this... is simply because we feel like we have less control over our lives and our Log in destinies than we did in the past. The economy is wreaking havoc on so many to vote lives, and there doesn't seem to be anything that we, the little people, can do about 1 it. When we can't control one important part of our lives, we seek to control other parts of it... like how we worship, and whether or not we choose to be offended by people who worship differently from us. The frustration has to come out somewhere, and maybe in recent years, this is one of the places it oozes out. view in original post Where? By Gaia - 12/12/2011 - 12:57 pm Exactly where did Mr. Braiterman say that others "are not allowed to use the term Christmas Tree?" Where did he insist that people use Happy Holidays and not Merry Christmas? You seem to be accusing him of things he simply did not do. In fact he said, and you quoted, "Merry Christmas is fine." view in original post Christian: "You're By Gaia - 12/12/2011 - 12:45 pm Christian: "You're offended." Non-Christian: "No I'm not!" Christian: "Yes you are." Non-Christian: "No, really, I'm not!" Christian: "You want me to say happy holidays, so you must be offended." Non-Christian: I don't care how you greet me, I'm not offended. Christian: "Yes you are!" LOL I'm going to try to be done with this silly argument for the year. Perhaps we can talk about the important stuff now? view in original post
It's not By Gaia - 12/12/2011 - 12:39 pm Setting up a tree does not force anyone to follow a religion. Technically, having a National or State Christmas tree probably does violate the consitutional commandment against the government endorsing one religion over another. However... This annual discussion is not about religious rights. No one is saying you can't celebrate Christmas, or that Log in you must celebrate Christmas. It's just not that serious, and doesn't need to rise to a consitutional level. It's about common courtesy, respect, and acceptance of diversity. That's all. Truly. view in original post Yes I appear to be inconsistent By Gaia - 12/12/2011 - 12:34 pm It's the difference between how I personally feel, and a general philisophical commentary about double standards. It's kind of amusing how much energy we all spend on this every year (me included). And how violently we appear to be agreeing. Personally: I don't care what you call your tree or how you greet me. (As do you.) Philosophically: I believe there is a double standard - Some Christians (the ones who say they're under attack) seem to insist that the generic term "holidays" is asking only them to compromise. I see it as asking all religions, and non-religious people, to compromise. 1
to vote
Log in to vote
1 But really, "on the ground," I have never heard one of the many non-christians I hang out will say that they need to be protected from "Christmas" or that they are offended by it. The people (whoever they are) that started promoting "Happy Holidays" are not necessarily non-Christians, and they are not necessarily offended by Christmas themselves. I think they were trying to avoid offending minority religions (even though those minorities were probably not offended), and in the process ended up with a big bullseye on their backs, painted by a minority of Christians who believe they have something to gain in making a righteous stink about an imaginary attack on Christianity, Christ, and Christmas. view in original post It's not about trees By Gaia - 12/12/2011 - 10:25 am 1. I don't care what you call your tree. Yeah, even though it probably has pagan roots, in popular culture, it's a Christmas tree. However, I don't expect you to be offended if I put up a tree and call it a Solstice Tree. 2. Whenever you insist on saying "Merry Christmas" you are insisting that non-Christians honor your holiday, without giving them the respect of reciprocating.
Log in to vote
3. See above. Christianity is NOT the only religion being asked to accomodate. "Happy Holidays" asks every religion to accomodate, doesn't it? "Holiday tree" asks Pagans accomodate, and asks Jews and Muslims to tolerate the fact that there are trees everywhere when their religions don't even include tree trimming. It's much ado about very little. It's a manufactured "attack." Christianity is alive and well and isn't going to suffer one whit by sharing December with the rest of the world. Really now, WWJD? view in original post Where are the "Free Staters" in this fight? By Gaia - 12/12/2011 - 10:02 am I'm thinking they ought to be against government intrusion into people's personal lives... over-regulation... all that. view in original post You made me sit up and take notice By Gaia - 12/09/2011 - 4:10 pm Federal property tax, you say? In a state where we're already burdened by an unfair property tax, I needed to check this out. A quick google revealed: http://www.sancarlosblog.com/2010/08/3-8-federal-real-estate-tax-set-for... and http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/ It is NOT a "federal property tax." It's a tax on a small percent of property SALES. A federal sales tax, if you will. It affects only those who (1) make over $200,000 a year and (2) sell their homes for more than $250,000 ($500k for married couples.). They pay the tax only on the amount of profit over 250K (or 500k). The $250K (500K) exclusion applies to primary residences. From my quick read of this, sales of second or vacation homes, or investment real estate would have the tax applied to the entire sales price - IF the seller's income from other sources is over $250K. view in original post Yes, I've seen what you're describing By Gaia - 12/09/2011 - 3:15 pm I'm probably not making myself clear. You said "The problem is that folks think of Merry Christmas as Offensive," and you describe behaviors that have come about in reaction to the idea that Merry Christmas is offensive. What I'm trying to say is that I personally don't know of anyone on the receiving end of "Merry Log in Christmas" who is actually offended by it. I say this as a non-Christian who spends a lot of time with other to vote non-Christians. 2 In one way, I'm in complete agreement with you. The "PC folks" in this case I think have gone overboard - trying to protect people who are not asking for protection.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
In other circumstances, the PC Police are spot on, but in this situtation, not so much. For the record - I am not offended by people saying Merry Christmas to me. I AM offended by people who insist that their holy day must trump all other holy days in the month of December. And I am perplexed by people who view "Happy Holidays" as an attack on Christianity, rather than simply a way to be inclusive all beliefs and believers. Nobody's saying you can't celebrate Christmas, or that Christmas is a bad thing. We're just saying it's not the only thing. If I choose to have bacon and toast with my eggs, is that an attack on eggs? view in original post erm... By Gaia - 12/09/2011 - 3:13 pm You know I agree with you, right? I was trying to pre-empt the usual pro-gun argument. Perhaps I failed. [heading to kitchen for another wake-me-up coffee....] view in original post So simplistic By Gaia - 12/09/2011 - 1:06 pm Do you really think that would help? The point is that the country needs a different policy, and one that applies to everyone. You can't run an economy (or form a budget) based on voluntary tax payments, and you know it. Tax policy needs to take into account everyone's ability to pay, and apply rules evenly and fairly. view in original post "Guns don't kill people... By Gaia - 12/09/2011 - 10:17 am ....People kill people." This is true. But guns make it a whole lot easier for people to kill people, either accidentally or purposefully.
Log in Log in to vote Log in to vote
Nashua-mike made very good points about the volatility of college campuses. Why does it make sense to to vote intentionally toss guns into that mixture? 1 view in original post pssst - that was beautiful By Gaia - 12/09/2011 - 9:32 am I wanted to say something like that, but it was not my place. I didn't want to start some kind of interfaith flame war. I have nothing against Christianity. I have nothing against the person of Jesus
Log in to vote
Christ. He modeled an excellent way of being.... and if everyone strove to embody the same kind of love, compassion, and acceptance as he, the world would be oh so much better. Thank you for writing this. view in original post [shrug] By Gaia - 12/09/2011 - 9:15 am That wouldn't bother me a bit. But, they do have to schedule vacations sometime, and it's ok with me that they schedule them around the the holidays that the vast majority celebrate. There's no reason to purposefully inconvenience people just to avoid the appearance of it being "Christmas Vacation." Log in
to vote
Personally, I'd rather have the first school vacation in mid-November, then another 2 at the end of January. But that's just me. view in original post Really? By Gaia - 12/08/2011 - 4:10 pm Why do we all unquesioningly accept that all rich people are job creators? And that they use their own personal income to create those jobs? Really? I'd like to see some numbers. What percentage of millionaires actually create jobs, and do it with their own money? How many jobs have professional athletes and entertainers created with their own money? How will it affect job creation if those rich people have to pay a little more taxes on their personal income? And when you get right down to it - where are all those jobs anyway? Your "job creators" are enjoying the lowest tax rates in decades, and they're not doing much job creation, are they? Corporations are sitting on billions of dollars. They can afford to hire, but they are not - because there's no Log in to vote demand for their product. Demand will increase only when the middle class has extra money to spend. 3 When the middle class spends money, corporations will respond by to demand by hiring people to create more product. The middle class are the job creators. Tax cuts for the wealthy have not stimulated the economy. What's to be lost if we turn the tables - increase income taxes on the wealthy, and decrease them on the middle class. (Long-term extension of payroll tax cuts is a baaaaad idea.) Could it really make the unemployment situation any worse? view in original post
Percentage of income... By Gaia - 12/08/2011 - 3:56 pm Your statistics do not show that the wealthy pay a larger percentage of their own income in taxes than the middle class, only that they pay a large percentage of the total taxes in the country. Remember Warren Buffet and his secretary? That's the kind of inequality we're talking about. When Warren Buffett, because of the 15% tax rate on capital gains, pays a lower rate overall than his secretary, it's not right. Your statistics remind me of that old saying - why do people keep robbing banks? Because that's where 3 the money is! Why do the upper 50% of wage earners pay so much of the taxes? Because they're the ones with the money! view in original post Christmas is alive and well By Gaia - 12/08/2011 - 3:38 pm despite any "attack" you may percieve. The reason Christmas is "banned" in some schools is because it is, at it's core, a religious holiday, and there is a constitutional separation of church and state that must be observed in public schools. They either need to observe ALL religious holidays of ALL religions that their students ascribe to, or they need to do none. Obviously, celebrating all the holidays would be a huge drain of resources and a big distraction from learning. It's been my experience though, that for most schools the more secular aspects of Christmas are allowed, as are the non-religious Christmas songs. As for whether there's an attack - I guess it's a matter of perspective. For me, an attempt to remind people that Christmas is not the only religious holiday in December, and that not everyone is Chistian, is not an attack. If I were actually going to coordinate an attack on Christmas it would look very different. view in original post I'm not sure about that. By Gaia - 12/08/2011 - 3:30 pm I've not heard people say they were offended by "Merry Christmas." I heard people say they are offended by "Happy Holidays" and that they are annoyed that they have to be careful about saying "merry Christmas" for fear of offending someone else. I've heard people say they prefer Happy Holidays because it's inclusive, and I've heard Christians get uncomfortable with Merry Christmas because they fear that it's not inclusive enough. But I've never actually heard a non-Christian say that they were personally offened by someone wishing them a Merry Christmas. I think that the offensiveness of Merry Christmas is largely imaginary. Really, it's ok to say. It's just that it's more inclusive to say Happy Holidays - and THAT's where some Christmas celebrators get offended,
and imagine it as an attack on Christmas. view in original post Hallmark's not the only game in town By Gaia - 12/08/2011 - 3:22 pm Thank you GWTW. And Merry Christmas to you. I can easily find solstice cards online. No need to get into a shoving match with big corporation. Besides, I'd rather support the smaller crafts people. Why should I sue? Hallmark is not a public institution, and has Log in the right to produce whatever they want. And I have the right not to give them my money. to vote 1 view in original post Easy By Gaia - 12/07/2011 - 10:16 am Because you don't have 4 different religious holidays being celebrated at the same time as Ramadan. You ask a good question - "Exactly what holiday to they mean?" It could be Christmas, Hannukah, Solstice, or Kwanzaa. My holiday happens to be Solstice. But even if you dismiss Solstice and Kwanzaa, you still have to deal with Hannukah, which is far older than Christmas, and celebrated by a significant number of people in this country. If you know some is Jewish, do you wish them Merry Christmas? If you don't know someone's religious preference, and you're not willing to ask, then Happy Holidays is a fine substitute, in my opinion. view in original post "If people are upset by our By Gaia - 12/07/2011 - 10:09 am "If people are upset by our holy day, then they can move back to their own country or shut their mouths and celebrate their own holidays when it's their time." Cecile, I hope you have a wonderful Christmas. Because I know what holiday you celebrate, I'm happy to wish you Merry Christmas. Religious minoriities are a absolute reality in this country and state, and have nothing to do with being from other countries.
I am an American - I was born in NH, as were most of my ancestors going all the way back to the 1600's. to vote 5 However, I do not celebrate Christmas. My winter holiday, which takes place on December 21 or 22, is the Winter Solstice. A number of my friends, also born and raised in NH, celebrate Hannukah, which also takes place before Christmas. To them I wish a Happy Hannukuh. If I don't know someone's religious preference, I will ask, so that I can personalize my greeting. If someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, I will say the same thing back to them, because I assume they celebrate Christmas. They've expressed a wish for my happiness. How can I be offended by that?
I don't see "Happy Holidays" as disrespectful. You are celebrating a couple holidays, right? Christmas and New Years? I'm celebrating a couple holidays too - Solstice and New Years. The phrase applies to everyone, and wishes everyone good cheer. view in original post There you go again By Gaia - 12/06/2011 - 12:42 pm casting all progressives in the same light. We are NOT all the same, and most of us don't even fit the stereotypes you toss out there. You are accusing us all of hypocrisy, and it's offensive. And no, you can't get away with saying "I'll make an exception for you..." I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I try to see the humanity in everyone, but damn, you make it difficult when you don't even seem to TRY to see the humanity in anyone who sports the "progressive" label. Every time you make these broad statements it becomes a little harder still. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their own positions on the hot-button topics. I, for one, have NEVER accused a conservative black person of being an Uncle Tom. And frankly, I don't consider Al Sharpton to be a particularly good leader. It's really not that hard to separate race issues from politics. Really, it's not. Racism is wrong, regardless of a person's politics. Same with gender. I don't care what a woman's position is on abortion, work, politics. She still deserves to be respected as a human being. There are "strong" and admirable women of all stripes. Sexism dehumanizes women (and men) and there's no place for it in my philosophy, regardless of how those women stand in any other aspect of their lives. view in original post Sexism is never ok By Gaia - 12/06/2011 - 12:24 pm If you look at the original article (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/295135/no-title) you'll see that the lone comment was mine, dated 11/29. So this progressive, at least, was offended by the headline. view in original post punished? By Gaia - 12/01/2011 - 12:57 pm How are workers punished for not joining a union? If you're referring to an agency fee, I don't see that as punishment. It's compensating unions for the time and expense it takes to negotiate a contract that all employees benefit from. Not paying the agency fee, in my opinion, amounts to stealing. Or at the very least, that thing that conservatives accuse liberals of - feeling entitled to enjoy the benefits of something they have not paid for, like social services, medical care, etc. etc. Why is it ok for some employees to sponge off of others hard work & financial contribution, and get the same benefits for free?
Log in to vote
view in original post You can't have it both ways By Gaia - 11/29/2011 - 3:53 pm Either support contraception for all women, or support abortions for all women. You can't have it both ways, and trying to have it both ways amounts to a blatent attempt to control women by controlling their sexual activity. You can't rationalize your way out of that conclusion. view in original post Attn: editorial staff By Gaia - 11/29/2011 - 3:34 pm I'm no Bachman fan, but that headline is just plain sexist. If you're going to make fund of the candidate, please don't do it on the basis of gender - it's entirely inappropriate! view in original post Spending is only half the By Gaia - 11/28/2011 - 12:33 pm Spending is only half the problem. This is a gigantic freaking hole we've dug, and it cannot be filled with only spending cuts or only tax increases. Both are required, and the Republicans will not budge on this - even if there is one dollar in tax Log in increase for every 10 dollars in spending cuts. view in original post "The idea that you can add By Gaia - 11/28/2011 - 12:27 pm "The idea that you can add that many folks on, and not have it impact our health care is insane. You will have very long waits for tests and appointments." You forget perhaps that most of the uninsured are already getting health care. They are not "new" patients being added to the system. They're being treated, expensively in the ER, and the rest of us are paying for it in higher premiums. Treat them properly in the doctor's office and everyone will save money. "Very long waits?" I dunno. Define "long." I wait quite a while now for elective tests and treatments, and I Log in to vote have very good insurance. Waiting for elective procedures is not important. I guess we will see whether 2 the wait for necessary tests and treatments gets significantly longer. I suspect it won't - the system will adjust by moving medical professionals around (out of the ER and into the wards, perhaps), or adding new graduates to the places where there are gaps. I do not forsee any disasters here. view in original post 3
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
to vote
What's next? By Gaia - 11/25/2011 - 2:42 pm What's next, guns in high schools? Elementary schools? The state hospital? view in original post Um, did you follow the rules? By Gaia - 11/23/2011 - 1:01 pm Was there an onerous reason why you could not follow the clear, existing rules about minor employees? "Trying to be nice" is not a defensible reason to disregard rules. Sorry. You break rules, you get fined. The rule was not hard to follow. If you "wanted to be nice," you could have given the boy an hourly raise. Or a bonus check. I don't buy your argument. view in original post Well, I see that this issue By Gaia - 11/23/2011 - 12:39 pm Well, I see that this issue has at least been minimally addressed in the "rules of the road," whidh appears to have been updated sometime since the day I was whacked. (It weren't in thar then.) "Multiple posts on the same topic may be removed." Too bad we can see the hit count on a story so we know whether it's permissible to spam. [eye roll] view in original post Me too By Gaia - 11/23/2011 - 12:15 am I've been whacked too, for 2 sentences in a follow-on post. This guy gets away with 3 long posts in a row on the same subject? view in original post Treason? By Gaia - 11/22/2011 - 11:49 am Can someone who is not a citizen of a country actually be tried for treason against that country? Doesn't treason imply citizenship? view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote
13
Molehill out of a Mountain By Gaia - 11/22/2011 - 11:38 am Whay do gays make such a big thingabout it? Because they are human beings who love other human beings and want to be afforded the same respect that straights are afforded. "Separate but equal" is always separate but never equal. It's not about the name of the institution. Beyond equality of respect, it's about all of the rights (and responsibilities) that come with marriage. "Living together as partners" happens all the time now., but it's not marriage, and it does not give the same legal rights as marriage. That's why it's a big deal. Would this make you happy? Everyone gets a civil union, whether gay or straight. The only legal 2 institution is civil union, and it conveys all of the legal rights that marriage currently conveys. Then, if people want to have their unions blessed as marriages, they go to their religious insitution and get married. But it doesn't give them any more rights than the non-married. Would that work for you? view in original post All good suggestions By Gaia - 11/17/2011 - 12:48 pm But for an easier and healthier (for everyone) approach to vegetables - just leave the butter off. Let each person add their own butter or margarine at the table. People who are watching their fat intake will appreciate it. view in original post The service that is being By Gaia - 11/17/2011 - 12:42 pm The service that is being outsourced is for adult mental health clients, not children. view in original post Why must there be an historical precendent? By Gaia - 11/16/2011 - 2:06 pm If we only accepted things into our society and our laws that have historical precedent, we'd be missing a whole bunch of things we take for granted now: equality for the non-white races, equality for women, bans against polygamy... not to mention all of the technological advances of the 20th century. It seems like your insistence on an historical precedence is just a way to defend your personal preferences. There's no logical reason to demand one. And by the way, not all religions oppose same sex marriage. My own does not, 6 and there are a number of others that not only accept it, their clergy perform same sex marriages or blessings of same sex unions where marriage is not permitted. This is not just a 21st century development. view in original post
Log in to vote
That's a very low roof you've got By Gaia - 11/09/2011 - 12:53 pm It's been firmly established, for many years, that the cost of medical malpractice suits adds only about 1.6% to the cost of healthcare in this country. The ROI of that cost is quite significant - lawsuits lead to improved practices, which lead to better health care. Also, please note, the lawsuit discussed here was not medical malpractice. It was against McDonald's. I suppose it might have increased the cost of a hamburger a bit. But the ROI on that might be pretty good too. Fewer trips to the fast food restaurants can only result in healthier people and lower medical costs over all. view in original post Well, the job creators are By Gaia - 11/09/2011 - 12:43 pm Well, the job creators are not creating many jobs at the moment, are they? They're sitting on trillions in cash, waiting for demand to increase. Because we are a consumer society, and our economy is based on consumerism, we need to increase demand for products. There are only two ways to do that, as far as I can see, and somebody's got to tak the risk of making the first move. 1. The consumers take the individual risk to spend more money than they can afford to spend, thus driving up demand. Then the companies start hiring in order to meet the demand. 2. Corporations take a corporate risk to spend more money (which they apparently can afford) and hire more people, even if it means producing product/service that's not going to sell right away. The newly hired will then have more money to spend and eventually, after they feel more secure, demand for products/services of all kinds will improve. Both of these options are difficult, but it seems like option 2 has the most chance of succeeding. The corporations have a lot more disposable income than consumers do right now. Tax breaks for corporations (which means cuts in public services) are not going to improve the corporations' ability to hire. They've got the ability now - just not the will, because it will cost them money that will not be immediately recouped. view in original post I consider myself a liberal. By Gaia - 11/09/2011 - 12:25 pm I consider myself a liberal. I agree that we overspend in many areas. I also believe that we undertax in many areas as well. The cause of our economic problems is a combination of these two factors, and only a combination of spending cuts and tax increases will resolve the problem. To paraphrase your post: "You cons do not get it. You are all about tax cuts and bankrupting this country and states. Your offensive play amounts to class warfare...." (per the original definition of class warfare,
Log in to vote
mind you. Cons have hijacked the term to use in THEIR defense.) view in original post Some facts you might want to consider. By Gaia - 11/09/2011 - 12:18 pm The money to purchase part of the Bohanan Farm came from a very separate fiancial pot. The welfare position is funded from General Funds, which the selectman have control over. The farm purchase came from a different fund, with specific legal limita about how it can be spent. Going back in time to undo the Log in conservation purchase would NOT have freed up any money to spend on the welfare position. view in original post Like I said... By Gaia - 11/02/2011 - 7:49 pm "I believe." I made no attempt to pass off opinions as facts. Just making an observation about what divides people on this subject. view in original post Lifestyles and choices By Gaia - 11/02/2011 - 4:46 pm I think that this concept may really be the only thing that separates those who support same-sex marriage from those who don't. We differ because some people believe that homosexuality represents an aberration - a deviation from "normal." Or, they believe that it's a choice - something that can be controlled, and therefore should be controlled. Those who support marriage equality, on the whole, believe that "choice" has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, nor is homosexuality a "lifestyle." They would say that heterosexuality is not a choice either. And no one ever talks about having a "heterosexual lifestyle." Heterosexuality is accepted as being hard-wired into a person's organic makeup, the same way race, gender and hair color are hard-wired. Log in to vote . 2 I believe that homosexuality is just another expression of "normal," that it's hard-wired the same way being straight is hard-wired. Male and Female are both "normal." Blond and brunette are both normal. So is being a red-head, even though it's a small minority of the population. I also absolutely do not believe that "choice" is involved here. (Can you describe your decision to be straight? Could you ever choose to be attracted to the same sex?) view in original post I assume you're being facetious. By Gaia - 10/31/2011 - 8:52 pm If not, well... Do the actions of the small minority of tea party activists who are truly fringe define the Republican party? 0
to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
view in original post I would say that By Gaia - 10/30/2011 - 10:24 am I would say that unions contribute highly to campaigns because they are trying to mitigate the damage done by huge contributions by corporations and corporate interests. The reverse may also be true.
Campaign finance reform needs to be drastic, but it's hard to see how special interest voices can be limited Log in without flying in the face of the first amendment. to vote 1 view in original post So? By Gaia - 10/30/2011 - 10:19 am What's your point? view in original post Can someone explain this basic disconnect? By Gaia - 10/30/2011 - 10:11 am I completely agree that most "factory farms" are horrible, and that animals suffer terribly before they end up on our plates. I also completely support any individual's decision to be vegan for whatever reason. What I don't get is how my becoming vegan is ever going to change the level of cruelty in factory farms. I personally can avoid eating or supporting factory meats without becoming vegan (local humane farms, grow my own, etc.) It's a fool's errand to believe that we could convince enough people in the country to become vegan to have much effect on the number of animals bred for food and processed in factories. Even if 50% of the country were vegan, there's nothing preventing the remaining factory farms from consolidating into one big horror show. If the desire is to save animals from cruelty, the better, and only truly effective approach is to work for changes in laws and regulations. If the desire is to completely eliminate all animals and animal products from the food supply, then activists need to find wide-appeal reasons other than prevention of cruelty. view in original post Heh. By Gaia - 10/30/2011 - 9:43 am Since when does simply "speaking from the heart" qualify one to be president of the United States? Or president of anything other than the "speaking from the heart" club? The contents of a candidate's heart must be evaluated first, then his/her ability to selectively speak from Log in to vote the heart in ways that benefit the entire country. As "private citizen Gaia" I can be as passionate as I want 3 about any subject I want. As "politician Gaia" I would need to set certain beliefs aside and moderate others. I would need to look out for the best interests of my entire constituency, not just "speak from the
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
heart" about subjects in which I hold a fringe position. view in original post Sooo... By Gaia - 10/27/2011 - 4:37 pm Anyone can get a civil union, but nobody is required to recognize it. What good does that do? And, if my employer provides benefits to people in civil unions, I could get a CU with my adult child, in order to keep him/her on my insurance. Except that nobody is required to recognize it. Ah, I see the intent. Employers are not going to stand for expanding benefits to people who are not Log in "spouse-like," which means they will cut off benefits to people in CUs. Which to vote means that the actual same-sex couples will be right back to square 1. Not married. 3 And not in an kind of legally-recognized union. In other words, two single adults who have no relationship. Yup. I see the intent. view in original post hmmm... By Gaia - 10/26/2011 - 2:19 pm Kinda like the 1% are a tiny minority with self-centered interests and hugely disproportionate power and influence that allows them to maintain their positions? Kinda like that? They stand for anything that increases their bottom lines, regardless of the effect on the rest of the world? Kinda like that? If they're such a joke, why do you seem so concerned about discrediting them? view in original post I would submit also that By Gaia - 10/26/2011 - 2:01 pm I would submit also that under capitalism there is an unequal sharing of miseries, and under socialism, equal sharing of blessings. Whether they're vices or not.... I guess depends whether you happened to be blessed or miserable. view in original post Brave woman By Gaia - 10/26/2011 - 1:44 pm I salute her for having the courage to recount her ordeal publicly. I hope she finds peace and empowerment in her decision to do so.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
view in original post It's much more than just the statement changes By Gaia - 10/24/2011 - 11:08 pm With all due respect, Ms. Edwards, the changes to credit card laws include things that are way more important than an easier-reading statement: 1. Any payment amount over the minimum must now be applied to the balance with the highest interest rate first. That's huge. In the past, when you transferred a balance at a low rate, your entire payment would go to the transferred balance first, leaving the rest of your balance to accrue at the higher rate, month after month, with no dent made on it. 2. No retroactive rate increases. (except for promotional rates). Rates cannot be increased on existing balances - only on new purchases. 3. No surprise over-limit fees, unless you've opted in to them. Otherwise, if you reach your limit, your purchase will be denied. 4. Restricts card issuance to students (adults/youth under the age of 21) who can't prove adequate income for repayment. 5. No more double-cycle billing - you know, when you pay off a balance, but still get a bill for interest the next month. There's more: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-law-interactive-... view in original post Comment blocked by moderator Policy Violation The post violates the Discussion Guidelines. insult Very very well put. By Gaia - 10/24/2011 - 4:12 pm I don't envy their wealth. I'm mad as hell that we were squashed, taken advantage of, and disposed of in order for the wealthy to become wealthy. That's the TRUE definition of class warfare. Look it up. view in original post Yeah, we get that, and most people would probably agree. By Gaia - 10/24/2011 - 4:11 pm However, there are two very different responses to that bit of truth-telling: 1. Expand the death penalty to every homocide. 2. Eliminate the death penalty entirely. Either one mitigates the philosphical fairness gap. But one of them also costs way more money than the
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
13
Log in to vote
state should be spending and, as the editorial points out, introduces an entirely different kind of fairness gap. To me, the best choice is obvious. view in original post A democratic "win" in this By Gaia - 10/23/2011 - 12:32 am A democratic "win" in this case would require all the dems to think with one brain... just like the repubs seem to be doing. Democrats are often accused of "marching in lockstep." Who's calling the kettle black now? view in original post Again, I ask you By Gaia - 10/23/2011 - 12:18 am What do you think should have been done differently in Libya? view in original post "I think if we have the death By Gaia - 10/21/2011 - 11:58 am "I think if we have the death penalty it should apply equally to everyone or it should apply equally to no one." So why not go the other direction and drop the death penalty completly? Capital cases are enormously expensive to prosecute. Morality and ethics aside, why would we want to expand our opportunities for Log in spending millions of dollars at a time? Surely it would require hiring additional prosecutors, as well, since to vote death penalty cases are so time consuming. Where's the fiscal responsibility here? 1 view in original post Huh? By Gaia - 10/21/2011 - 11:18 am Sorry if I'm being dense, but what are you blaming the left for now? Not a single American life was lost in this conflict, and this is directly attributable to Obama's decisions. Who's lives are you mourning? The Libyans? Then why not the Iraquis and Afghans, whose lives lost are attributable to Bush? Log in
to vote Log in to vote
Log in to vote
What do you think should have been done differently here? view in original post
Small correction By Gaia - 10/21/2011 - 10:37 am 1. Continuing to run up their Party's big government debt through tax cuts for billionaires, while blaming Obama for the poor economy. view in original post No, they don't. By Gaia - 10/20/2011 - 9:39 pm The president says laws about same sex marriage should be made at the state level. He does not oppose it. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-gay-marriage-stance-nod-2... view in original post Yeah, it would be just fine. By Gaia - 10/20/2011 - 9:31 pm Free speech and all that.... But really - don't people understand the use of metaphor, symbolism.... you know, those literary and artistic devices that are used to get people to think about things in different ways? It's symbolism, people. The cartoon (and the imagined cartoon) are not suggesting that people should drag jesus, obama family or mohammed around behind them. They're taking people to task for symbolically dragging jesus, obama family or mohammed around behind them. The cartoons are saying the same thing you are, which is "be respectful and don't use people or religions for political purposes." Did you really expect me to be offended by your example? You really underestimate me. Once again, I fail to fall into your stereotyped image of what liberals are like. Sorry to disappoint. Oh wait. I just got it! You changed the subject. You're not offended by the symbolism (like the letter writer is), you're offended by the accusation that some politicians (presumably republicans) might actually use religion as a political prop. Well, in that case, I'm still not upset by the examples. Free speech and all that. People are entitled to their opinions. view in original post Take a look By Gaia - 10/20/2011 - 2:30 pm This guy outlines the consitutional issue very nicely. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/health-care-reform-_b_817476... view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote
David... By Gaia - 10/20/2011 - 9:55 am I understand you are upset. For what it's worth, I, as a non-Christian, did not see the cartoon as being disrespectful to Jesus or to Christianity. Quite the opposite, in fact. The target of the cartoon was people who use religion for their own self-centered purposes. The author was pointing out the dis-respect that these Log in people have toward Jesus and Christianity. view in original post Conspiracy theorist? By Gaia - 10/19/2011 - 4:16 pm I'm on nobody's side here. I don't know Duprey personally, and I know nothing about his relationship with City Hall. However, when I see claims and questions like this, I have to ask - is it paranoia, or do you have evidence? So... do you have any evidence that Mr. Duprey's applications and plans are anywhere in the gray zone? Is there anything in those documents (or missing from the documents) that would lead you to believe that he's getting special treatment? Is he truly "rubber stamped," or is he just really good at dotting all his I's and crossing all his T's? Have you followed the money? Where's it going? Is it going somewhere it Log in shouldn't? Is there any actual evidence that Duprey is in bed with city hall, or is he just really competent at what he does? Got anything other than suspicions? view in original post And by the way By Gaia - 10/17/2011 - 3:46 pm Trotting out "studies" that show kids are better off in heterosexual families doesn't cut it. Gays have been bearing (or adopting) and raising children for millenia. Denying gays the right to marry will not have any effect at all on the number of children raised by gays. It's already happening and will continue to happen, with or without legal marriage. On the other hand, allowing gays to marry will have a legitimizing effect on the children - normalizing their parents' relationship can only improve children's lives. Remember how people once opposed interracial marriage because the children would suffer? Look at it now. Do bi-racial children suffer because of their parents' relationship? Not that I'm aware of. view in original post When did you make your By Gaia - 10/17/2011 - 11:22 am When did you make your decision to be heterosexual? Do you think you could make a decision to be homosexual? Sure you could decide to engage in homosexual behavior, but could you actually decide to be attracted to the same sex?
Log in to vote
to vote
to vote
Log in to vote
If the answer is no, why do you think that gays have a choice in the matter? Why would 10% of the population choose to subject themselves to abuse and discrimination by choosing to be gay/ Does that make any kind of logical sense to you? And by the way, since when do African Americans have an exclusive title to the term "civil rights?" I believe that all citizens of the country are entitled to civil rights, aren't they? view in original post Can you explain that to me? By Gaia - 10/13/2011 - 3:23 pm I truly would like to understand your position. How does one support gay people AND oppose their right to marry? How do those two things co-exist? view in original post No one should be stereotyping By Gaia - 10/13/2011 - 3:10 pm I agree with you - it's not right for anyone to do this. Until you pointed it out I hadn't thought about how close "labeling" is to "stereotyping." Your definition of Yankee still contains a much-used, yet undefined term: "traditional moral and ethical beliefs." I think I know what that means - it's short-hand for an ideal of heterosexual two-parent families, where the father works and the mother may work but is preferred to be at home with the children, belong to a bible-centric protestant church, are anti-abortion, and pro-gun ownership." But unless someone spells that out when they use the word "traditional," I don't really know. So, yes, if that's your definition of Yankee, then in your eyes, I'm a YINO. Just please remember that not everyone uses the same definition that you do, and I'm not sure that anyone really "owns" the definition. Me included. By the way - I'm a progressive, and I have a fabulous sense of humor, even when it comes to politics. Again you are mis-characterizing and de-humanizing an entire segment of the population. Conservatives are people. They are individual human beings with a broad range of human strengths and weaknesses. So are progressives. There are very few things I would dare say that "all" or even "most conservatives" share. I would certainly never presume that all conservatives have the same personality characteristics. view in original post There you go again By Gaia - 10/12/2011 - 1:05 pm Over and over you claim to speak for or about broad categories of people, seemingly without understanding that you're stereo-typing people quite inaccurately. I've called you to task in the past for labeling "liberals" and claiming to know what "all liberals" believe.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Now, I'm asking you to consider that you don't have the faintest idea what all "traditional New Hampshire 2 Yankees" believe. First - how do you define a traditional NH Yankee? Birthright? Length of time in the
state? How far back their ancestors go in the state? Specific political beliefs? I was born in NH. I've lived here over 50 years. My ancestors go back to the early 1600's in NH. I have an appreciation for "making do" with what I've got, being thrifty whenever possible, preservation of personal liberties, etc. etc. Many things that I personally associate with "Yankee." However, I happen to completely agree with Dick, and disagree with your post. I wish you would stop throwing around inaccurate and undefined labels and using them to irrationally separate people into "us" and "them." You give the appearance (to me at least) that you don't feel your opinions can stand on their own, and you have to to somehow make yourself part of some kind of invented majority in order to convince people of their legitimacy. view in original post The founding fathers were not all Christian By Gaia - 10/12/2011 - 12:37 pm Contrary to popular belief and wishful thinking, many of the founding fathers were not Christian, in the sense that we now think of Christians. Many of them were Deists - revering a "natural god," belief in which does not require suspension of reason. I.e. no miracles, no virgin birth, nothing that cannot be proven and therefore does not require "faith." For more info see: http://deism.com/deistamerica.htm Here's a simple question: If the founding fathers intended this to be a Christian nation, why doesn't the name of Christ appear anywhere in any of the founding documents? view in original post I saw something like that a few years ago By Gaia - 10/12/2011 - 12:27 pm 3 or 4 years ago, in Contoocook, I saw 3 bright orange lights, just above the horizon. I had the impression that they were the 3 corners of a very very big triangular craft, but I'm not 100% certain. They were definitely NOT airplanes, and moved horizontally, in formation. Not balloons. And no sound, although a few minutes later I saw and heard a traditional small airplane in the same general area. Log in to vote Wish I'd seen this one so I could compare! 0 view in original post Just so wrong By Gaia - 10/06/2011 - 12:15 pm I have never felt that people who make more money than I do should be giving me some of that money, "just because." I do not feel entitled, and I'm not jealous of those who make more money.
I do know, however, that those who are making millions or billions of dollars are to vote able to do so because of the way our system is set up. They have a huge pool of 4 lower & middle income employees. They would not be able to make this kind of money if there were not people who are willing to do the "menial" tasks that make
their business and the economy run. More importantly, they take advantage of infrastructure that is paid for or subsidized by tax dollars - roads, bridges, postal service, police & fire protection, employees educated in public schools and receiving government assistance to go to college, etc. etc. The corporations (and therefore their stockholders) have received a great deal of benefit from this arrangement. They should return some of their profits to the public in order to "pay their share" of what they have used, rather than expecting those who work for them to do so. Talk about double-dipping! Their employees make lots of money for them, AND they also pay a greater percentage of their income toward maintaining the infrastructure that the business owners benefit from. (and is someone making millions on investments actually sweating more than their landscaper?) view in original post Wrong By Gaia - 10/06/2011 - 11:44 am 15% of the revenue comes from abortion. 3% of the services provided are abortion. view in original post We must assess the truthiness By Gaia - 10/05/2011 - 1:56 pm We must assess the truthiness of all punctuation. Partcularly that devious little comma. view in original post ? By Gaia - 10/05/2011 - 1:54 pm Democrats are to blame.... how? view in original post "the woman still has the final decision and control" By Gaia - 10/05/2011 - 12:52 pm Why? A man can have the final decision and control simply by saying "not tonight, dear, it wouldn't be responsible." BOTH have control and responsibility. Your shifting of responsibility to women, simply because they are the ones who can become pregnant, is unreasonable and, frankly, irresponsible. Would you say that a man has no responsibility if he knows it's unsafe, and has sex anyway, just because the woman didn't say no? Really? But then again, isn't this part of the plan? Tell a woman she, and she alone, is responsible for preventing
Log in to vote
unwanted pregnancy, then don't give her the tools to do so. Then, when pregnancies happen, the men have an excuse to take control of the womens' decisions, because "obviously," they're not capable of making those decisions for themselves. view in original post <eye roll> By Gaia - 10/04/2011 - 2:34 pm "Deserve" is not the same thing as "are constitutionally guaranteed." But if you insist, I would say it falls under the heading of "promote the general welfare..." view in original post Agreed By Gaia - 10/03/2011 - 3:16 pm n/t view in original post Is Christ mentioned anywhere in the founding documents? By Gaia - 10/03/2011 - 10:47 am The founding fathers were not Christian in the way you think of Christians. Most of them were Deists, highly influenced by Thomas Paine, and revered a "Natural God," rather than the supernatural entity portrayed in the Bible. Jefferson was a Unitarian, meaning he did not believe in the divinity of Christ. (One god, as opposed to the trinity of Father, Son, Holy Spirit.) Read the first section of "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine to get an understanding of the religious thought that was influencing the founders. Here's one source for reading it online. http://www.deism.com/theageofreason.htm And here is an article explaining why the US was NOT founded as a "Christian Nation." http://www.deism.com/deistamerica.htm view in original post Actually, I agree with you. By Gaia - 10/03/2011 - 10:40 am Please see my response to GWTW. I completely agree with you about the origin of individual rights, and I'm one of the flamingest liberals in this forum. I think you'll find many of the other liberals here will also agree with you. I challenge you to examine the stereotypes that you often perpetuate. Anytime you start a sentence with Log in "Liberals believe...." you might want to check first and see if you're right. Sometimes you are quite far off to vote the mark. 2 view in original post
yep By Gaia - 10/03/2011 - 10:24 am And that doesn't even begin to consider those who's concept of God has nothing to do with the Chistian Bible. Even Jefferson, who wrote those words, was not a Christian in the way people think of Christianity today. He was more of a Deist, inifluenced by Thomas Paine. (Read the first half of Paine's "The Age of Reason" for a rather shocking understanding of what was influencing our founding fathers.) In fact, Jefferson published his own version of the bible that removed all of the magic, miracles and other supernatural events, because they simply cannot stand up to rational inspection, and cannot be proved. That much aside, even as a non-christian, I rather like the idea of rights being endowed by something greater than the government. It's right in line with the Unitarian Universalist "First Principle," that we must "respect the inherent worth and dignity of all persons." GWTW is right. (Did I say that?) Governments don't give rights - people have them already, by virtue of being human. But Governments certainly can and do restrict all kinds of rights, don't they? view in original post Yes, it's counter-intuitive... By Gaia - 09/28/2011 - 12:55 pm ...but crunch those numbers yourself and see if you can refute the math. Mathematics aside, however, I have to agree with Jim (below), who says the main (and perhaps only) incentive to hire new employees is increased demand for product. He says there's no correllation between tax rate and hiring rate, and he refutes the claim that decreasing taxes will increase hiring. My math example illustrates the opposite side of the coin. I'm also saying there's no correllation between tax rate and hiring rate, by refuting the claim that increasing taxes "kills jobs." Clearly, from the math, you can see that hiring under a high tax situations gives you more bang for the buck than it does in low Log in tax situations. Republican claims of "job killing" just don't hold up under that logic. to vote 3 Bottom line: A certain political sector has created a false connection between tax rates and hiring, and the politicians who keep making that connection are either ignorant, or they are purposefully distracting us with scary claims about "job killing taxes," so that we will not demand that the wealthy pay more taxes. If that's the case, it's clear protectionism at the expense of the rest of us who are getting sucked into a giant national debt hole, while the life lines are held by people who prefer to coddle their own bottom lines and their own lifestyles. view in original post I haven't kept up with what By Gaia - 09/28/2011 - 10:13 am I haven't kept up with what police unions are doing, but please don't paint all "public sector workers" with the same brush. The State Employees Union has not asked for "more" in the way of wages or benefits in the past 4 years. In fact, we are Log in to vote quietly doing with less. No "screaming" from this sector. 4
Log in to vote
view in original post Why do you think the economy has changed? By Gaia - 09/27/2011 - 12:17 pm Do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that taxes are so much lower? Has that had any effect on the economy? Let's see what might happen if Jim's rate was 90%. Remember - that's 90% on the profits, not the revenue. So if he had 1M in profits, after taxes he'd be left with $100,000. If he chose to add 3 employees at $30,000 each, that cost would be deducted from revenue, reducing his profits to 910,000. After taxes, he's left with $91,000. Looky - those 3 new employees actually only cost him $9,000 - an excellent and low-risk investment toward producing more widgets to sell or expanding his territory. If Jim's only taxed 35% on his profits, he's left with $650,000 after taxes. Hiring those same 3 employees reduces his profits to that same $910,000, but at 35%, he'll be left with only $591,500 after taxes. That means the 3 employees cost him $58,500. In this economy, it might be better to just pocket that extra profit, because it's not worth the risk of hiring more people. Which situation is a better incentive for hiring - when the 3 employees cost you a total of $9000 or when they cost you $58,500? view in original post Just on an instictual level, By Gaia - 09/26/2011 - 3:01 pm Just on an instictual level, the words written don't seem to be in the voice of a young person. view in original post For the last time? By Gaia - 09/24/2011 - 7:50 pm Really? Excellent! : P view in original post Huh? By Gaia - 09/22/2011 - 9:31 pm A tax incentive for creating jobs? How is that socialism? I don't know what definition of socialism you're using.... but it doesn't meet mine. http://front.moveon.org/bill-maher-knows-what-you-are/ view in original post
I would support lowering the By Gaia - 09/21/2011 - 12:49 pm I would support lowering the corporate tax rate ONLY if the reduction is in direct response to actual job creation. The horse must go before the cart. Otherwise, there's absolutely nothing to stop the corps from pocketing the extra profits without creating a single job. And apparently that's exactly what's been happening the past few years. They've avoided paying taxes, but they certainly haven't created jobs in proportion. view in original post How sure are you that YOU are By Gaia - 09/20/2011 - 8:22 pm How sure are you that YOU are not a socialist? http://front.moveon.org/bill-maher-knows-what-you-are/ view in original post apples and oranges By Gaia - 09/19/2011 - 8:54 pm Does Right to Life run clinics that provide a whole range of health care to people of all income levels? Do they do annual exams and pap tests and mammograms? This "giving" you're talking about is for health care, not abortions. The giving does not promote abortions, Log in it promotes women's (and men's) health. to vote 0 view in original post Wow By Gaia - 09/16/2011 - 12:55 pm and the righties on this forum accuse ME of moral relativism. view in original post Of course! By Gaia - 09/15/2011 - 12:46 pm But you cannot demand "responsible breeding" and at the same time deny people access to the tools they need in order to avoid pregnancy. No wealthy person (except perhaps a devout Catholic) would stand for being told that they cannot have any kind of contraception - that they must rely on abstinence if they don't want to get pregnant. Even when married. Planned Parenthood provides contraception to poor women, so that they won't end up having to get an 3 abortion. They are PREVENTING far more abortions than they are performing. Why is this so difficult to understand? Your comments only make sense if you believe, deep down, that the only people who have a right to indulge in and enjoy sex, are those who can afford contraception (or children). Do you believe that poor
Log in to vote
people don't have the right to indulge in and enjoy sex? view in original post and then By Gaia - 09/15/2011 - 12:13 pm after the uterus implant, make sure to deny them any form of self-administered contraception other than abstinance, and make them dependent on their partners for every other kind of contraception. view in original post So? By Gaia - 09/15/2011 - 12:08 pm I suppose you can twist the figures any way you want to imply that tax dollars are funding abortions. The reality is that the abortions are performed by a separate organization, paid for privately - either through private insurance or private grants. The bottom line here is that abortion is LEGAL in this country. I can't for the life of me understand why a legal activity cannot be funded by taxpayors, regardless of religious leanings. My own religious beliefs say that invading other countries and killing their citizens is an abomination, but since it's a legal activity in this country, I cannot object to my taxes paying for it. (And a lot more of my fed taxes go to the pentagon than to Planned Parenthood.) It does not matter howPlanned Parenthood spends their money, or how they get that money, as long as their activities are legal. You cannot stop abortions simply by de-funding those who perform abortions. That is a fruitless end-run around the system and ends up hurting a lot of people because they suddenly lose their only access to vital (non-abortion) health care. Even if every publicly funded service PP provides were ended, they could still do abortions, because those are privately funded. Like I said: Fruitless and damaging. Don't like abortions? Want them to stop in this country? Then concentrate on changing the law. view in original post "Those with the gold make the rules" By Gaia - 09/14/2011 - 9:16 am Well, yeah, certainly in this case it's appropriate. They are Federal funds. Ultimtely the Feds get to decide how they are spent. It's not arrogance on the part of the Obama administration. They're doing what they have every right to do. It was, however, extreme arrogance on the part of 3 (THREE!) men who decided that their own religious beliefs trump the health and wlefare of THOUSANDS of Log in to vote women in the state. Especially since their position was a complete fabrication. Tax 9 money is not used to fund abortions by Planned Parenthood. view in original post
Where are the Republicans By Gaia - 09/11/2011 - 4:03 pm Where are the Republicans when it comes to producing a budget? Why is it only the Democrats' responsibility? view in original post You've got your acts and your By Gaia - 09/09/2011 - 4:45 pm You've got your acts and your parties mixed up. The American Dream Act was about enabling alien students "of good moral character" to be granted permanent resident status in order to go to college. It was sponsored by 2 republicans: John McCain and Orrin Hatch. Log in
view in original post Sooo... By Gaia - 09/09/2011 - 1:36 pm If the Republicans are so convinced that Obama's policies are ineffectual, why don't they just approve his proposals and let Obama hang himself? Wouldn't that give the repubs what they've publicly and loudly proclaimed is their primary goal - a single term president?
After all, once he's out, it will only take the new republican president a couple years to fix the whole thing, Log in to vote right? 9 view in original post undeniably bad and criminal behavior. By Gaia - 09/09/2011 - 12:31 pm I will make no excuses for what that particular union is doing, and I hope and expact that the perpetrators will be prosecuted. However, I fail to see the connection to NH's public employee unions, or to the subject of agency fees, who's repeal would strongly limit the effectiveness of collective bargaining. Hoffa has nothing to do with NH public unions, and NH public unions have no history of violence. State employees cannot even strike, under the law. In addition, the most recent collective bargaining agreement was a model of reasonable compromise, completely appropriate to the state's economic situation. Can you point to one incident of violence or ciminality by NH public unions? (Standing up and chanting at the state house does NOT count. That's a completely legal activity. It's freedom of speech, and all supporters of the constitution should be supporting it, even if the particular speech is not something they agree with.) I'm also interested to know whether there's anything in the recent collective bargaining agreement that you think is BAD for NH or NH taxpayers? view in original post
Log in to vote
If the shoe fits. By Gaia - 09/09/2011 - 8:58 am n/t view in original post So, Mr. St.Hillaire, what was By Gaia - 09/09/2011 - 8:54 am So, Mr. St.Hillaire, what was YOUR idea? Who did YOU think the contract could be awarded to? If you were so sure there was a solution, where was YOUR plan to find and unveil it? And why should PP be funded some other way? If you thought their services were valuable enough to deserve funding, why make the change? I suppose it bears repeating. Planned Parenthood uses NO taxpayer money to pay for abortions. But aside from the facts, on purely philosophical basis - even if they did, so what? Abortion is LEGAL in this country. I personally am offended by the fact tha a huge percentage of my tax dollars are spent on invading other countries and killing thousands of innocents. But, since making war is LEGAL, (gods Log in know why), I live with it. Ironically, I'm betting that de-funding PP did absolutely nothing to reduce the number of abortions performed, since they are funded in a different way. However, the defunding would confound many women's access to contraception, which logically might result in an increased need for abortion. Which they can still get. Free. So... What was accomplished, other than a lot of political posturing? view in original post Still not quite accurate... By Gaia - 09/08/2011 - 4:42 pm the topic is FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Nearly every other state has a state income tax, and some have local income taxes as well. Most of those 50% are probably paying state and or local income taxes, even if they're not paying federal. view in original post Nope. By Gaia - 09/08/2011 - 4:37 pm I'm not an economist. And obviously one would need to have a whole lot more information and probably some computer modeling to be able to suggest where that tipping point might be. The point of my post was to question the editors' definitions of "high income brackets" and "big expensive Log in houses." to vote 1 view in original post
to vote
14
"ObamaCare" is not government run health care either By Gaia - 09/08/2011 - 4:24 pm Under the new law, people will buy their own health insurance from private companies like Blue Cross or Harvard/Pilgrim. Where's that difference you're trying to point out? view in original post I'm curious about the new gadget By Gaia - 09/06/2011 - 2:05 pm How does the meter reader know that the button has been pushed in a parked car? Does the gadget light up? Does the meter reader have a corresponding gadget to scan the parked car? Inquiring minds want to know! view in original post Nice back-pedal By Gaia - 09/06/2011 - 2:00 pm Discrediting the second sentence in your post pretty much makes the rest of the post moot, doesn't it? At the very least, the rest of the post doesn't belong in this thread. view in original post Thank you By Gaia - 09/06/2011 - 10:21 am That was very informative. I appreciate seeing the facts and details. view in original post Errr.... By Gaia - 09/06/2011 - 9:49 am "The tax break benefits most the homeowners who need it the least, people in high-income brackets who live in big, expensive houses." I make $60,000 a year. My house is worth $230,000 on the market. I benefit quite a bit from the mortgage interest deduction. Do you consider me to be in a high income bracket? If you're thinking that this is just another tax benefit for the rich, think again. If 2 you're wanting to target the rich to pay more of their fair share, perhaps the correct approach is to phase out the deduction for people over a certain income level. view in original post Well, if that's your definition, By Gaia - 09/05/2011 - 3:06 pm No wonder you're dis-satisfied. The task of state government, by and large, is NOT to create things. The state is not a manufacturer of goods. In fact, if the state took over manufacturing items, you'd probably be
Log in to vote
outraged and call it socialism (and you'd be right).
Log in to vote
1 The state builds infrastructure. Yes. It also create computer programs for specific internal uses. Yes. But for the most part, the state creates programs and services, not goods. The rest of the time it MUST maintain the things that it has created. Someone has got to do it - if not the state directly, then it must be contracted out, and state employees must oversee the contracts and monitor accountablility. Taxpayers still have to pay for it, and I don't believe you can get the same quality for your money from a contract (where the vendor needs to make a profit) as you can from a state agency, where there is no profit motive. view in original post Not By Gaia - 09/04/2011 - 4:37 pm John Corrigan is a state employee. He does not work for the union, and he is neither an officer nor on the board of directors for the union. He is not my boss in any sense of the word. In 26 years of state service I have never met one of your alleged "single taskers." I'm frankly perplexed about what you mean by that term. The only example I can think of might be a dishwasher in one of the institutions.... but I'm willing to bet they do other things as well. I would appreciate you giving me some examples of what you mean. And, I would like to know whether you are blaming the individual workers or their managers?. view in original post In the main menu, go to "only By Gaia - 09/04/2011 - 10:37 am In the main menu, go to "only online" and then "e-edition." view in original post It may surprise you By Gaia - 09/03/2011 - 6:42 pm but I won't argue with that. I've never quite understood the outrage on that topic. You can't paint all liberals with the same brush. My sense of the corporation thing is that 1. Employees, including CEO's pay income taxes based on their share of the company's profits. 2. Stock holders pay capital gains based on their share of the profits. 3. Are there any other profits I haven't accounted for? I do think that Warren Buffet has a point about the 15% rate on capital gains. It should probably be higher for people who make a certain level of income. Perhaps it should be treated as normal income, taxed at the rate in effect for the person's tax bracket. view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
You keep implying that public employees are complaining By Gaia - 09/03/2011 - 12:21 am Yet I see NO complaints here. I am grateful to be employed. I understand the need to pay more for my insurance. I'm not complaining about it. I'm grateful to have it. I understand the need to delay raises. I'm not complaining about that either. I do consider myself to be fortunate. Yet, somehow, you seem to know better than I do how I feel? Whether I'm grateful? Please.... Apparently my attitude completely blows your image of state employees and you don't quite believe it because you keep perpetuating the same old tired stereotypes. Log in
to vote
Despite what you may believe, I do work hard, every day. I often put in more than my allotted 37.5 hours 2 per week, unpaid, because the work needs to get done. By the way, most of us would LOVE to get 40 hours per week. The 37.5 hour week was instituted to save the state money, not to give workers a break. view in original post Taxpayers do not pay "premiums" for state employees By Gaia - 09/02/2011 - 1:07 pm Not in the sense that you are thinking. The state is self-insured. That means that nobody pays a health insurance premium for state employees. The only thing that the state (or taxpayers) pay for is medical claims. It also contracts with Anthem to process those claims, so there's a fixed cost there. If an employee has no medical claims during the year, the state collects the paycheck deduction from the employee but pays out nothing for that employee (beyond the fixed cost for Anthem.) So, while the insurance coverage would be "worth" a lot of money if it were a private plan, it doesn't mean that the state pays anywhere near that amount on a per-employee basis. I'm sure that my family's medical claims were well under $2500 for the past year, and I paid in over $1000 to the system. So our health care cost the state $1500 or so (plus whatever the admin cost is for Anthem.) Log in to vote Other employees, who have greater medical issues, will cost the state more. 2 This is a very good reason for the state (and taxpayers) to support (1) preventative health care and education for state employees because it'll cost less in the long run if we have healthier employees and (2) cost control measures on the price of health care. A prime example of that would be to make sure everyone has health insurance so that they don't have to visit Emergency Rooms for sore throats, which drives up the cost of health care for everyone. You say that unions "keep asking for more and more." What have they asked for in the past 4 years, during this economic downturn, that you think is unreasonable? view in original post Huge spending, combined with By Gaia - 09/01/2011 - 10:59 pm Huge spending, combined with harshly inadequate revenue is what got us here. Both spending cuts and increased taxes will be required to get us out.
Log in to vote
The time for blame is over. It's doing us no good at all. We just need to stop digging this damn hole and start filling it in instead. view in original post I'm sorry, but you are mistaken By Gaia - 09/01/2011 - 10:50 pm "You had no other option but to vote yes for this contract. You were threatened with layoffs. If ya voted no, I am sure there are plenty of folks out of work that would apply for you job in a heartbeat. And the wrath of your co wotkers would have been off the charts." I, personally, was in no danger of layoffs. 9500 other state employees out of 10,000 were not in danger of layoff. We had every choice in the world and could have voted no with impunity. We voted yes because it was the right thing for the state, for state services, and for taxpayers. Do you think that the contract was wrong for taxpayers?
(And no, nobody was going to apply for my job if I were laid off. That's what layoffs are - they eliminate 2 jobs, not just workers.) Would you please point or link me to "all the posts on this forum carrying on like they do?" I haven't seen them. view in original post I find this interesting By Gaia - 09/01/2011 - 6:39 pm You believe that unionized workers are getting "too much" at the expense of taxpayers. Is it possible that average private employees are getting "too little" while the CEOs suck up funds that could have gone into better benefits for general employees?
Log in to vote
I'd also like to point out that EVERYONE's salaries are paid by other people. Walmart does not pay their employees. Walmart customers pay those wages. Regardless of where you work or what you do, I could Log in to vote probably find a connection showing that I help pay your salary too. And do you know what? I want you 4 to have the same "cadillac" benefits that I have. Why shouldn't all Americans have them? view in original post Have you forgotten? By Gaia - 09/01/2011 - 3:40 pm Health costs had been rising (even skyrocketing) for years before HCR was passed. In fact, HCR was created in response to those skyrocketing costs, and if it has been passed as originally written, might actually have done something about those rising costs. By the way, insurance companies overwhelmingly approved of extending coverage to age 26, because this population, by and large is healthy. Having more healthy people in the pool actually lowers costs. Most of them elected to implement the rules EARLY, even though HCR prohibits them from raising premiums in order to cover theyoung adults. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsdependentcoverage.html
Log in to vote
(scroll to the bottom). This young adult group was the largest demographic of non-insured persons in the country. What happens when a non-insured person gets sick? They go to the ER, which costs extravagantly more than going to a PCP. When they don't pay their bills, who picks up the tab? The hospitals raise their overall rates, then the insurance companies raise their premiums in order to keep up with those higher rates. The effect is actually the opposite from what you say it is. view in original post You misunderstand By Gaia - 09/01/2011 - 3:25 pm I don't see any state employees here (including myself) "whining" about the increased costs. The fact that 75% of the union members who voted, voted in favor of those increased costs, tells me that there's very little whining going on. Of course there are going to be a few. There always are. On the whole, we state employees "get it." You don't want to believe it, but we do. We understand that sacrifices were going to have to be made. The fact that 75% voted for this tells me that 75% were willing to sacrifice some so that 500 would not have to sacrifice their jobs. We also understand that the private sector (at least middle class) is hurting Most of us are middle class as well. We're one of you. This is why we are NOT whining. As for thankfulness... well... I happen to think that gratitude is a healthy thing for both the grateful and the person they are grateful to. Yes, I am thankful that there are people who are willing to do all kinds of work. It means I can go about my own life without having to do all those things myself everything from growing food to sewing clothes, to plowing roads, to mucking out my septic tank. Just because I pay them for their services doesn't make me any less grateful. If they weren't there I'd be stuck in my house all winter. With an overflowing septic tank. Hungry. And possibly naked. view in original post Do you work for someone else? By Gaia - 09/01/2011 - 1:36 pm When you perform work for your employer, doesn't your employer then "owe" you wages and anything else that was included in your contract or employment agreement? If your employer said they would pay a certain percentage of your retirement plan, then failed to do so for 20 years, wouldn't you think that they "owed" you that money? What if your employer racked up a 20 year debt, then decided that, not only are they not going to pay it, they're going to take it out of Log in YOUR paycheck? to vote 2 I am not talking about some kind of perceived entitlement here. I'm talking about recieving the agree-upon wages and benefits that I was promised. "Public Servant?" I wonder if you've confused the term with "Slave," or
Log in to vote
"Indentured Servant?" Yes, I have a good health plan. Under this new contract I will pay $40 bi-weekly for it. Yes, I know it's extremely low. I also know that in the private sector, people who do the same work that I do make anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 more per year than I do. Please see my response to ConcordCitizen on this page for more about the difference between public & private "suffering." view in original post I want to make it clear By Gaia - 09/01/2011 - 1:20 pm I am NOT claiming to be treated unfairly in this contract. If you're thinking that I am, please re-read my post. I am simply pointing out that state employees, both in the last contract, and in this one, are making the same kinds of sacrifices that everyone else claims they are making. Paying more for insurance. Not getting raises. Actually losing ground in take home pay. I acknowledge that it is to a smaller degree - but for good reason. The "bandwidth of change" is much narrower for state employees than for private sector. The private sector responds more strongly to the economy, for obvious reasons, and the result is that the highs are higher and the lows are lower. Private employees benefit more from a strong economy because of things like profit sharing (and profits in general). Then, when the economy tanks, the holes are deeper for them.
Log in to vote
State employees don't get those same benefits of a good economy. (That is NOT a complaint, just a 3 statement of fact.) Therefore, when the economy is bad, there's less cushion in the holes. Giving us less in the good times should mean that we have less taken away in the bad times. Just saying it's not realistic to compare the relative suffering of public and private employees, since we never compare the two sectors during the good times. (I never heard anyone say, during the Clinton economy - "this is great, everyone's raking in money, let's pay the state employees more.") Again, not a complaint. I know what I signed up for. I just wish everyone else understood it too. view in original post So, By Gaia - 09/01/2011 - 1:04 pm So, are you acknowledging that the Democrats are NOT "in the back pocket" of unions? view in original post Forgot a couple things By Gaia - 08/31/2011 - 1:05 pm The payroll deduction for health care will also rise for most workers. A 2-person plan goes up $10 and a family plan goes up $30. A single person plan actually goes down $10.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
The delay in step raises is truly painful. It will mean 4 years without any kind of pay raise for some of us - 2
particularly those who have been around the longest and are at the top or close to the top of the pay scale for their particular profession. ("Top of the pay scale" does not necessarily mean "highly paid" by the way. This affects everyone from attorneys and physicians to clerks and dishwashers.) Those with the most longevity wait the longest between step increases, or stop getting them at all once they "max out" in 10 years. This comes on top of a 2% decrease in our net pay due to the "pension reform" that passed in the last legislative session. Those changes shifted costs that should be borne by employers (cities towns) to public employees, in order to avert property tax increases for homeowners. I dunno. When my credit card comes due, I don't get to shift the cost onto someone else just because I don't want to pay what I owe. But, all that aside, I voted for the contract. It was better, in the long run, than 500 layoffs that would further stagnate the economy and make it even harder for the state to provide the services that the public expects and deserves. view in original post Read it again By Gaia - 08/25/2011 - 9:51 pm I said ANYTHING, not "everything." view in original post Talk about single tasking... By Gaia - 08/24/2011 - 12:20 pm Itsa's single task: to falsely denigrate public employees for no discernible reason. 1. You're missing some words in your comment that would otherwise make it intelligible. 2. You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to public employees. Exactly what are you picturing? Someone sitting at a desk, leisurely applying a "received" stamp to correspondence all day long, every day, and ignoring the phone when it rings? A guy moving bricks from one pile to another, then back again? Maybe you should go hang out at a state agency sometime, and see what actually goes on. At last count I had 14 different major projects on my plate at the same time, and each of those projects has multiple sub tasks. At least half of them are in response to new or modified Federal or State laws. Yes, most State employees exist for the sole purpose of carrying out Federal and State legislative mandates. They do not manifest into being all by themselves, just to suck money out of your pocket. Log in
3. Granted, a few of of the lowest paying jobs in the state have a narrow focus - dishwashing comes to mind. I challenge you to go to the list of state positions and descriptions, and find anything over a labor grade 7 that you would call "single tasking." http://admin.state.nh.us/HR/classindex_a_d.htm#A 4. You think the private sector has no single-tasking jobs? And before you or anyone else makes any snide comments, no I'm not at work, writing this on a State computer. I'm at home, on vacation. Yes, I do get vacations. Live with it. view in original post
As long as the official By Gaia - 08/24/2011 - 11:49 am As long as the official position of the Republican party is that their #1 task is to make Obama a one-term president, I don't see any reason to say that Obama is a dud. Everyone talks about Obama's "failed policies." Someone in this thread commented on "Obamanomics" being a failure. The truth is there is no such thing as Obamanomics. And his policies are a but a shadow of what they might be if he were not faced with a congress that absolutely refuses to give him anything he asks for. If you start out to bake a cake, and I fight with you every time you go to the cupboards for ingredients, so that the only thing you end up with is half an egg and some baking powder, how can I criticize your cake Log in and call it a failure? It's nowhere close to being a cake. And half an egg and some baking powder is, of to vote course, completely unpalatable and looks like someone with an IQ of 30 was trying to make a cake. 8 Obama's "policies" are not his actual policies. They're the bare scraps he's been able to wedge into place. Even the Affordable Care Act is nothing like what he actually envisioned. Until you let him actually bake a cake, you can't call his eggs and baking powder a failure. view in original post "What this country once was?" By Gaia - 08/24/2011 - 11:31 am Honey, the traditional country that you long for was funded by 70% or higher tax rates on the rich. That country paid for its wars with increased taxation. That country had tight regulations that prevented economic disasters like "derivatives." You're asking for the impossible - you're asking to get back to the economic success of those years without going back to the foundations that made it possible. You can't have it both ways. view in original post I appreciate what you're saying By Gaia - 08/23/2011 - 4:40 pm I certainly would never say that "all" Christians (or all of anybody) have a double standard about sex, or don't believe in birth control. In fact I said "many conservatives..." The issue is not whether these individuals are truly religiously against birth control. Many of them are absolutely for it - for their own families, for their own "class." But they are unwilling for their tax dollars Log in (or mine or your's) to go toward helping people who are not in their own class to get contraception - even to vote when that contraception would decrease the incidence of the other great enemy - abortion. 2 view in original post CM - with all due respect... By Gaia - 08/23/2011 - 4:29 pm I see no "length limits" mentioned in the discussion guidelines. Alas, you've chopped the pithiest 2 lines of my whole comment. Sad Gaia is sad. view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Comment blocked by moderator Policy Violation The post violates the Discussion Guidelines. comment exceeds length limits Here's how I see it By Gaia - 08/23/2011 - 1:21 pm Suppose... I start digging a hole. I dig, and I dig, making it deeper and deeper. While I'm digging and flinging the dirt out of the hole, several dump trucks arrive and cart the flung dirt away for special purposes.... say... to build fortifications to protect our armies that have invaded another country. Or to build a golf course for a rich client... you get the idea. The dirt gets spent on a number of projects - some may have been in the best interest of the country, some not. Some necessary, some not. After some more digging, I find I'm in a hole that I can't get out of until someone puts some dirt back in (hopefully not on top of me). You look around at the measley piles of dirt left, and you say, "there's not enough dirt left to fill the hole - we should not have spent all that dirt, because now we can't fill the hole. Yeah, you're right. However, my real mistake here was that I should never have allowed my dirt to be taken away for free. I should have made sure that for every truckload of soil taken away, I was going to get back some sand, or rocks or compost to keep that hole from getting too deep to climb out ofl. Yes, spending got us into the situation, but we would not be in that hole if we'd had adequate taxation to pay for it all. Now that we're in the hole, simply cutting spending (stopping the digging) is never going to solve the problem. We need fill. And we need a lot of it. We need the taxes that should have been in place before the spending started, plus some extra to pay for the interest. (cont) view in original post Allow me to clarify. By Gaia - 08/23/2011 - 12:46 pm The comments about population in the article were about World, not US population. Open borders will make no difference to the overall world population. Open borders will also make no difference in the debate about planned parenthood, so Josh fails on both accounts. The article's headline is a bit misleading, and doesn't address the whole point of the article, which is to assess the thought process and rationale behind defunding planned parenthood. On the world stage this moralistic kind of thinking actually increases human suffering - and on the NH stage it may actually increase the need for abortions. Both results ought to be in opposition to what the "deciders" say they want. view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Thanks for the correction By Gaia - 08/23/2011 - 12:28 pm They all kind of run together for me these days - I don't see too many of them differentiating themselves with ideas that I can support. view in original post Unfortunately it goes deeper than that By Gaia - 08/22/2011 - 3:22 pm I've come to the conclusion that many conservatives have a bizarre double standard when it comes to sex. Apparently, only wealthier white men really have any right to have and enjoy sex for the sake of sex. If you are poor, of color, or (especially) female, the only purpose for having sex should be to have babies. And then, only in very limited numbers. After all, as Rep. O'Brien once famously quipped "we shouldn't be paying for them to have fun." (or something very close to that). So, according to that particular conservative, contraception should not be provided to poor women, because they should not be enjoying sex for the sake of sex. Even if they're married. There's also the millenia old paranoia of rich ruling-class men about womens' sexuality. For some reason, it must be controlled, through economics, leglislation, religion, and brute force if necessary. They have not Log in progressed very far since the days of the witch hunts in Europe and colonial America. Read up - it was not to vote about "witchcraft" or "satan worship" at all - it was all about the power of female sexuality, which they 5 felt was controlled/heightened by satan in order to, in turn, control men. The bottom twisted line? If you deny women access to good contraception (and abortion), it will in turn control their sexuality, and therefore their power over men. Sounds like paranoid ultra-feminism, I know, but the older I get, the more I believe it. Is there any rational reason to deny contraception to poor women? view in original post The article is about WORLD By Gaia - 08/22/2011 - 3:07 pm The article is about WORLD population. Not the US population. view in original post Seriously? By Gaia - 08/22/2011 - 8:57 am It was one sentence, explaining the increased frequency of droughts. Droughts lead to famine, which places increased pressure on growing populations, which was the clear subject of the story. view in original post I would be just as scared if By Gaia - 08/19/2011 - 3:08 pm I would be just as scared if he were a Democrat. The thought of President Perry is frightening, regardless of his party.
view in original post Oh wait, one more By Gaia - 08/18/2011 - 10:03 pm "Thou shalt not approve one dime in tax increases, even if it is accompanied by everything else you've ever asked for." view in original post Seems to me the Republican Party has but one commandment By Gaia - 08/18/2011 - 10:01 pm "Thou shalt not endorse nor vote for any idea proposed by a Democrat, regardless of it's merits. logic, benefits, or alignment with conservative values." view in original post I suppose you already know By Gaia - 08/17/2011 - 9:56 pm I suppose you already know how utterly insulting your comments are. No sector of people in the world has a monopoly on morality. Not Christians. Not Muslims. Not Pagans, Not atheists. Not agnostics. Not Jews, and not the followers of the Flying Spagetti Monster. Not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not Progressives. Not Conservatives. And not the a-political. To make an assumption that a person of one particular faith or political persuasion is more moral than someone else, simply because of their religion or political party is the ultimate in arrogance. And here's a clue: All Morality is Relative. All of it! Here's how my religion might define an immoral act:: One in which an innocent person is is knowingly or purposefully harmed either physically or emotionally; a non-aggressive or non-threatening animal is killed Log in or injured in a cruel or avoidably painful manner; or the earth/environment is purposefully despoiled for to vote the primary purpose of financial gain, or avoidance of financial loss. 4 Your definition of immorality is going to be different because you have a different religion. For example, your definition of morality may include things like when it's ok and not ok to have sex with another consenting adult. Mine does not address that issue, because there is no harm involved to either person. Nor do I believe that it offends my gods, like harming the earth does. I will never say that I am more moral than you. I will not tell you that your morality is wrong.. I will only acknowledge that it is different from mine. Please consider doing the same view in original post You and ItsaRepublic just By Gaia - 08/17/2011 - 9:51 pm You and ItsaRepublic just can't seem to help it, can you? It seems like your day just isn't complete until you've insulted as many people as you can.
Log in to vote
Of course I know what happens to money in a bank.. The bank invests it for the benefit of their stock 1 holders. In the past it was mostly in the form of loans to people and business. More lately, in the form of ridiculously risky loans to people and businesses. Yes, I understand the benefits to the community of banks lending money. (I also understand the great cost to the community when the bank gets greedy, then has to be bailed out.) But that wasn't my point, was it? I was not asking about how much a person's banked money might help others. I was asking what effect, truly, it would have on the wealthy individual if some of that money that's piled up in banks (and other kinds of investments) were to benefit the community in a different way - by becoming revenue to local, state, and federal government. Would someone really feel a difference between a 100 million a year net income and a 98 million a year net income? view in original post Hear, hear! By Gaia - 08/17/2011 - 4:43 pm We are of duplicate mind! view in original post "Cut government spending and By Gaia - 08/16/2011 - 10:40 pm "Cut government spending and programs across the board back to the 2000 levels." Ok, can we stop going to war, and bring home every soldier we've sent out of country in the past decade? Imagine what our economy might be like if we hadn't spent a trillion on two wars. (http://costofwar.com/en/) Can we re-regulate the financial markets so that we don't have to again bail out banks and large corporations "too big to fail?" Those two things alone might get us pretty close to 2000 spending levels. But now that our debt has increased so much, we either have to cut our actual spending Log in back even further, or create more revenue, just to start paying it down. to vote 4 I keep wondering.... how much can the rich possibly spend? How much stuff and services can one person buy? After the first several million a year, wouldn't the rich run out of things to spend money on? Doesn't it then just sort of pile up in the bank/market, earning yet more money that's only taxed at 15%? I'd love to see a breakdown of how much money the typically rich person actually returns to the (US) economy, and how much that spending might be affected if they paid a bit more in taxes. view in original post
Log in to vote
And this has what to do with the article? By Gaia - 08/10/2011 - 9:28 pm Besides being pointless, your post is completely off topic. Please repeat after me. There are no death panels. There were never death panels. There will be no death panels under the Affordable Care Act. You've said it yourself - it's "voluntary advance care planning" during annual checkups. How can that possibly be construed as a "death panel?" My dad had this discussion with his doctors. Any doctor worth his/her salt has this discussion with his older or very ill patients. It's NORMAL. It happens all the time. And it's something that many patients WANT. I expect to have this conversation with my doctor at some point, and before then I've had a conversation Log in with my family about what kind of care I do and don't want if I'm not able to make to vote my own decisions. 3 The only thing that's changed here is that now Medicare (and other health insurance) will pay for the doctor's time to have this discussion with patients and family. Can we please move on to a REAL issue now? view in original post By "compromise" you mean, of By Gaia - 08/09/2011 - 7:56 pm By "compromise" you mean, of course "give over completely," and by "lead" you mean, of course "give over completely." Wasn't it Boehner who walked away from the table, unable to compromise? view in original post In other words, gays are not capable of real love? By Gaia - 08/02/2011 - 9:45 pm I'm kinda hoping you're being facetious... But just in case... Would you EVER say that heterosexual marriage is all about the Benjamins? Yes, marriage has some financial benefits, but how often is that the only motivation for marriage? I can't believe I'm actually having to say this - I feel like an ass actually putting it in writing because it ought to be so painfully obvious - gays and lesbians have exactly the same feelings of love and commitment to their partners as straight folks do. They marry for exactly the same reasons. In fact, their marriages, at this point DON'T give the same financial benefits as straight marriages do, especially in terms of taxes, because they're not recognized by the federal government. view in original post
It's not completely free By Gaia - 07/30/2011 - 8:38 pm State employees have been a payroll deduction and copays for health insurance. Granted, it is an extremely good plan. However, the reason state employees have this great plan is because for decades health benefits were cheap. Instead of decent raises and salaries equivalent to the private sector, state employees got increased health benefits and generous leave time. Now that health costs are so high, it suddenly seems like state employees have a better deal than anyone else. However, if you take into account the lower wages, I think state employees are now pretty much on an even keel with the private sector. If you raised the premiums and/or deductibles, they'd be once again several notches below the private sector in overall wages and benefits. Simple equation. Your health costs are higher, but your pay is higher too. view in original post To be fair.... By Gaia - 07/30/2011 - 8:31 pm It's also by far the worst economy and most frightening legislature in 30 years. It would be a tremendous challenge for any president. I shall wait to see the details before passing judgement. (Did you REALLY expect to get a COLA this year? Really?) view in original post Fail By Gaia - 07/29/2011 - 3:48 pm Which segment of the population did he insult or make fun of with these comments? Which comment suggests that certain people should be eliminated? Where's the name calling? view in original post Typical By Gaia - 07/29/2011 - 3:22 pm When you can't attack the content, attack the writer. Or tell her to shut up.... Very mature. Apparently only the party in power gets to exercise their first amendment rights. Doesn't change the facts as outlined, though. I'm preparing my "told you so" for about 6 months from now.... view in original post
Log in to vote
"What they are actually By Gaia - 07/28/2011 - 1:17 pm "What they are actually afraid of is losing the support of wealthy ultra-conservatives and their Tea Party activists in the next election. And apparently, the congressmen will say anything to keep voters on the hook." You got it. Hammer meets nail squarely. view in original post Here we go again By Gaia - 07/22/2011 - 10:45 am "consequences of sin?" Sin is a religious concept. Your religion sees sex outside of marriage as sinful. Mine does not. In this country we are not allowed to make laws that have a purely religious basis. You cannot use "sin" as an argument for defunding Planned Parenthood. As many others have pointed out, tax money (your money) is not used to perform abortions. It IS used to provide reproductive education and birth control, so that most of those "sinful" women you are so worried about controlling never have to deal with the abortion choice.
Log in By the way - I abhor the fact that much of my federal tax money goes to waging war. My ethical sense to vote says it is "sinful" to use our military to control and dominate other countries, killing their citizens by the 9 thousands. Your ethical and religious sense may say something different about that. But I'm realistic enough to know that I cannot win an agrument against war on religious grounds. I have to find some other reason, related to the general welfare of our own nation's citizens, why we should not be invading other countries. Log in to vote
view in original post I know why (continued from above) By Gaia - 07/20/2011 - 1:12 pm If we can convince ourselves that the lower level workers are not "deserving" of a basic standard of living, we don't have to pay attention to it. It's their fault. Your equation allows you (and many others) to do exactly that. Low worth = low ambition = low wages = low worth.
Log in
Then we ignore their value to society. It doesn't matter that the low wage earners do most, if not all of the to vote critial support work that allows the high wage earners to flourish. We just ignore that part, and in blissful 1 denial dismiss them all as unworthy. view in original post "Worth is not based on By Gaia - 07/20/2011 - 12:28 pm "Worth is not based on occupation, but ambition." Yep, that's the crux of our disagreement. Let's work your logic backward:
Log in to vote
"If you choose a non-challenging, non-thinking state job..... you live with the lower wages." So... you believe (and treat as fact) the idea that state jobs are not challenging and they require little thought. Therefore, in your mind, those who take state jobs lack ambition. "Worth is not based on occupation, but ambition." Ergo, those who have chosen a low paying job lack ambition, and are therefore worth less than those who have high paying jobs. Thank you for proving my original point. I wonder how much you'd think State employees are worth if they just didn't show up for a month....say in the dead of winter. How much do you think your office cleaner, and farm worker and nanny and file clerk would be worth if you had to do all those jobs yourself? How much would your waiters and retail ringers be worth if suddenly there were no restaurants or stores? These people have supported the wealthy's rise to the top. They've done the scut jobs, allowing the wealthy to concentrate on reaching other goals. They continue to do the scut while the wealthier focus on other things. How come these critical cogs don't deserve to have a basic standard of living that includes decent shelter, adequate food, good education and excellent health care? Why is it ok for these people to struggle with the basics? Why is it anathema for the well-to-do to help (through taxation, not volunteerism) support those people to have a basic standard of living? I know.. view in original post Hmmm.... By Gaia - 07/19/2011 - 11:35 pm I thought you were a capitalist? Has Amazon done something wrong by being competitive? Do you have something against Amazon making a profit at the expense of Border's? Why aren't you bowing to the corporate gods and praising the virtues of unregulated free commerce? (Yes, this was snark. I admit it. It was fun but I promise not to indulge too often.) view in original post it's very simple, Bill By Gaia - 07/19/2011 - 11:26 pm The overwhelming message of people who are against programs that help people, is that most of the people who need the programs are lazy and unwilling to put in the effort to "better themselves." People who have little to no money have only themselves to blame. People who choose lower paying jobs also have only Log in themselves to blame, even if that job is in service to others, and serves to line the to vote pockets of their rich employers. The bottom line is that poor people are not 5 worthy. They are not worthy of respect, shelter, food, health care, education... because they are all to blame for their situations, and everyone could be well off if
Log in to vote
only they applied themselves. And I guess now the poor are not worthy of enjoying sex in the same way that the rich are allowed to enjoy it. If you are poor, you must abstain from sex (or "having fun" as one rep put it.) You must abstain even if you are married. To have sex while poor is the height of irresponsibility (and just plain icky).... because the enjoyment of sex is the domain of the worthy elite. view in original post And as a follow-on to that rant By Gaia - 07/19/2011 - 12:51 pm Thomas Jefferson said "All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." I believe that every person has inherent worth. I believe that every person deserves to be respected as a human (even when we may do not approve of their behaviors, or have to place limits on those behaviors). I believe that everyone, as a human being, deserves equal access to a certain standard of living - decent shelter, access to quality education, enough food to eat, and good health care. I believe that the current climate in this country mistakenly equates a person's occupation and income (or lack thereof) with their basic worth.
Log in
This false presumption is what stands in the way of creating systems (like universal health care) that truly to vote support all citizens. The people who have means AND a belief that income=worth, simply cannot agree 1 that they have any responsibility to assist those with less means, even if those people have worked their butts off to line that wealthy person's pockets. They believe that people who don't make much money don't "deserve" a basic standard of living, because they are not worth as much as people who make more money. I challenge that presumption. view in original post Where did you get that? By Gaia - 07/19/2011 - 12:32 pm You said "I am not sure what you mean that you feel that the service sector worker deserves the same pay as an executive working in a high stress job 80 hours per week, making the decisions which build companies." I never said (or even implied) that they deserve the same pay. Of course not. My whole point was that there are always going to be lower paying jobs, and the need for someone to do those jobs. The people doing those jobs fill a critical need. People who make a lot of money often employ people who make very Log in little money. Those people who are making a lot of money (yes, through their own ambition and hard to vote work) could not make that money without their employees. Yet, those who choose those lower paying but 1 critical jobs are often looked down on. It is common to hear people say that anyone who's only making minimum wage is probably lazy and not willing to do what it takes to get ahead. Anyone who is homeless is homeless because they are lazy and not willing to do what it takes to afford a home. Anyone who doesn't have healthcare is lazy and not
willing to do what it takes to get a job that provides health care. There are judgements being made about people that are largely untrue and disrespectful. The people filling these jobs are CRITICAL to our economy and to the money-makers, yet they get no respect as human beings. Case in point: Just because public "servants" serve at taxpayer will does not mean they are indentured workers (slaves), You own their bodies or souls. Income level should not dictate how much respect a person (or class) deserves. view in original post It's kind of amusing By Gaia - 07/19/2011 - 9:44 am You accuse liberals of having only one solution: "Raise Taxes." Your posts here make you look like steriotypical conservatives who have only one solution: "Cut programs." I have always said that balancing a budget (business, government or family) requires BOTH raising revenue and cutting spending. You may have a point about one thing though. I have not looked closely at all of the state agencies, because I have not felt there's a spending problem here. However, if I did look at them closely, I might find programs that could be cut in order to move much needed funding into other agencies. (Not the answer you're looking for, I know.) My main point here: It's hard to take people (that means you) seriously when they consistently stereotype whole classes of people ("liberals") in inaccuarte ways. You think you know what we're all about - you tell us in no uncertain terms what we believe, and can't seem to see the human behind the label. I'm trying hard, Sail and ItsaRepublic, to see the humanity behind your bluster.... can you help me out by toning down the rhetoric a bit? view in original post Basic economics By Gaia - 07/18/2011 - 4:31 pm Sail, If NH's per-capita spending by government were, for example, $1, would it matter whether that $1 is paid in quarters or dimes? I remember having an argument with my little cousin, who at 5 years old, thought I was getting more money than her because she got 2 - 1 dollar bills and I got a dollar bill and 4 quarters. The bottom line is that we spend very little per capita in comparison with the rest of the country. Why does it matter how government is arranged, as long as spending is that low? view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Somebody has to do those lower paying jobs By Gaia - 07/18/2011 - 3:46 pm " I still contend that ambition, self reliance, determination and hard work determine your lot in life." Even if 100% of the people in this country had high ambition, self reliance, determination and dedication to hard work, they couldn't all be wealthy. Someone has to do the lower paying jobs. Someone needs to clean the hotel rooms and ring the cash register at Walmart. Someone needs to do the public service jobs that traditionally pay less than corporate jobs. If someone chooses a service job because they genuinely believe it is honorable to be of service to others and to help make the world a nicer place (as opposed to a richer place), by your logic they deserve to be Log in to vote poor. And those who's only goal is personal wealth (even at the expense of others) deserve to be rich. The 3 fact that they've made money excuses them from any responsibility to those who have chosen service over wealth? I dunno, that seems pretty sad and warped to me. view in original post So out of touch By Gaia - 07/16/2011 - 1:18 pm Sail - we have the 5th smallest government in the country. How can that possibly be a Big Govt boonoggle? view in original post PS By Gaia - 07/13/2011 - 9:22 pm Why do you so staunchly defend the low tax rates on the rich? What do you think they accomplish? view in original post IF that's true By Gaia - 07/13/2011 - 9:20 pm IF that's true, it's because we let the underfunding of our government go on so long. Insufficient income led to increased borrowing, and now the interest on debt alone is staggering. We would not be in this position if taxes on the rich had not been lowered so much in the past 30 years. (Two recent wars has only made it worse.) But... just because raising taxes on the rich won't solve the entire problem, doesn't mean we shouldn't do Log in to vote it. It will start to solve the problem, and we'll have to figure out other means (like spending cuts) to finish 0 solving the problem. view in original post
Since you shifted to the national level By Gaia - 07/12/2011 - 12:29 pm Since you shifted to the national level, I will too. We have great wealth in this country. The problem is that our revenue system is highly influenced (perhaps even controlled) by the wealthy, and they've managed to push down income taxes and create loopholes to the point that we no longer have the income we need to run the country. (And let's add those pesky wars into the mix.... very expensive, those... and no extra income to finance them.)
Log in to vote
Govt. has been on a diet for years. Broke = Starved. Time to feed it again. Time for the wealthy to loosen 0 their stranglehold on nation. view in original post I WAS satisfied... By Gaia - 07/12/2011 - 11:42 am until they decided it would be a good idea to take 2% of my pay, right off the top, with no return benefit. I make a smaller paycheck than my counterparts in the private sector, but the benefits - medical, retirement - make up for it satisfactorily. I was good. No complaining from me. I've worked for the state almost 30 years, and I make $55,000 a year as an IT professional. Do the math that 2% is $1100 right out of my pocket. It's not chump change. It's $44 a week. So much for my extra $15 a week from the President. If the governor feels he needs to take money out of my paycheck to balance the budget, I'd frankly rather take it in the form of a furlough - 1 week off, unpaid. That's 2% of my salary. At least I'd get something for it - a little more time in my garden. But then the public might complain that State services are a little more scarce when they need them. Lines a little longer at the DMV. A few more rings before someone picks up the phone. It's probably ok with the public to take money away from state employees as long as the public doesn't notice it in any way. Oh wait - the public will suffer either way - What do you think I'm going to do to make up that $1100? I'm going to have to cut my spending, which means less money in the coffers of local business owners. Multiply that by the 50,000 employees affected, and you get a very large number that's coming straight out of the local economy. (Say employees lose $800 on average - that's $40,000,000. Yes, that's the right number of zeroes.) Don't own a business? It still affects you - if you work view in original post Withdrawn By Gaia - 07/12/2011 - 11:40 am withdrawn view in original post
Excuse me By Gaia - 07/12/2011 - 11:22 am Clearly you've never heard of 2nd shift employees and scheduled days off, have you? view in original post We're not broke By Gaia - 07/11/2011 - 2:06 pm We have huge wealth in this state, but a revenue system that's stuck in the 19th century, when wealth and tax revenue were based on land ownership and farming. view in original post We're not broke By Gaia - 07/11/2011 - 11:38 am We have huge wealth in this state, but a revenue system that's stuck in the 19th century, when wealth and tax revenue were based on land ownership and farming. view in original post One nit to pick By Gaia - 07/10/2011 - 7:13 pm Public employees' "required contribution to the fund increased by about 2 percent." Let's be factually and semantically accurate here. The required contribution to the fund increased by 40%. Going from a contribution rate of 5% to 7% is a 40% increase in the amount deducted from each employee's paycheck. For someone making $30,000 a year, this means $23 extra deducted from each bi- Log in to vote weekly paycheck. $600 a year. 0 view in original post A "lifestyle?" By Gaia - 07/09/2011 - 10:58 pm Isn't marriage of any sort a "lifestyle?" By your argument, I, as as single person, am forced to subsidize the "married lifestyle." Marriage is a lifestyle, and a choice. Homosexuality is neither. When did you "choose" to be hetero? Do you think that you could actually choose to be gay, if you wanted to? If I'm going to subsidize marriage for straight folks, I think I should be subsidizing it for gays as well. Both or none! view in original post
The only example here that By Gaia - 07/09/2011 - 10:53 pm The only example here that remotely relates to the subject at hand is the last one. Even though I am not Christian, I have to say that no manger scene on the public square has ever actually hurt me. Doesn't that just prove the point that an objection to same sex marriage on the basis of religious beliefs has no real defense? #4 & #5 forces children to participate in something their families may not agree with. Nobody is forcing you to participate in same sex marriage. Apples & oranges. #1 & 2 - come on now - of course they have an effect. Banks have to buy insurance against bank robbers. Log in to vote They pay for that insurance through higher interest rates on my loans and lower rates on my deposits. And 1 my brother died 35 years ago as a result of his drug habit. How's that for an effect? (Besides, these laws are about preventing certain behavior, not about allowing certain actions. Apples & oranges.) #3. I don't even know how to respond, there's no parallel that I can see between that and same sex marriage. view in original post Another reason the average income of NH residents is so high By Gaia - 07/09/2011 - 10:23 pm This is just the latest bit of evidence for my theory. We have the 5th highest personal income level in this state because poor people cannot afford to live here. Without services, poor people move elsewhere, leaving behind those who can afford it (even if it's just barely). We are not wealthy because our tax structure somehow creates wealth. We are wealthy because our lack Log in of income tax attracts people who make a lot of money and want to keep it. Between these two things, we to vote create an image of "success," but it's all smoke and mirrors. 2 view in original post No, it was aimed at you. By Gaia - 07/01/2011 - 11:06 am The unnecessary expense is to the state (and therefore the taxpayers) - carrying out the provisions of this law will incur expenses. Um... Where did I already admit that fraud exists? Perhaps you've confused me with someone else. At any rate, even if fraud were rampant here, I'm not sure that the voter ID requirement would fix it. Can you explain to me how requiring an ID at the polls will prevent people from voting twice? If you're registered in two towns, you are registered under your own name. You go to each town, you show your ID in both towns, and you vote twice. The only thing this law can fix is "voter impersonation," which I've read is the least common type of voter fraud. What you're looking for actually already exists. (Quoting from another Monitor article: "New Hampshire has a statewide computerized database. When a voter moves from one town to another and registers to
Log in to vote
vote, the voter's registration is deleted from the previous town. Supervisors of the checklist are required to remove names of the deceased from the checklist, and the post office is required to notify towns when people change their addresses. Periodically, every name on the list is checked and verified. That will happen this year." Here's the full article that describes the anti-fraud measures already in place here. http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/252961/voter-fraud-threat-is-fraud... It's obvious it's working because we've only had one incident in the past 10 years. view in original post GWTW By Gaia - 07/01/2011 - 10:44 am Yes, I was clear about your post. I didn't have a quarrel with it. My comment was directed to our friend ItsaRepublic, who chose to criticize the public worker you described. view in original post Read it again. By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 2:46 pm Last paragraph, third sentence. view in original post On a separate note By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 2:42 pm with regard to voter ID. I am nearly convinced that showing an ID to vote is similar to other situations where we require IDs. I'm also nearly convinced that for most people it will not be onerous. However, I am fully convinced that the law was unnecessary, will create unnecessary expense, and was a solution in search of a problem. At the end of the day, I strongly believe that the motivations for this law were purely political, and that it will provide no tangible benefit to the people of the state. "Udders" on a bull. (Avoiding censure, thank Log in you.) The law (and its veto) are simply a platform from which certain folks can demonize those who object to it, and allow them to say things like "The people supporting the notion that there should be no ID want to cheat." If I see no need for udders on a bull, does that mean I want to steal milk? view in original post Let me get this straight. By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 2:29 pm Are you criticizing the dump employee for doing the job he was hired for Log in Log in to vote Log in to vote
to vote
upholding and enforcing town statutes and regulations? Do you think that dump employee should have the discretion to decide whether to enforce the rules. Should he get to decide that on Mondays, because he's tired, he's not going to check permits? Or that this particular person who's driving a nice car can dump without a permit? Come on now - you criticize public employees when they do their jobs. You criticize them when they don't (rightfully). Can they do anything right in your eyes? How is a public employee supposed to behave in order to meet with your approval? view in original post I'm sorry, but By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 1:46 pm I'm sorry, but saying "He's not a facist, he's a capitalist," is like saying "He's not caucasian, he's a man." Is that "nouveau" definition of facist that you dislike, anything like the one on this website? http://www.hermes-press.com/fascist_capitalism.htm What do you see as the difference between the "old" definition and the "new" one? You say that capitalism can't exist without freedom. I think that depends on your definition of freedom. Look at China - they're most definitely developing a capitalist economy, but would you call them free? They have certain economic freedoms, but their civil liberties are certainly lacking. The "facisim-liberalism" scale describes those civil liberties The "socialism-capitalism" scale describes, in part, economic liberties, so yes, you are correct that you cannot have capitalism without economic liberties.
to vote
Log in to vote
These days I get the impression that in this country the economically successful 0 folks are benefitting from a lot of freedoms - freedom from regulation, in particular. However, those who are not reaping the benefits of those freedoms are slowly losing their freedom, in the sense of flexibility and ability to break out of the middle class. And those freedoms that the poster above referred to (like voting rights, etc.) What do you get when you provide a lot of economic freedom and sharply curtail civil and personal liberties? A fascist capitalist. (By the way, this creates a "ruling class" of wealthy people. Their wealth buys them civil freedoms that are not available to the common folk. view in original post Ok... By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 12:54 pm But except for the method of payment, it's pretty much what we have now. What if a good portion of the population (probably the ones who are healthy and don't think they need
Log in to vote
insurance) decides they don't want to buy it? Or they wait until they become sick to buy insurance? Just like today, the cost of the premiums goes up because only the people who are using the health care system on a regular basis are paying in. I contend that no insurance company is going to be able to offer a $200 a month insurance policy if only sick people buy the insurance. You have to have a contribution from all of the healthy people in order to dilute the cost of the insurance. view in original post Hmmm. occupied buildings? By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 12:36 pm Why not "occupied residences?" Does an office building or a store count as an occupied building if someone is inside? And why burglaries? For a home invasion you'd have to prove that the person entered with the intent of stealing. Correct me if I'm wrong - didn't the young men who killed Kimberly Cates say that they entered with the intent of murder? Why not say it's a capital crime if you kill someone in connection with illegally entering a private residence? Am I missing something? view in original post Before issuing opinions By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 11:13 am I encourage everyone to read the court filing. It outlines very well what the issues are - issues of constitutionality, and a good history of what actually has happened to the fund over the years due to the legislature's tinkering. http://www.molanmilner.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Petition_for_Dec... Surely you can't say that the legislature should be able to get away with violating both state and US consitution, and that the employee victims of this violation should just roll over "for the good of the state?" When the state can get away with violating the constitution at the expense of 50,000 individuals, what direction is the state going? Certainly not in the direction of liberty. (Sorry for the cross post - I thought it was important this time.) view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Please look at the actual filing By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 11:08 am I encourage everyone to read the court filing. It outlines very well what the issues are - issues of constitutionality, and a good history of what actually has happened to the fund over the years due to the legislature's tinkering. http://www.molanmilner.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Petition_for_Dec... Surely you can't say that the legislature should be able to get away with violating both state and US consitution, and that the employee victims of this violation should just roll over "for the good of the state?" When the state can get away with violating the constitution at the expense of 50,000 individuals, what direction is the state going? Certainly not in the direction of liberty. view in original post Ditto to Bruce By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 11:01 am You can't compare average salaries to top salaries. view in original post Ok, he's probably an example of excess. By Gaia - 06/30/2011 - 10:59 am But, What do other coaches of similar institutions make? Is his position necessary at UNH? What would be the ripple-out effect of eliminating the position? What revenues would be lost if his position were eliminated? Gotta answer all the questions before you can make a point that there is indeed a gravy train, and 2, that eliminating his position (or reducing the salary) would not have unintended financial impact. And, aside from that obvious one, where's the gravy train? view in original post [blush] By Gaia - 06/29/2011 - 7:15 pm Thanks, Beanie. May I call you Beanie? : ) view in original post
Examples? By Gaia - 06/29/2011 - 4:27 pm Please give me specific examples of state employees who are making more in public service than they would in an equivalent private sector job. Then tell me why that position is un-necessary in state government. view in original post Mr. Kucinich is right By Gaia - 06/29/2011 - 4:22 pm And that's where Obama started out - trying to create universal access to health care. Because that sounded too much like a single payor system (or worse, government-run health care, where the doctors are government employees), he was quickly beaten down and took a second tier position - universal access to health insurance. It was a very fast transition, and rather disappointing from my point of view. I think that our lack of consensus in this country is about a more basic issue than whether everyone should be required to buy health insurance. It's not even a disagreement about whether there should be a single payor system, supported by tax dollars. The more basic disagreement is about whether all citizens deserve equal health care. One camp says "every citizen, regardless of income or lifestyle, deserves to have the same quality health care as everyone else.." Another camp says "Health care is a privilege, not a right, and if you want good health care you need to work for it. I should not have to pay for health care for someone who's not willing to work for it." Until there is concensus that everyone has the right to quality health care (regardless of all other factors), we will have no concensus on how to achieve it. Citizenship (or legal status) is also a big factor for many - does an immigrant (documented or undocumented) deserves the same health care that citizens get? Some past divisive issues (like "do women and blacks deserve to vote?") were settled by very small majorities, over strenuous objections, and eventually became societal norms. view in original post I think it was a win-win situation for the 'pubs. By Gaia - 06/29/2011 - 2:23 pm By creating a solution to a manufactured problem, they were going to win either way. If the law had not been vetoed, they could crow about they protectied democracy and the integrity of the Log in voting system, even if some voters are disenfranchised. Those who are disenfranchised, they say, have to vote only themselves to blame because it's not hard to comply with the law. "Self responsibility, people!" 3 because you should all be self responsible regardless of the barriers we put in place, and those of you who complain are just whiners with no valid points to share. Shame on you, you unpatriotic lazy whiners! Just
sit down and shut up! Now that the law is vetoed, they can demonize the Democratic governor as someone who doesn't care about voter integrity. (Or maybe.... the governor is actually trying to preserve or create openings for fraud so that his party can take advantage of them....) Why else would he veto it? See? We told you he's slimy and can't be trusted.... as are all the Democrats who support him.... view in original post Not mutually exclusive By Gaia - 06/29/2011 - 2:10 pm It is perfectly possible to be a faschist AND a capitalist. Look at Pinochet, a perfect example. Faschism and capitalism are NOT opposite ends of the same spectrum. The opposite of capitalism is socialism (or collectivism). The opposite of faschism is Liberalism. (Liberalism in the classic political sense, where individual rights are more highly prized than government control of the people.) While it is true that most of our classic faschists were also socialists, it's not a requirement. Hitler was actually more capitalist than socialist, but there's no doubt he was also a faschist. view in original post Curious... By Gaia - 06/29/2011 - 2:09 pm And this is a serious question, not intended to be antagonistic. I agree with you that "access to health care in this country is a mess." I also find the argument against forcing people to buy insurance to be compelling. But... if we are to fix the problem of access to health care in this country, do you see any other option besides a single payor system? (I believe it's almost univerally agreed that the only way to lower the cost of health 1 insurance, and therefore give everyone equal access to health care, is to require everyone have insurance. That way it spreads out the liability among both the sick and healthy.) view in original post "Legislators had worked long By Gaia - 06/29/2011 - 1:30 pm "Legislators had worked long and hard to reduce the system's impact on public employers in light of the state simultaneously eliminating its 25 percent contribution toward employers' retirement costs." Who's statement is that - Bradley's, or the reporter's?
Log in to vote
I would like to know what other options the lawmakers considered for reducing the system's imact on public employees. The only options I ever heard were those that eventually ended up in the bills - reducing benefits, increasing the length of time you have to work before you can retire, and increasing employee contributions to the fund. Were there other things? Exactly what did legislators do that constitutes working "long and hard?" view in original post perhaps you forget By Gaia - 06/29/2011 - 1:20 pm Total freedom = total anarchy. Unfettered freedom is not necessarily a good thing. This is why we have laws and regulations. So yes, I do believe that some freedoms must be denied or curtailed, and I suspect that you do too. Let's just be honest Log in about it. to vote 7 view in original post It's not just .44 for a post card By Gaia - 06/28/2011 - 10:37 pm Just want to make the point that you can't compare the cost of the police visit to the cost of 1 post card. The cost of that notification is not 44 cents. It's 44 cents times the number of dog owners in town - several hundred, I'd imagine. Plus the cost of the cards themselves, the printing, and the staff time to print and mail them. And as someone else pointed out, they make the visit back with the fine.
Log in I do think it's appropriate for people to remember when to license their dogs - it's always in April, and to vote there's always a sign out in front of the town clerk's office for a couple weeks during that time. I don't own 4 a dog and I know this.
view in original post It's a tax By Gaia - 06/28/2011 - 10:29 pm Like all of the other "fees" that we have in this state in order to make up for the lack of broad-based taxes. Although it's been many years since I licensed a dog, I think you also have to show proof of a rabies vaccine at the same time, so there's a public health aspect to it as well. view in original post Truly! By Gaia - 06/28/2011 - 9:49 pm Replublic - please. This behavior is no better than the name-calling you accuse us of. You are essentially calling beancounter a liar. Not helpful at all when you have no evidence of same, and people are trying to have reasonable and civil conversations. Log in
I hear you. By Gaia - 06/27/2011 - 10:39 pm I get whacked over and over with that broad brush that some of these posters are beating us liberals with. They've got a certain stereotype in mind and seem to think that we're all clones of that (largely mischaracterized) stereotype. It's quite tiresome. view in original post My objection to "Under God" is By Gaia - 06/27/2011 - 10:19 pm My objection to "Under God" is 1. Not everyone believes in any god, or any higher power, and they should not have to substitute some kind of metaphor when pledging allegiance to the country. 2. My pagan gods, as far as I can tell, do not recognize human categorizations and divisions of "country." I do not believe that my country IS "one nation under God" or Goddess or any other divine concept. My gods are not political, and I would not presume to state that the country, as a unit, has any relationship Log in whatsoever to the gods. to vote 8 It's hard to put into words. Suffice it to say that different people have different concepts of "God." It's not just different names and faces for one universally understood idea. view in original post You are making a common assumption By Gaia - 06/27/2011 - 5:59 pm The assumption that one must believe in God (or a higher power, or something like that) in order to be ethical and to behave properly. I do not share that assumption. There are compelling non-religious reasons not to kill people. 1. Allowing murder creates anarchy. Anarchy is not good for civilized society. I like civilized society. 2. Creating widows, widowers and orphans willy-nilly would be a huge burden on the state. 3. It's just plain wrong, and violates every moral and ethical fiber of most people's beings. Please ask any Log in dyed in the wool atheist if they think murder is ok. They'll look at you like you're crazy and say, of course to vote not! (Assuming the atheist is not also a psychopath.) 10 The same things can be said about any of the other major crimes - theft, rape, child sexual abuse, assault, etc. etc. They are bad for society, and those of us who appreciate a civil society will refrain from committing them and support laws against them. view in original post You ask interesting questions, but... By Gaia - 06/27/2011 - 5:44 pm Is anyone attempting to make laws based on the Big Bang theory, or the size of the universe, or what came before the alleged big bang. Is anyone requiring that all citizens take an oath of belief in the Big
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Bang Theory? The point of this whole thread is that an official document of the United States requires (or at least expects) that people profess a belief in God at the same time they pledge their allegience to the country. That's not right. And again, as I've pointed out in other threads - you are painting liberals with a very broad brush. I'm very liberal (surprise!), but I live with so many shades of gray that I sometimes boggle my own mind. view in original post Not quite By Gaia - 06/27/2011 - 4:43 pm The standard answer is that people who are closely related should NOT marry because there is harm to society - it is well documented that the offspring of closely related persons have high risk of debilitating diseases and disabilities. That is a burden to the child and to the society that has to take care of him/her. It also weakens the overall gene pool, which is bad for everyone. However, if you think about it, siblings do not require the benefit of marriage in order to have chidlren together. So.... I have to admit I can't find a good reason why it should be against the law. Who, exactly, would the marriage hurt? A person cannot marry a pet because the pet cannot consent to the marriage. Civil unions are seen as a "separate but equal" institution. Do you think that "separate but equal" should also suffice when it comes to race and education? If not, what is the difference? (And by the way - I don't think that I've ever done any name calling on this forum.... Just trying to point out that "liberals" are not the giant mono-thematic block that you seem to think we are. There are rude and unreasonable people in every political party, religion, non-religion, race, sexual orientation, gender and occupation. I think you do us (and yourself) an injustice when you paint with such a broad brush.) view in original post The reason why we don't let By Gaia - 06/27/2011 - 11:34 am The reason why we don't let two mentally ill people in an institution marry is because there's an assumption that, while they are insitutionalized, they do not have the full capacity to consent to a marriage and to appreciate all of the ramifications of marriage. There's a reason they're insitutionalized - either their cognitive functions are impaired, or their ability to be rational is impaired. So.... are you thinking that if someday we find that "gayness" is a psychological disorder, we might also find a "cure" for it? Even if that were true, why deny people who are neither a danger to themselves 1 nor others the right to marry? Let them marry (the same way we let people with bipolar disorder or depression marry), and if someday there's a cure for homosexuality, the institution of gay marriage will no longer be needed. But at least they have not been denied a basic human right in the meantime. view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
How does refusing to allow By Gaia - 06/27/2011 - 9:34 am How does refusing to allow gays to marry change any of that? Even if it were a provable fact - that homosexuality is an emotional disorder - why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? We allow people with other emotional disorders to marry. We allow people with biological disabilities, disfigurements, and disorders to marry. We don't think twice about it. Why is it ok to discriminate against this particular "disorder?" (Please notice that I have not called you a bigot or any other name. I am merely asking questions. You are allowed your opinion, of course. I want to understand your point of view. view in original post No, it's not the same By Gaia - 06/27/2011 - 9:29 am You could call me a "pro gay marriage zealot." I'll accept the label. I am not, however, an anti-religion zealot. I go to church. I have faith in a power greater than ourselves. I believe that everyone has the right to believe what they wish with regard to the existence or non-existence of god, and what he/she/they want from us, if anything. I will not bash another religion's beliefs, but I will point out when people of faith act contrary to their own stated beliefs. More importantly, I also clearly understand the difference between "fact" and "faith." Very strong faith in anything is not the same as fact. The problem I see is that those with very strong faith in certain religious teachings about homosexuality have lost the ability to distinguish between faith and fact. Their whole argument against gay rights of any kind is that "God doesn't approve of this behavior." Log in
Even though I am a person of faith, I do not believe the same thing they do. In other words, their faith is NOT my fact. (And my faith is not their fact.) Because they are matters of faith, not fact, religious beliefs must be put aside when making laws that affect everyone. When you put faith aside and look at just the provable facts, you are left with the undeniable conclusion that the refusal to allow two gays to marry each other is discriminatory, and does nothing to protect the health and welfare of the rest of the population. Gay marriage hurts nothing except the religious sensibilities of some of the population. view in original post Heh By Gaia - 06/26/2011 - 12:13 pm Especially since adultery is one of "the big ten." Why aren't they fighting tooth and nail to enforce that commandment in modern law? Priorities, people, priorities!
Log in to vote
Furthermore.... I don't see the connection between the Bible and gay marriage. Sure, people can make a case that the Hebrew god was against homosexuality (or at least against male homosexuality - the Bible seems to be silent on the subject of lesbians.) However, banning gay marriage is not going to do a thing toward ending homosexuality. It's not going to prevent anyone from becoming gay. It's not going to make any gay people become straight. What exactly are people trying to accomplish when they speak out against gay marriage and gay rights from a religious perspective? Doesn't Jesus tell you to love your neighbor as yourself? Doesn't Jesus ask you to treat people respectfully and to turn the other cheek if someone offends you? Doesn't our country's founding document declare that all men are created equal? (And didn't you say this is a Christian nation?) With all of those strong foundation blocks urging us toward marriage equality, how can you still find religious reasons to discriminate against gays and lesbians, who are not gay by choice, but by biology? view in original post Yep By Gaia - 06/25/2011 - 11:09 pm Some of us infiltrated the state a half century ago, when we fell out of our mothers... who's ancestors infiltrated the state about 1640. I think you may be in a bit of denial - some of us leftists have lived here all our lives, and come from generations of NH-ites. view in original post Number of commissions is not relevant By Gaia - 06/23/2011 - 11:07 pm Can you tell how much cash someone has when they tell you they have 100 coins? It could be anywhere from $1 to $100. The number of coins is just not relevant. The relevant numbers have to do with things like government spending per capita. (We're #37, meaning 36 states spend more per capita than we do.) view in original post Help me out here By Gaia - 06/21/2011 - 11:12 am How does adding 1000 more people to the unemployment rolls help the economy? How does it save the state money? Those employees will have to be "paid out" for their leave time, then they'll be drawing unemployment. That unemployment compensation does NOT come from the Federal government. The state is "self insured." They don't pay unemployment insurance, but instead pay the benefits out of State coffers. view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Unless you're a state employee By Gaia - 06/20/2011 - 7:28 pm The NH Legislature left state employees out of that equation - we didn't get coverage for our young adult children until the Affordable Care Act was passed. view in original post And another thing By Gaia - 06/20/2011 - 4:56 pm Obama's economy? The current crisis started 30 years ago under Reagan and is now coming home to roost. In 30 years, the economy has doubled in size, but wages for the middle class have remained flat in comparison to prices. 30 years ago, 2% of the population controlled 20% of the economy. Now, that 2% controls 40% of the economy. They've steadily used their power to slash their taxes in half and de-regulate the market. Less government revenue means services suffer - roads, schools, you name it. The costs get passed to local taxpayers - the middle class. That same middle class, with the flat wages and increased tax burden, is now stretched so thin that all the fighting for scraps left behind by the rich sets people up against each other - union vs. non-union, public vs. private, immigrant vs. non-immigrant. The middle class is now so weak that it is not capable of contributing toward re-starting the economy, yet Log in we are fighting with each other instead of seeing where the actual problem is: long-term undertaxing of to vote the rich. 3 How is any president supposed to "fix" 30 years of carefully planned economic takeover by the wealthy? John McCain and Sarah Palin couldn't have done it either. The only way to fix this economy is to take the burden off the middle class, and the only way to do that is to start taxing the rich again. And before you go off on "people have a right to make a profit," let me ask you: Will the rich actually suffer that much if you reduce their weekly take-home from 2 million to 1 million? view in original post State employees are taxpayers too. By Gaia - 06/20/2011 - 4:46 pm In case you've forgotten, State employees shared the pain 2 years ago by agreeing to no accross-the board pay raises, and for some, 2 weeks worth of furloughs. There were also the 250 layoffs. I don't expect there will be pay raises in the upcoming contract either. And I don't expect you'll hear a lot of complaining from State employees about that. As for "perks," I assume you're talking about pensions. We're not expecting the world to go on as if we're Log in in an economic boom. We're expecting the State to honor the agreements it made in the past with regard to to vote pension benefits. We're expecting that the cities and towns kick in the share they agreed to kick in, but 3 haven't for 20 years. (Well before the current economic crisis). And yes, we ARE "entitled" to those benefits. They were promised, and public employees have been holding up their end of the bargain, 100%, while the cities and towns have not. The current economic
Log in to vote
crisis does not excuse 20 years of irresponsibility on the part of the cities and towns. It's not selfish refuse to roll over and take it up the.... well.... you know. The current proposal (which will probably result in an expensive lawsuit), expects 50,000 citizens to take on a public burden that should have been shared by a million. That's not "sharing the pain." That's being dumped on. view in original post Misinformation By Gaia - 06/20/2011 - 11:35 am First - how do you know the teachers in question were members of a union? 2. "Right to work" legislation would not address the "problem" that you see here. Right to work does not directly limit the right of unions to protect "bad" employees, except by starving the unions of cash. In that case, it would limit the union's ability to protect ALL employees. I read an interesting metaphor recently. Unions don't protect "bad" employees any more than the US Constitution protects "bad" people. The constitution protects all people, and makes sure that the "bad" Log in people get due process. It's the same with the unions. They make sure that sub-par employees get due to vote process, while protecting the rights of all workers. You have to provide certain protections to criminals if 3 you want the innocent to have the same protections, right? 3. Are you saying that public employees, because they are paid by taxpayers, should lose their right to free speech? Is it ok for private employees to make a spectacle of themselves? view in original post Seriously? By Gaia - 06/20/2011 - 9:41 am Are you seriously going to try and say that 10,000 state employees were hired through nepotism, and that none of them produces any results? When I was hired, I knew absolutely no one else in State service. I worked my way up the old-fashioned way, by doing my job well and producing results. Every year I have a performance evaluation and have to meet certain performance criteria. I have seen people fired over the years for inadequate performance, so I know that I could be fired as well if I don't perform. (And no, the SEA couldn't save them because the state followed it's own rules for firing and had documented the poor performance appropriately.) I think you live in a world that is largely fantasy when it comes to State employees. You see them as the Log in enemy, for reasons I don't fully understand. I only see the lies you tell yourself (and others) to justify your to vote antagonism toward them. 1 Have you seen the new video on Moveon.org? Give it a try - It'll take 2 minutes, and might help explain why the private and public sectors are at each other's thoats these days. http://front.moveon.org/scribbling-sharpie-illustrates-the-truth-about-o... You may not like the Move On organization, but I challenge you to tell me why this guy's theory is incorrect.
view in original post Editor - Seriously? By Gaia - 06/19/2011 - 11:47 am Purr-fect? [eye-roll] Can we aim for something a little less moth-eaten next time? view in original post Absolutely none of what you By Gaia - 06/17/2011 - 1:51 pm Absolutely none of what you say here has anything to do with fair share. As I understand you, you are arguing for the abolishment of the state employee's union because you believe that the union shelters unproductive employees, and that those unproductive employees are costing you (and other taxpayers) money. That's a different matter than the agency fees. Unions exist, and as long as they exist, agency fees are necessary for the reasons that John outlined. Besides, NH is already an employee-at-will state. Every employer in the state, including the state itself, can hire and fire at will, as long as they follow their own personnel rules. If they don't follow their own personnel rules, they can be sued. Log in Unions don't make it impossible to fire someone. The union simply helps ensure that the employer follows their own rules when they fire someone. When you advocate for abolition of unions, you are asking that ALL employees, productive and non-productive, lose an important protection - the ability to have someone who knows the rules inside and out stand with them during the diciplinary process. In the absence of a union, their choice is to hire an attorney (more expensive than union agency fees), or go it alone. view in original post Respectfully, John By Gaia - 06/17/2011 - 1:37 pm I just took someone to task for their "Don't like it, move to California" attitude, and I'm afraid I find your statement "look for work for a non-union employer" to be very similar. The alternative for people who don't want any of their money going to a union for any reason is to file for an exemption - those who are exempted are usually required to make a charitable contribution in the same Log in to vote amount as the agency fee. 1 view in original post 1
Log in to vote
to vote
Let's see By Gaia - 06/17/2011 - 9:48 am Complaints from the party that doesn't want the government interfering with their health care choices, unless it's a female seeking an abortion. Then of course the government must interfere. Yeah, yeah, I know... It's about parenting, not abortion. Sure, sure.... view in original post interference By Gaia - 06/16/2011 - 4:16 pm Currently, the employer must agree to the collection of agency fees. If the employer doesn't want them, they don't happen. What this bill does is prohibit ANY workplace from charging an agency fee even if both the employer and every single employee want it. That's interference. The effect on collective bargaining is this: A union must provide certain protective services and must bargain on behalf of ALL employees, whether they are dues-paying members or not. Both of these activities cost the union money. If non-union Log in employees are sucking up services without paying for them, it leaves less money for bargaining. The to vote quality of the bargaining is compromised, and all employees, both union members and non, may suffer 1 from it. Salaries and health care are a result of collective bargaining, and if it's not up to par, there could be a negative effect on pay and benefits. view in original post hmmm.... By Gaia - 06/16/2011 - 12:24 pm "The task of majority whips is to line up the votes necessary to pass legislation important to the caucus." Perhaps the issue here is that Bettencourt is working to line up the votes necessary to pass legislation important to OBrien and Bettencourt. view in original post Tired of the "move to another state/country" attitude By Gaia - 06/16/2011 - 12:04 pm "Don't like it? Move!" I hear this over and over. It's a bully tactic. It's designed to intimidate. It's intended to make people feel like they have no right to ask for changes. In this country, if you don't like a law, you have the right and duty to work toward changing it. Anyone who suggests that this is not the best first option is a bully. This is a democratic republic. People are allowed to voice discontent with the government and it's laws, and people are allowed to initiate changes through whatever legal means they choose - contacting their legilslators, filing lawsuits, or simply trying to sway people's opinions through public forums. Don't like living in a free country? Move to Iran! (There now, how did that feel?)
view in original post Why can't they be honest? By Gaia - 06/16/2011 - 11:54 am This "reform" was never about saving the retirement system. The veto does not put the system at risk. The system is actually doing quite well these days, due changes made in the law a few years ago. This "reform" is all about reducing the responsibility of cities and towns for paying their part of the deal. I understand that from many people's point of view, that's also a good thing. I just wish the legislators would be honest and stop trying to sell this as some kind of huge favor they're doing for public employees. (And now using a scare and blame tactic - the governor's putting people's pensions in jeopardy.) view in original post I don't have any knowledge of that By Gaia - 06/16/2011 - 9:28 am I know nothing about Islam being taught in public schools, and I don't know why it would be. I can't answer the question. Where are you getting your information, and how widespread is the practice? As I said in my last post, the teaching of religion (of any sort) has no place in public schools. view in original post Did you not plan for retirement? By Gaia - 06/14/2011 - 2:32 pm If you are relying on Social Security rather than putting away a pecentage of your income into a 401K or IRA you have no one to blame but yourself. People who start contributing to IRAs, 401K's and other investments when they are reasonably young will pretty much have a "guaranteed income" when they retire. We are all connected. We all support each other financially, whether we want to admit it or not. Public service employees' salaries are paid through taxes. Private employee's salaries are paid for by the customers who purchase their goods or services. Anyone who collects a paycheck is getting their money "from someone else" in exchange for the goods or services they produce. And everyone is entitled to Social Security, which we all pay for. Please remember as well - public employee retirement benefits are not "free." We pay 5% of every dollar 2 earned, into the system. Soon it may be 7%, for no additional benefit. In fact the benefits have been reduced. And.... by the way... It's actually cheaper for public employers to kick in to the NH Retirement System than it would be to match contributions to 401Ks. Even if you eliminated the NHRS entirely, taxpayers would still be on the hook for 401Ks. view in original post
Yes - for Group I employees only By Gaia - 06/14/2011 - 2:27 pm The calculation of retiremement benefits is different, resulting in a lower benefit for those 65 and older. Even if you retire before 65, once you hit 65 and are eligible to collect SS, your NH Retirement pay goes down by a little over 9% Here's an explanation of benefit calculation: http://nhrs.org/members/serviceretirement.aspx#GroupI view in original post And finally... By Gaia - 06/14/2011 - 12:17 pm If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) That doesn't even start to talk about the instructions to kill witches and sorcerers. My point is not to denegrate Christians or Christianity. My point is that no one has a monopoly on Log in morality, AND it's a mistake to go about thinking that Christianity is all goodness and light. There are to vote aspects of the religion that have and should be left behind. It cannot be held up as a shining example of all 1 that we should hope to be. Because the same can be said about just about any religion - the teaching of religious belief has no place in public schools, except perhaps in a comparative religions class. view in original post Um.... Bible.... By Gaia - 06/14/2011 - 12:07 pm The Bible is a collection of Jewish / Christian documents. Which moral teachings? Which Christian men are we all following now? If you're talking about our founding fathers, most of them were Deist, not Christian. If you want to know what Deists believed, read the first part of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Here's a free version: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm. And as for killing non-believers: Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, youyou must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) view in original post Evidence? By Gaia - 06/14/2011 - 10:09 am Evidence that your health care will suffer if everyone has health insurance? Do you believe there's only so much to go around? Do you want to make sure that you get all the resources and anyone else be damned? That's $500 B spread out over 10 years. And what do the Republicans want to do? Eliminate Medicare entirely! Repeat after me: there are no end-of-life panels.... There are no end-of-life panels. This claim has been completely discredited. Please, lets just admit they don't exist and move on. Without the "public option," the Affordable Care Act is in no way a step toward single payor health care. In states where everyone is required to have auto insurance, is it a single payor system? Is Massachusetts, which requires that everyone have health insurance, and was a model for the Affordable Care Act a single-payor state? No, it's not. Evidence of some broad scale (or even small scale) Democrat-led attempt in the state to have every democrat and illegal vote twice? Evidence that Democrats have perverted the voting laws? view in original post 1. Judaism and Christianity By Gaia - 06/13/2011 - 4:07 pm 1. Judaism and Christianity do not have a monopoly on morality. 2. Many of the things that the Bible espouses could not be considered moral today. 3. The moral teachings of the bible that we still follow today (and which are in our laws) are not exclusive to Christianty/Judaism. You can find versions of all of them in most world religions. 4. Do you not see a difference between morality/philosphy and science? Just because we still believe that killing is wrong, does that mean that we must also believe that the world was created in 7 days, even in the Log in face of overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary? to vote 5. If you can pick and choose which moral teachings to follow, why can't you pick and choose which 3 scientific teachings to follow, based on the evidence of the day? view in original post
Log in to vote
Dang, I missed the insult. By Gaia - 06/11/2011 - 6:38 pm Whisked away before I could read it. view in original post slippery as an eel, you are By Gaia - 06/10/2011 - 4:31 pm Proven wrong about why services exist and who to blame for them, you smoothly switch to the alleged quality of those services. Please offer evidence of workplace rules, created by unions, that make employees unproductive or unresponsive to customers. view in original post That's a very fine hair to split By Gaia - 06/10/2011 - 2:00 pm But a good excuse to continue your rant. If you can't see why you have no right to comment about how any fellow citizen spends the money he's legally earned, you're pretty much hopeless. And I'll take another exception to your attitude: No service has ever been stuffed down your throat by a public union. If you don't like some new state tax or fee, are you going to complain to the SEA? Are you going to complain to the employee who's collecting the tax? You could but it wouldn't get you very far.
Log in to vote
Every service performed by public agencies is provided for by law. Your legislators have created laws that 0 put services into place. They are then carried out by employees. And some employees belong to unions. The unions, however, have absolutely no say about when, where, how and whether those services are perfomed. Don't like having a service stuffed down your throat? Talk to your legislator. view in original post but she wasn't complaining about the job By Gaia - 06/10/2011 - 1:44 pm She wasn't saying she didn't like the job, or complaining about having to do it. She was taking the Speaker to task about what she (and many others) perceive as bullying. That's two very different things. view in original post Seriously? By Gaia - 06/10/2011 - 9:37 am The only acceptable response to a difference of opinion is to give up and walk away? Would you say that to a Republican who was criticizing a Democrat speaker of the house?
view in original post It all comes down to whether public employees are "valuable" By Gaia - 06/10/2011 - 9:16 am The Monitor thinks it's "fair" to diminish employees' benefits, because of the times we're in, and because taxpayers need to be protected. I will confine my comments to State employees because I'm not knowlegeable enough about other public employee history. Historically, State employees were paid lower wages than equivalent employees in the private sector. For decades, "benefits" were cheap to provide - health insurance, liberal time off, and pensions. So, during contract negotiations, it was common for employees to be loaded up with more benefits, rather than increased wages, because that was in the best interest of taxpayers. In recent years, those benefits have become far more valuable than they were in the past. I don't have hard facts, but I would hazard a guess that today, if you combine wages and benefits, State employees are Log in probably on a pretty close par with private sector employees. People need to remember - State employees were not "greedy" when they acquired all those benefits - it only looks that way because the benefits have now become so valuable. If you believe that State employees should be compensated (on the whole) in ways that are comparable to private employees, you need to look at the total package. If benefits are reduced, then wages need to increase accordingly. If you don't believe that State employees should be compensated equitably, then that's a different discussion altogether. Why are State employees less valuable than private employees in similar positions? view in original post Excuse me, but that's absurd. By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 7:15 pm $1 leaves your pocket and is EARNED by a union member for services rendered or products produced. Once you purchase a service or product, you lose all claim on that $1. Why do you think you have any right to determine or even comment on the way any union member, public or private, spends the money they have EARNED through work? Taxpayers do not "own" public employees. If that were true, then I should own a piece of every employee and owner of every business I've ever bought a product from. After all, I help pay their salaries. I should Log in be able to complain about who they donate their earnings to, right? to vote 1 And if you think that the SEA PAC "bought" anything from Gov. Lynch last year (the only politician they negotiate with), you should take a look at the fracked up contract that was finally signed, and review his abysmal behavior during the whole sordid episode. view in original post 1
to vote
Did I mention Single Payer? By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 6:20 pm And did I say health care or insurance should be given to anyone by the government? You make many presumptions about what you think I mean. I'm usually pretty straightforward - no need to read between the lines. If equal access to health care and a classless approach to providing timely and quality care can be accomplished by having everyone purchase their own policies at affordable rates, then fine. It meets the goal. view in original post How does this hurt the community? By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 4:26 pm How does removing a dangerous, unuseable, and un-rehabable building hurt the community? Just because a building is old doesn't mean it's actually worth anything or could do anyone any good. There were no other buyers who wanted to try and rehab it. What's the choice? The seller holds on to it and lets it go to wrack and ruin, attrracting squatters and creating a target for arson? And... how could the union have saved your family member's job? As long as the company or agency followed its own rules for layoffs and hiring, there's nothing the union could do. How is it the union's fault that the company/agency made this decision? view in original post What does that even mean? By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 3:52 pm "Employees have a good chance of being able to choose to join a union at their workplaces." They already have every chance and every right to choose to join a union. view in original post What state do you live in? By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 1:34 pm "People who actually work already pay over 15% in tax on their incomes--and that money goes mostly to retirees. And that's before we even pay our federal income taxes." Where are you paying that 15% income tax?
Log in Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote
[Edit: Oh, I get it - you're talking about social security / medicare taxes. You do to vote understand that you will eventually be eligible to collect too, don't you? Unless, of 6 course, Washington decides to frack that up too.] And by the way - "Retiree," in case you missed it, means someone who has retired from "actual work."
Why must you insult these writers by inferring that they are lazy and did not work during their peak years. They are presumably collecting interest and dividends on the investments they made during the time they were "actually working." My God. First is "us against the liberals." Then its "us against the middle class." Now it's "us against the elderly." Is everyone your enemy? view in original post By the way By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 1:23 pm It's clear that we come from two very different points of view. It seems that you believe that those who make more money (and therefore can afford better insurance) should get better, faster care than those who make less money. To you, it's natural that those on Medicare or with "cheesy" plans because they can't afford better ones, should expect to wait, and should not expect the same level of care. Me? I think that every citizen in the country should have the same access to preventive and necessary medical care as everyone else. I don't believe in a class system for something as basic as health care. While I come to it from a liberal / human rights perspective, I should think that everyone would see the benefit of a healthy workforce. How much productivity is lost every year due to illnesses that could have been prevented? Or stopped in their tracks with timely care? How much are companies paying out in wages to people who are home in bed? Wouldn't "health care for all" be an incredible investment in our economy? view in original post Nope, not Medicaid. By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 1:13 pm State of New Hampshire employee insurance, which many conservatives in these forums have characterized as a "cadillac" plan. And I do work hard for it - I've done so for 30 years. And what do you say to Americans who have "no other frame of reference" and are unsatisfied with the health care system in this country? You're pretty condescending toward the intelligence of those who are happy with their country's health care. And for that matter, pretty condescending toward me, too. I did say "one of the best plans around, didn't I?" view in original post OK By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 12:29 pm But please remember this: Public employees have been dealt a permanent 2% decrease in wages. This will continue well past any future economic recovery.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
State employees did not get any accross-the-board wage increases in either of the last two years. Some state employees had an additional 2% reduction in pay during the past two years due to furloughs. Keep these things in mind when employee contract season ramps up. We've now permanently taken on a good portion of the taxpayers' "share of the pain." Be careful about righteously insisting that we share even more pain during the next two years. view in original post Basic Math Review By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 10:48 am "One change that affects all employees in the system is an increase in employee contribution rates between 2 and 2.5 percent effective July 1." The employee contribution rate is not rising 2%. It's rising 40%. Please, Monitor reporters, please be clear about the difference between "2 percent" and "2 percentage points." As an example of the effect on employees: If someone grosses $1000 bi-weekly, they currently pay $50 toward their retirement. If this bill is signed into law, that same person will pay $70 bi-weekly toward their retirement. This is a 40% increase, not 2%. Let's be very clear - public employees will be paying more for smaller benefits and a longer period ot time to work. Please remember this when the subject of contract negotiations comes up. State employees did not get a raise 2 years ago. Some state employees, in addition, got unpaid furloughs on top of it. Please remember that we're going into contract negotiations already absorbing, essentially, a 2% pay cut. (and some a 4% because of the furloughs.) I hope I don't see anyone screaming this time that "State Employees need to do their part too." view in original post Wait times By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 10:29 am And here, in this country, with one of the best health insurance plans around, I wait. I wait for my yearly exams (scheduled 3+ months out). I waited for removal of a suspicious skin thing (6 months). My daughter waited for gall bladder surgery (3 months). "It's not unheard of" is NOT the same as "It's commonplace." If you did real research instead of just repeating the doom-sayers, you would find that wait times are comparable or less, quality of care is comparable or greater, and citizen satisfaction is higher in those countries you mentioned than in the US. view in original post What is your point? By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 10:20 am What are you accusing people of?
Log in to vote
The union negotiates wages on behalf of members (and non-members). The union does not pay the wages. to vote People have a right to contribute to whatever causes they wish, political or not. They also have a right to 1
decline to contribute. Again, what the **** is your point? Are you saying that the unions are buying votes for specific candidates? Are you suggesting quid pro quo? Oh look - I see a straw - perhaps you could reach just a little further to grasp it? view in original post So? By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 10:12 am Exactly how would the Voter ID law have prevented this? view in original post Outright lie By Gaia - 06/09/2011 - 10:07 am "Legislators are working to save the retirement fund from bankruptcy so our public employees will receive their promised pensions." The retirement fund is NOT in any danger of bankruptcy. Just go to the NHRS website and see for yourself. Although the sponsors of the bill want you to think they are "saving" the retirement system, the real purpose of the bill is to shift costs that were supposed to be the responsibility of employers back onto Log in the employees. to vote 2 http://www.nhrs.org/News/LegUpdates.aspx (bottom of page 3 explains the system's solvency). view in original post Check again - it's a 40% increase By Gaia - 06/08/2011 - 3:29 pm Going from a 5% contribution to 7% is a 40% increase in the amount that employees will pay toward their retirement. view in original post Yeah, it is. By Gaia - 06/08/2011 - 11:52 am State employees (about 10,000) are less than 1% of the state population. However, there are are over 50,000 active public employees in the state retirement system, because it serves towns and counties as well. (think police, teachers, firefighters, town public employees). Even if the average compensation for all those workers were only $500/week, that's $25 Million a year. view in original post
Don't lump me in with you By Gaia - 06/08/2011 - 10:46 am "Those of us who've spent most of our lives in New Hampshire don't want an earned income tax or sales tax." I've spent my entire life in NH (50+ years). I do want want an earned income tax. I believe everyone should contribute fairly - based on ability to pay. I believe the Log in state is run on the backs of the shrinking middle class, and we can't take much to vote more of it. 8 view in original post Why? By Gaia - 06/08/2011 - 10:21 am If the system is solvent, why does the state need to change future employees' pension benefits? view in original post The ultimate downshift - to the employee By Gaia - 06/07/2011 - 9:02 am Let's be very clear. The purpose of this legislation was never to "save" the NH Retirement System. It was to bless and legalize what the towns and counties have been doing for 20 years - under-paying their portion of the bill. And it's not a 2% increase for the employees - it's a 2 percentage-point increase. That means 2% less pay in employee's paychecks each week. That's a whole week's pay per year. That's a whole lot of money to take out of the local economy. Just want to make sure people understand what this actually does. And I STILL have not seen the Monitor publish any interview with the managers of the retirement system. What is their opinion about the legislation? Was it needed? Does it help the system at all? view in original post Just because a response is By Gaia - 06/03/2011 - 4:13 pm Just because a response is predictable doesn't mean it's invalid. I can predict that night will follow day. Does that mean the statement is untrue? view in original post Two different things By Gaia - 06/03/2011 - 12:25 pm The coverage plan may be on par with the federal employee insurance. However, the way seniors will pay for it is not. Log in
In the beginning, the federal government will pay a certain amount toward the insurance premium. Seniors 0 will pick up the rest. It might be ok (within limits) if the formula was "Seniors will always pay x% of the premium.) However, the formula is, "The federal government will always pay $x toward the premium.) The plan doesn't do anything to hold back the cost of medical care or insurance coverage, so it won't be very long before Seniors' share of the insurance cost will outstrip their ability to pay. And BTW - people have been complaining about increased insurance costs for years, well before Obamacare, and well before he wase even elected. Wasn't that one of the things cited as a reason for Obamacare in the first place? view in original post Wait times By Gaia - 06/01/2011 - 11:19 am I have top-of-the line health insurance. Yet when my daughter needed gall bladder surgery, she waited 6 weeks to see the specialist, then another 10 weeks for the surgery. When I needed a skin thing looked at, I waited 7 weeks for the specialist, then 8 weeks for the minor surgery to remove it. There was a howling blizzard the day the procedure was scheduled, so I had to reschedule, and it was another 9 weeks before I Log in had the blessed thing removed. to vote 1 view in original post <<-- from the left By Gaia - 06/01/2011 - 10:54 am This is the first I've heard of this program... but I don't see anything "demonic" about it on the surface. Everyone has a right to pursue private education if they wish, and I see nothing wrong with establishing a scholarship program to help those who might not otherwise be able to afford private education. I do have a question: Excactly how would this save the state money? The writers claim it "should save the state money," but didn't explain how. It seems like the opposite might be true, since a revenue stream will be diverted from the general fund. Are they thinking there will be fewer students in the public schools, and therefore less expense to the taxpayers?
Log in
My only other comment is that people in general (and Republicans perhaps more so) are losing faith in the to vote public school system. Much of the legislation in this area seems to be toward making private education, 1 home education, and charter schools more accessible, rather than improving public education. It's as if many have decided that public education is a lost cause and are abandoning ship rather than addressing the cause of the sinking. (And is it truly sinking, or have we just been inundated with these claims so thoroughly that we assume they are true?) view in original post Interesting By Gaia - 05/27/2011 - 11:39 am Not intending to hijack the thread, but what you're saying about social security is remarkably reminiscent of what public employees are saying about the NH Retirement System:
Log in
The system was set up. Both employees and employers would be paying into it. The employees have been to vote paying into it for 40 years - the money is taken right out of our paychecks. 20 years ago, the (Republican) 3 legislature changed the rules so that the employers got to pay less than they needed to in order to keep the
system solvent. Now, the (Republican) legislature says the system needs to be fixed (although I have not seen any statement by the managers of the NHRS saying the system needs to be fixed.) They say they have to "save" the system for the employees, and that in order to do that, the employees need to pay in more than they have in the past. I suspect the real motivation for "fixing" the system is to permanently shift more of the cost to the employees, rather than ask the employers (and thus the taxpayers) to pony up their fair share. To paraphrase what you said about social security: politicians want us to believe that public employee pensioners (and future penioners) are leaching off the government. We paid for our retirement benefits. Our retirement money may not be there because the politicians enabled towns and counties to under pay for 20 years. (But again, I haven't seen anything that proves the NHRS is actually in trouble. I wish the monitor would report on this rather than just allow the politicians to make the unsubstantiated claim as if it's fact.) view in original post Agreed By Gaia - 05/24/2011 - 8:28 pm Times change, society evolves, and people need to evolve in their thinking, as well. People (and particularly politicians) who have the exact same beliefs and values now that they had 20 years ago, frankly frighten me. view in original post Very simple By Gaia - 05/24/2011 - 7:51 pm 1. The poor simply cannot live in this state. It's too expensive (rents and property taxes) and there's not enough support for them. The poor move to Maine and Massachusetts. 2. NH is a haven for the affluent because there is no broad-based state income tax (yes, I know about the interest and dividends tax, but that's not the same as an across-the-board tax on earned income.) The rich pay a far smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the middle and lower income strata. The cumulative effect of these two things is that the average income level is higher here than in 45 other states. It's not, however, because living here magically makes people affluent. Poor people don't somehow Log in to vote become middle class, and middle class don't somehow become wealthy just because of the tax structure. 2 There's no tax benefit to lower income folks here. None whatsoever. The state is "livable" only on the surface. Fewer poor people and more rich people make it look good, but the cause and effect are actually the reverse of what most people think. view in original post So his voter base is less By Gaia - 05/19/2011 - 5:55 pm So his voter base is less than 1% of the state population? Amazing that he could win anything with those numbers. Log in
to vote
Log in to vote
view in original post How does this bill accomplish those things? By Gaia - 05/14/2011 - 5:44 pm Putting aside the fact that you are assuming things not in evidence (inefficiency, non-productivity and non-accountability and rampant nepotism), how does the bill accomplish your goals? The only one it accomplishes is, perhaps, #3. So I presume that's your real goal. Some of us posting apparently need to be punished financially. (That's what "taking us down a peg" would amount to.)
So, the bill benefits you because it would financially punish certain people who post here (including me, I 3 presume). I presume further that the benefit would be the pleasure you'd gain in seeing that happen. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. view in original post Master of evasion By Gaia - 05/13/2011 - 4:19 pm Second time on the same page. Would you like to answer the question? How does this bill benefit you? Without an explanation from you, here's what I will assume: You support this bill because you would like to see public employees taken down a peg. You believe that public employees are getting a better deal than you are as a private sector employee, and you suspect tht they are getting this better deal without working as hard as you do. You believe this in the absence of any proof of Log in either assertion. to vote 4 And rather than make any kind of effort to organize your workplace in order to get better wages and benefits, you'd rather take those benefits away from others. How close am I? view in original post Still haven't seen your proof By Gaia - 05/13/2011 - 4:08 pm Still haven't seen your proof of mediocrity. Saying the same thing over and over without proof doesn't magically make it fact. Log in
to vote
Log in to vote
Can you tell me exactly how By Gaia - 05/12/2011 - 7:37 pm Can you tell me exactly how this bill would benefit you? No politician could survive with only State employees as a base. They're only about 1% of the population. And... I can tell you in no uncertain terms that he did not pander to state employees during the last collective bargaining period. Frankly, his behavior was disgraceful, and most union members were outraged. It was not that he "refused to give in to union demands." He has a right to do that, and I would expect that he not "cave" to everything the union wants. He has a duty to represent the interests of taxpayers. It was that he deliberately mis-led union members and negotiators, and purposefully broke confidentiality in order to frighten and sway union voters. Anyway - I think you'll find it's not the cozy relationship you imagine it to be. view in original post Not just public employees By Gaia - 05/12/2011 - 7:23 pm 1. The "Right to Work" law would hamper the ability for private sector employees to organize, as well. "Taxpayers" and legislators should have absolutely no say in how a private business chooses relate to unions. 2. Where are your facts? Exactly how do you know (please point to independent scientific studies) that public employees do "minimal work." If you've got anything more than an anecdote or two, I will eat my proverbial hat. "Public perception" is not a fact. I've a whole lot of anecdotes too - about public employees working their butts off, and working harder every day as they lose resources due to the shrinking state budget. 3. The existence of "no value programs" has nothing to do with unions. The SEIU does not, and cannot, preserve a whole program against elimination. If there are public employees who are making huge salaries Log in that people are tired of, they are most likely political appointees, not run-of-the mill classified workers. to vote Again, they have nothing to do with unions - unions don't support them, and they are not union members. 3 If you're tired of them, talk to the governor - he's the only one with the power to change that. 4. Again - where are your facts? Who are these corrupt SEIU hacks? Has anyone been charged or convicted of illegal activity in NH? Or are you just throwing out red herrings? and 5. What private sector rules are you talking about, and why do public employees have to play by them? Aside from obeying state and federal laws, why must the "rules" be the same? Are you envious? view in original post Or... They truly were incompetent By Gaia - 05/11/2011 - 11:27 am Our operatives got in, landed, took out Bin Laden, and left - all undetected. Unless someone in the Pakistani government comes forward with an admission, we may never know for sure.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
view in original post Definition By Gaia - 05/11/2011 - 11:16 am World English Dictionary assassinate (ssnet) vb 1. to murder (a person, esp a public or political figure), usually by a surprise attack 2. to ruin or harm (a person's reputation, etc) by slander Sounds like assassination to me. I think we tend to reserve the word for when "others" kill leaders that we happen to like because it implies that the person was killed because of their ideals, which we share. Log in
to vote
We don't like to think of our enemies as having ideals that others might share, because it might legitimize 0 those ideals. Certainly to Al Queda, this was an assassination. (And no, I don't agree with Bin Laden's ideals, and I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it. Even though I describe myself as a flaming liberal, I am not especially bothered by "eye for an eye" justice, as long as the case has been satisfactorily proven, and especially when there's no remorse expressed. In this case, it was an eye for 3500+ eyes. It was just.) view in original post Are you politically motivated? By Gaia - 05/11/2011 - 10:53 am You support certain candidates or certain types of candidates. Does that mean you are politically motivated? Is politics your whole reason for being? Probably not. Not any more than it's the union's reason for being. Unions exist to improve working conditions, wages and benefits for employees. There are certain candidates and types of candidates who support that goal. That's why unions support them. Same reason that you support candidates who have the same goals and values that you have. view in original post "Commenting on the fact she By Gaia - 05/10/2011 - 3:43 pm "Commenting on the fact she hadn't gotten any notices from her superiors was a 'beside the fact' comment and had NOTHING to do with whether she thought it happened or not." If this was her actual response to the question, then the Monitor was right to report it as such. You're Log in assuming she actually answered the question, as opposed to deflecting it with "beside the fact" comments. to vote 6 view in original post
Log in to vote
Unfortunately... By Gaia - 05/03/2011 - 4:00 pm The lack of uproar over McCain is not proof of racism. It could be, for example, that no one on the right raised the issue because McCain is a republican. In order to prove racism, you'd need to have a white democratic candidate with the same back story, and compare the level of uproar between the two. We may have an inclination toward believing it's racism.... but without the proper proof, I think it's counterproductive to trot that argument out.
Log in to vote
Frankly, it's like when people trot out the Bible as proof of the existence of God and his will. It's a matter 4 of belief and faith, not fact. (And yes, I'm a registered Democrat and self-proclaimed flaming liberal.) view in original post I agree By Gaia - 05/01/2011 - 2:23 pm If the senate had left in the amendment that says the union does not have to provide any benefits to people who don't pay for them, the law might be considered fair. But now we're back the old model of a majority of people recieiving a benefit that a minority people are paying for. Taking out the amendment tells me that the purpose of the law is not "fairness," which is what all the proponants say it's about. No, the purpose now is clearly to get unions out of the way entirely. When you can get the milk for free, who wants to buy the cow? At some point, the few who are buying the cow every year will find that they cannot afford it and membership will dwindle until unions "go out of business."
Log in to vote
Then, there's no cow. And no milk. Wages and benefits go down, working conditions worsen, not only for 4 the former union shops, but for eveyone else. Corporations make bigger profits. Taxpayers think they can get away with spending less on public services, but they can't attract the most skilled employees, and services suffer Tell me again who comes out ahead when this law is passed? view in original post It's not getting worse By Gaia - 04/28/2011 - 10:57 pm Crime is down, both in NH and nation-wide, and the states with no death penalty tend to have lower murder rates. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state view in original post
Log in to vote
Sure, they're happy in hindsight, now that they're caught. By Gaia - 04/28/2011 - 10:51 pm But do you really think they had a conversation with themselves before the murder and decided to go ahead because of the small likelihood of being executed? view in original post That made me LOL By Gaia - 04/28/2011 - 10:36 pm Sorry for bonkerizing you. I don't think I've ever actually written that word before yesterday, and probably haven't said it out loud in 10 years. Just your luck, huh? view in original post definitions, definitions By Gaia - 04/28/2011 - 2:12 pm The opposite of democracy is totalitarianism. The spectrum is one of authoritarianism vs. libertarianism (total government control of the people, vs. total people control of the government.) You might be trying to say that she's a socialist. But again, the oposite of socialism is not democracy, it's capitalism. (government control of the economy vs. private/corporate control of the economy.) You can't really put "liberal" and "conservative" on either spectrum with any degree of accuracy, unless you distinguish between "social liberal/conservative" and "economic liberal/conservative." It's quite possible for someone to be an economic liberal and a social conservative. or the opposite. view in original post No, not at all. By Gaia - 04/28/2011 - 1:40 pm As I said, I agree with Abe's sentiment. My objection is, that by dictionary defintion, a thug is one of a roving band of murderers for hire. It's a more extreme term than most people realize, and is chosen for its emotional currency. The word first appeared in this forum (in recent months) as a description of union members and "bosses." Log in Then, because turn-about appears to be fair play, liberals started applying it to conservative legislators. I have a couple levels of objection: 1. It's simply not a accurate term. None of these people are murderers for hire. "Bully" is probably more accurate, but it's not as "cool." 2. The tendency toward extremism in language only serves to stir people up on a personal level, distracts 2
to vote
from the real issues, and does nothing to promote civil discourse. As for "ilk," it just annoys me on an admittedly irrational level. It s use here reminds me of a boss I once had who would glom onto a intelligent sounding word and use it over and over for weeks at a time, in order to sound smarter than he really was. And sometimes he mis-pronounced them. : ) view in original post Sorry Originalist By Gaia - 04/28/2011 - 11:04 am I was trying to be helpful. Your description of your results sounded like that first graph, although I see now you said "right" instead of "left." And thanks for the kind words about my intelligence. They certainly make me want to take you seriously Log in and listen to everything you say so that I might learn something from you. to vote 4 view in original post I'm leaning toward #3 By Gaia - 04/28/2011 - 10:47 am Because I don't think that this many elected officials can possibly be this stupid or vacant, I'm leaning toward #3. Imagine... "Oh look, we've taken in $6M less than anticipated. I guess we're going to have to eliminate this little state-funded program that we abhor on philisophical grounds. Or maybe we need to hit the public employees a little harder - a $6M excuse to beat them a little further into submission." Log in
to vote
In the absence of even one remotely good reason for this vote, the mind turns toward paranoid thoughts.... 7 Or is it paranoia? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not plotting their next power grab. view in original post I only have 3 possible explanations By Gaia - 04/28/2011 - 1:32 am 1. The reps are supremely stupid because they think it will actually make a difference to average people, and is worth spending $6M on. 2. The reps are supremely arrogant and condescending, believing that the common folk will not see through an obvious empty gimmick. 3. There's something about the state losing $6M in revenue that they think they can somehow use, in which case they are deceptive and manipulative. view in original post I agree with the sentiment By Gaia - 04/27/2011 - 12:18 pm I disagree with the over use (on both sides) of the word "thug." It's not an accurate use of the term (by either side), and it's just gotten old.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
13
And while I'm at it, "ilk" is another term that needs to go. view in original post This is brilliant By Gaia - 04/27/2011 - 11:03 am I love this! I took the test and showed up in roughly the same spot as Ghandi. http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-5.50&soc=-4.26 Originalist - I think you might have been looking at the wrong graph for your results. The explanation Log in page has a generic chart explaining the 4 quadrants. Your actual results are way down at the bottom of the to vote page. 4 view in original post You know what I find astounding? By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 7:17 pm The number of self-professed conservatives in these comments who seem to begrudge the monitor making a profit, of any size. These are the same people who wax poetic about the joys and blessings of capitalism and berate anyone who criticizes the profits and tax-avoiding behaviors of big corporations. Now, suddenly, the Monitor is some kind of evil entity because it's trying to take care of it's bottom line... for the stockholders no less. The conservative line ought to be "Corporations have a right to charge whatever they wish for their product. Profits are good. Shareholders must be taken care of. That's what feeds the economy. If you don't like paying for the product, go elsewhere." So why all the rabid complaints and accusations of greed from the right? Because it actually hits you in your personal pocket book? Perhaps you could remember this next time you accuse someone on the left of "whining" about something like the unfair distribution of taxes in this state. view in original post You missed the point entirely By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 6:55 pm This is an analogy about how a perceived small savings creates a huge loss of income. Never in my post did I say the state budget has cut back all it can (and that's a discussion for another post.) view in original post Thank you for that explanation By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 6:49 pm Maybe the indignant can now untwist their knickers. view in original post
Log in to vote
No, I don't expect that By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 6:41 pm I don't expect that someone making 7K a month should have their insurance supplement. The thing you keep refusing to understand is that people in the program do NOT have their insurance supplemented. view in original post And look... By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 12:38 pm From a self-professed flaming liberal! view in original post Please don't try to draw a comparison By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 12:36 pm between essential government services like education or road plowing, and a voluntary expense like a newspaper subscription. There's no hypocrisy here, no matter how hard you look for it. view in original post The republicans always like to draw By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 12:27 pm The republicans always like to draw analogies between balancing a family budget and balancing the state budget (except that they're never willing to consider that family members often go out and get a second job in order to make things balance.) So here's an analogy for this situation: The family does not have enough income to cover expenses. So they cut back as much as they can on spending. They cut out the cable, and go to a less expensive health insurance plan. They give up their life insurance. They're still struggling. So, in order to save $10 a week on gas, they cut back their hours at work, which results in an income reduction of $100 a week. But hey! That's $10 less a week they're spending on gas! view in original post I don't see any abuse here By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 12:13 pm I don't see any abuse here, unless you can show that the woman's business income i higher than the income guidelines for the program. I have a business too. Doesn't mean I'm getting rich on it. view in original post
Log in to vote
10
So I guess your objection is By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 12:11 pm So I guess your objection is to the whole concept of government being involved in health insurance? You object to the state facilitating this program that allow families to obtain health care for their children, even when no taxpayer money goes toward the premiums or the actual health care? Log in
to vote
view in original post You are conveniently ignoring By Gaia - 04/26/2011 - 12:05 pm You are conveniently ignoring the statement in the article that the program they're talking about is NOT subsidized by tax payers. view in original post What's the definition of greed? By Gaia - 04/24/2011 - 2:22 pm I see the word "greed" being thrown around a lot in these comments. What's more greedy - a business trying to stay afloat by asking that users actually pay for tne product, or people feeling entitled to use (and abuse) another's hard work for free, just because it's on the internet? How many of you business owners give away your product to whomever wants it and doesn't want to pay for it? The CM is not obligated to provide a a free on-line edition. On-line editions are not free or even cheap to produce - there may not be printing costs, but they do have to pay for server space, webmastering, and technical support.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
I have felt a little guilty over the years getting so much free content, but I didn't want to subscribe because 8 the papers just pile up so fast and it seems wasteful to me to read once and toss in the recycling. I will be subscribing online, after I move some budget items around. view in original post And where is the system By Gaia - 04/23/2011 - 7:01 pm And where is the system that will cross check every voter name with every other jurisdiction to make sure that no one voted twice? If that's the goal, then the low tech method used in other countries would work even better, and prevent voter fraud before it happens - dip the voter's thumb in indelible ink after they've Log in voted. It'll take a few days to wear off, and no one votes twice. view in original post None of these would be prevented... By Gaia - 04/23/2011 - 6:53 pm None of these situations would have been prevented by demanding a photo ID at the polls. They have nothing to do with individual voters misrepresenting themselves.
Log in to vote
to vote
view in original post Because they are the equivalent of CEOs By Gaia - 04/21/2011 - 4:41 pm Because they are the equivalent of CEOs of large corporations or even large non-profits. CEOs get large salaries and benefits like jets. If you're going to criticize top Union leaders for their salaries and benefits, you need to criticize every other leader that's getting those salaries and benefits. And let's also remember, that here in NH, there are no local union leaders who are making the kind of money you cite. Those "bosses" you imagine are national-level leaders. view in original post How? By Gaia - 04/21/2011 - 4:29 pm How are the public unions going to shut down government services? Public employees are prohibited from striking. view in original post I'm a union member. I see both sides. By Gaia - 04/21/2011 - 2:20 pm I can understand why many believe that an "agency fee" is unfair, even "stealing" from those who wish no part of a union. I know that the agency fee can only be enacted if both the employer and the union members agree to it, so this law prohibits employers and employees from enacting agency fees, even when 100% of the employees want it. But, in order to be fair to those who do not want to be involved in a union even at an agency fee level, I see how this law might be ok. Also, in the absence of an agency fee, the union must truly prove its worth to potential members, and that's a good thing. However. (BIG however.) As it stands now, this law would require unions to provide free services to employees who have chosen not to join, and who do not contribute anything toward the expenses incurred by unions. So...why pay for the cow if you get the milk for free?, As it stands now, non-members will get most of the benefits of union membership, without ever paying a dime. The only valuable thing they won't get is the ability to vote on proposed contracts. How is it fair (or even legal?) to require non-taxpayer funded organizations to provide free services to non-members? If they'd left in the clause that relieves unions of providing services to non-members, I would have been just fine with the law. But this is wrong. I think the Senate can see that it's wrong. (how could they not?) Therefore, I believe that the real reason for passing the law is simple: weakening the power of unions will eventually tip the playing field all the
way in the direction of corporations. view in original post What if it were you? By Gaia - 04/21/2011 - 9:46 am If you had invested 297,000 in the building and were offered less than that, would you just roll over and say "of course I'll take a huge financial hit for the benefit of the city and its taxpayers. No problem.." If it were you, would you still be saying immanent domain's the way to go? view in original post or maybe By Gaia - 04/20/2011 - 3:10 pm We can put out recycling bins so that they go directly in there. view in original post And have you reported this person? By Gaia - 04/19/2011 - 6:55 pm There is a fraud investigation unit, but they can't catch people if nobody reports them. view in original post I second the clarification and... By Gaia - 04/19/2011 - 6:40 pm I'm not sure I agree about the "freeing up jobs" thing. A person has a right to work as long as he/she wants to work. Whether they retire and come back part time, or don't retire at all, the effect is the same for other people who might like that job - it's not available. Even if someone retired from the state and went to work Log in elsewhere, well that's still a job that a younger, non-retired person is not going to get. view in original post The problem is... By Gaia - 04/19/2011 - 4:31 pm that the current tax structure in NH does not magically create wealth. It simply attracts and holds the people who are already wealthy. There's nothing about the tax structure that allows people to break out of the middle class and into the wealthy class - mainly because members of the middle class are paying more (as a percent of income) in taxes than the wealthy. The property tax holds people back - and it holds renters back too because the property taxes are passed along to renters in the form of some of the highest Log in to vote rents in the country. 1 view in original post 1
to vote
Speaking of sticking to the point.... By Gaia - 04/19/2011 - 10:53 am One of the the main points of the comment was that the road crew was not a State crew. Seems you missed that point. view in original post I hear what you're saying... By Gaia - 04/19/2011 - 9:19 am But if the employee is coming back for economic reasons, then probably they can't really afford to fully retire. The other options would be, (1) don't retire, which means that the position doesn't get freed up for someone waiting in line, or (2) retire from state service and take a part time job at Wally World. It it turns out that double-dipping is hurtful to the retirement system and/or the taxpayers (and we really don't know without seeing some hard figures), then the practice should be abolished. The employee should either stay on full time, or go work at Wally World. Log in
Either way, I don't think that employees should be made to feel guilty for not retiring. They have a legal 1 right to work as long as they want to, are able to, and are productive. Doesn't matter how many people are waiting in line for the position. view in original post The union position By Gaia - 04/19/2011 - 9:06 am The State Employee's Union has long been opposed to the "double dipping" practice. So, please don't blame the unions for this one. As for who gets to do it - any department or agency that wants to re-hire retired workers can do so, and the agency decides who. I know it happens. I don't know how widespread it is, or what the fiscal impact is. Apparently no one knows, according to the article. I'm of two minds about it. It does save the employer money and they get an employee who's already trained. That, in turn, should save the tax payers money. However, if there's a significant impact on the retirement system that has to be made up by the employees or taxpayers, then it should stop. I would like to see some hard numbers. view in original post Trust you? By Gaia - 04/19/2011 - 8:57 am Based on what? It seems there are no hard numbers for anyone to look at. Where are you getting your information, that we should just trust you? view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Yep, sarcasm By Gaia - 04/16/2011 - 8:33 pm Gotta be: "scrapping programs for the undeserving, those using my tax dollars for no good reason." [snort] I'm expecting a big cut in my property taxes too, Art. Thank the gods Rep. O'Brien is on the job! view in original post Respectuflly, you are mis-informed By Gaia - 04/15/2011 - 2:54 pm State and Federal law already prohibit a workplace from forcing people to join a union. Right-to-work actually takes freedoms away from employees and employers by denying them the right to collect "fair share" fees from non-union employees, even if 100% of the employees AND the employer both want it. Right to work allows non-union employees to take advantage of union employees by getting certain union benefits for free. If they can get them for free, there's no incentive to join the union and union membership drops. When it drops far enough, the union must pack its bags and go elsewhere. This is the true goal of right-to-work. To get unions out of all workplaces so that there's no one fighting for worker's rights, safety, or decent wages. Then wages go down in the union shops, and the non-union shops drop their wages to match. It looks like a "freedom of choice" bill on the surface, but if passed, the ripple effects are lower wages and benefits, as well as deteriorating work conditions for everyone - union and non-union. view in original post Perhaps so : ) By Gaia - 04/15/2011 - 2:44 pm But in this climate, who can take a chance? Think of the rally as insurance... Just in case the Senate has been infected by the House. view in original post Some of us are broke By Gaia - 04/14/2011 - 9:30 am Some of us are broke. There's still plenty of cash in the state, if only there were a tax structure that would allow it to be accessed for govt. use. view in original post where's the cause, where's the effect? By Gaia - 04/14/2011 - 9:02 am Did it occur to you that perhaps the Senate sees things differently becasue of the protests and because of consituants contacting them about these issues? Maybe the Log in
to vote
"stomping" had an effect? view in original post Really? By Gaia - 04/13/2011 - 8:37 pm I'm not allowed to have an opinion unless I'm running for office? Is that really what you meant to say?
12
Political issues are never permanently decided. Just because something's been rejected in the past does not mean it will always be rejected. (Just look at same-sex marriage in NH.) And yanno... The people have NOT spoken. They've never had a chance to specifically vote about a sales or income tax. Because this is not a referendum state, they will not get that chance any time in the near future.
Log in And the fact that most of those who are elected are anti-tax doesn't prove anything. There are very few to vote pro-tax candidates in this state because they're told they don't have a chance. It sounds like a self-fulfilling 9 prophecy to me.
Anyway, I think the tide may be turning. Perhaps that's the problem here? Feeling a little heat, and needing to put a lid on that menacing kettle? view in original post Unfortunately By Gaia - 04/13/2011 - 6:58 pm Although all the plastic in Concord (and Hopkinton) is accepted free at the transfer station, it doesn't all get recycled. Certain plastics that don't have a market, are simply dumped in with the trash and go to the incinerator (or landfill... or whatever). K-cups are not recyclable in their current form. That said, I do use one K-cup per day in my office, purely because of the convenience. However, after 1 considering getting a machine for home, I rejected the idea for both economic and environmental reasons. view in original post hypocrite /hpkrt/ [hip-uh By Gaia - 04/13/2011 - 6:50 pm hypocrite /hpkrt/ [hip-uh-krit] noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not Log in to vote actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 11 2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. -----------------In other words, hypocritical = untruthful
Log in to vote
I said I support a fair income tax. I believe in a fair income tax. I am willing to pay my share in a fair system. I will do so if it comes to pass. No hypocracy here. You may have been looking for the term "double standard." But even so, I don't think my position qualifies. I have one standard for everyone - they should all pay an income tax, with appropriate exemptions of the first several thousand dollars of income. You, on the other hand, are suggesting I voluntarily pay an extra $1000 when you are unwilling to do so yourself. That sounds like a double standard to me. I understand that you don't agree with my position, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite. And name calling certainly won't make me suddenly see the light and agree with you. view in original post Again with the snarky hyperbole By Gaia - 04/13/2011 - 1:52 pm You're not the only one who's spouting this "write a check" line. You're hoping to make me and other income tax supporters look like hypocrites, and I see right through you. You know as well as I that all of us writing out a check to the state today wouldl change absolutely nothing. In order for a real, lasting change to made, we must change our fundamental ideas about what constitutes a fair and equitable tax structure. Everyone needs to participate. Everyone needs to contribute according to Log in their ability to pay. to vote 11 When the tax structure is fair, and we've stopped kowtowing to the rich (who know they've got the biggest tax shelter in the country and are fighting tooth and nail to keep it), and when everyone is pulling their own weight, I'll be more than happy to sit down and write out a check for what I owe. view in original post Exactly By Gaia - 04/13/2011 - 1:41 pm The lack of an income tax doesn't magically create wealth. It doesn't allow the middle class (who are struggling with ever increasing property taxes) to break out of the middle class and into the upper clase. The lack of an income tax simply attracts and holds the folks who are already wealthy. There was something on NPR recently about how Maine is being urged to look at NH as a model for improving their economy. As an impediment to adopting our model, It cited the fact that Maine and Vermont have a lot more poor people than NH. To me, the reason is obvious. It's not that it's easier to struggle out of poverty and into the middle class in NH - it's that you simply can't maintain any kind of reasonable lifestyle in NH if you have a lower income. The rents and property taxes are simply too high. The poor have to move elsewhere, like into Maine and Vermont. If we have fewer poor people, we can make due with smaller government, and lower taxes.
Log in to vote
14
Smaller government and lower taxes leads to less support for the poor, so we have fewer poor people. See the vicious cycle here? Bottom line - our tax structure does not create wealth. It simply makes it impossible for lower income folks to live here, and drives up our medium income, giving the appearance of general wealth and wellbeing. view in original post Wow. Denial much? Paranoid much? By Gaia - 04/13/2011 - 9:52 am People have signed their names and towns to these letters. Don't you think that if they were really Democrats their neighbors would know and rat them out? Do you think you personally could get a way with publicly claiming to be a disenchanted Democrat? Why is it so hard to believe that some Republicans are unhappy with the current crop of reps? view in original post Why so snarky? By Gaia - 04/13/2011 - 9:47 am He's just saying that the downshifting of state expenses onto the towns will mean that towns have to adjust. He could have been talking about any expense - from police to schools to library. He never implied the recreation director ought to be supported by the State. Do you live in Hopkinton? If not, it's none of your business how they vote to spend their tax money. And if you do live in Hopkinton, did you vote? If not - same answer. And if you did, well, you were out-voted. That's democracy. Log in
By the way, Hopkinton does have a lot of wealthy people. It also has a lot of middle class and lower 2 income folks as well. Not everyone in Hopkinton is rich, or liberal. The broad brush painting does no one any good. view in original post That's not what she said By Gaia - 04/13/2011 - 9:19 am She said there are thousands of millionaires. She said we should have an income tax for people earning over $45 or $50K. That does not mean she considers $45,000K a year to be rich. I agree with her, although I would suggest something a little different: a graduated income tax from say, 2% to 4%, with the first $45,000 exempted, would be a fine idea for the state. So, no income taxes for anyone earning under $45,000, then at $55K they would owe $200. That's completely affordable, especially if it were accompanied by the elimination of the state portion of their property tax. State income taxes are also deductible on their federal return.
Log in to vote
11
Someone who earns a million a year would pay $38,200, (4%, and the first 45K exempted) and their property taxes would go down too. And yes, I would end up paying an income tax, so I'm not asking others to pay my way. view in original post That theory is far from proven By Gaia - 04/12/2011 - 9:30 pm Try this one: http://www.pandys.org/articles/csaandsexuality.pdf view in original post Some facts By Gaia - 04/12/2011 - 3:49 pm Under federal law, no one in NH can ever be forced to join a union if they don't want to, no matter where they work. In union shops where they have "fair share," that fair share provision was negotiated between the union and the employer. If the employer does not want to impose fair share, they don't ever have to agree to it. The reverse is also true - If the employees don't want it, the union does not ever have to agree to it. Right to Work would prohibit a fair share provision in any shop - even those where 100% of the employees wanted it. It takes away the employee's and employer's right to choose what is best for their own company or agency. view in original post This does not change one bit By Gaia - 04/12/2011 - 3:39 pm This does not change one bit the fact that the representative insulted a whole lot of people by leaving them out of the "hard working" category. That, and not the budget, was the point of the letter. Log in
to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote
view in original post That would make sense if we By Gaia - 04/12/2011 - 3:32 pm That would make sense if we were still an agrarian society. Back when the amount of property you own was directly related to your income (the number of acres you could farm), it made sense to tax property. Now the two things are not nearly as well related.
Log in
Yes, higher income means you can buy more property. However, if you happened to vote to have inherited property, your income may not match the taxes required to 1 maintain it. Should people have to give up their inheritances because of our tax structure?
view in original post Must you be so literal? By Gaia - 04/12/2011 - 3:28 pm Try this one instead: "I'm sorry, daughter, we don't have enough money for your insulin, and we must live within our means, so... request denied." view in original post by the way By Gaia - 04/11/2011 - 6:17 pm Some of the churches/religions/denominations that approve of same sex marriage: Unitarian Universalist Lutheran United Church of Christ Reform Judaism Reconstructionist Judaism Various Quaker organizations Metropolitan Community Church Presbyterian Wicca (yes, it's an officially recognized religion in the US) Most of the other neo-pagan religions. view in original post Why would anyone choose to be gay? By Gaia - 04/11/2011 - 6:01 pm With the degree of rejection, danger, humiliation, etc that gays have faced over the millennia why would anyone, much less 10% of the population, choose to be gay? Why would they put themselves through all of that? Let's put it this way - do you think you could choose to be gay? Even if your religion didn't forbid it, could you make a choice to be attracted to other women? I would love to see you prove your claim!
Log in
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
15
But the bottom line is - even if it were a choice, people should still have the right to marry the people they to vote are in love with. 14 Just because a religion says that homosexuality is a sin, doesn't mean you get to make laws against it. There are other religions that say being gay is just fine. This country is not a theocracy. We don't get to make laws who's only reason for being is a religious one. view in original post
You are mistaken By Gaia - 04/10/2011 - 8:47 pm Two years ago state employees did not get (or even ask for) an across the board raise. We were told that our choices were: Accept the contract and get 18 or 19 furlough days, plus 250-300 layoffs, or Reject the contract and get no furlough days but up to 1000 layoffs. A pay raise of any kind was never on the table, and layoffs would have happened no matter how we voted. view in original post Figures, please By Gaia - 04/08/2011 - 2:34 pm How much does the typical "union boss" make? How does it compare to, say, the CEOs of corporations or even of non--profit agencies? I'd like you to prove that in NH, "union bosses" are getting rich. I also want to challenge your concept of what union employees do. There are all kinds of employees in unions, from basic laborers to chefs, to program administrators, to teachers, to software developers and engineers. I would say that only a very small number of public jobs involve "single tasking." This seems to be a new buzz word, used along with other words (like "thug") that are designed to demean or demonize public employees, thereby making it easier to scapegoat them for the sorry state of the economy. view in original post [eye roll] By Gaia - 04/08/2011 - 2:33 pm The property and the phones are also required expenditures for straight union business. They would have been purchased/rented/acquired even if there was absolutely no political activity going on. view in original post Every time, huh? By Gaia - 04/07/2011 - 11:46 am EVERY time? Well, perhaps you have a kindly face and/or a wealthy bearing. Personally, I've never been approached by a begger in Concord. I know the disabled are there, I've seen them. But never been approached. Perhaps I have an unkindly face and/or an unwealthy bearing. view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
So condescending By Gaia - 04/07/2011 - 11:43 am I'm 50 years old. I have worked my entire adult life. I've never drawn welfare or unemployment. I make about $60,000 a year, and yes, I think we need at least one broad-base tax here. I prefer an income tax. I'm willing to pay an income tax if it also decreases my property tax. I'm even willing to support an income tax if, because of my income level, I end up paying a little more over all, because I will know that the state has taken steps toward more equitable and fair taxation, and that those who are less fortunate than I are taken care of. Log in
to vote
Stop make assumptions about people's motivations. Stop assuming that those who support an income tax are only doing so because they wouldn't have to pay it. It's just plain hateful. view in original post How does this save the state money? By Gaia - 04/07/2011 - 11:31 am I propose that it does not save the state, or the taxpayers, money. Instead, it tips the playing field in the direction of business, in order to increase their profits, and would probably cost the state money. For public employees, particularly the State, collective bargaining is less expensive than having 10,000 at-will employees.
If 10,000 employees are suddenly treated as at-will, the State must overhaul it's payroll software. In fact, it must do this work as soon as the law is passed, so that it would be ready, just in case collective bargaining failed. Currently, all employees are assigned a "Labor Grade" based on their job title, and a "Step" within that Labor Grade, based on satisfactory performance and longevity. Everyon everyone follow a formula for leave time and benefits. That's how the payroll systems are currently programmed.. If everyone becomes at-will, the State (and individual departments) will need to make changes to the Log in systems to accomodate individualized wages and benefits. (R&A, development, testing, deployment. to vote Possibly new hardware, as well.) Even if only ONE employee was ever moved out of the "norm," the 5 system would have to be changed to accomodate him. Software development costs money. A lot of money. Then there's the management time involved in negotiating individual wages and benefits. And the training that will need to be given to managers in order to do it. Time away from other management duties means that either quality suffers, or you need to hire extra people. Again, no cost savings, and perhaps a cost increase. view in original post balderdash By Gaia - 04/07/2011 - 11:04 am If the tax code for NH is restructured so that a sales or income tax replaces a good chunk of the property tax, as well as some of the specific sales taxes like the gas tax, everyone should benefit. The income tax can be small. But even a small income tax applied to the many very rich people in the state (who are currently enjoying a huge tax break compared to the middle and lower income folks), would bring in a large amount of money, thus reducing the burden on those who make less money. Renters are already paying a property tax - make no mistake - it's passed on by their landlords. There's a
Log in to vote
reason why theis state has both some of the highest property taxes in the country AND the highest rents. Are you saying an income tax is more burdensome to the working poor and those on fixed incomes than a property tax? Please! Property taxes, gas taxes, car registration fees... they all continue to go up even when incomes do not rise. Income tax is always tied to a person income level (obviously!), and changes only when the person's income changes (or the gov changes the rate). I'd much rather have more of my tax burden tied to my income level. The very rich, who can most afford to pay, prefer the opposite, for obvious reasons. But at whose expense? This is the key - and I think you'll find that the vast majority of those advocating an income tax will agree: An income tax must replace part of the property tax and many of the other fees and specific sales taxes. And it must be set up so that income taxes cannot then be increased, willy-nilly. view in original post Can I borrow that crystal ball? By Gaia - 04/06/2011 - 11:17 pm I could sure use some of that confidence you exude in your predictions. view in original post It's not "Live Free" when By Gaia - 04/06/2011 - 11:05 pm It's not "Live Free" when you PROHIBIT a workplace from enacting fair share, even when both the union and the employer want it. That's what this bill would do. I believe the statistics about how RTW lowers people's salaries and benefits. It's all part of the same seemingly coordinated republican effort across the entire country to crush labor, thereby increasing profits for corporations and already wealthy business owners. I oppose RTW on that basis alone. However, if it must pass, the only way it is remotely fair, is if non-union members Log in are not covered by collective bargaining. Why should they get the benefits if they to vote don't pay for them? That in itself, however, would be a logistical and costly 1 nightmare for the State in particular - they'd have to overhaul their payroll software to treat non-union members differently, and they'd have to train management to negotiate wages and benefits with each non-union individual, and would have to free up or add that management time to do it. view in original post Most probably By Gaia - 04/06/2011 - 5:37 pm Most probably because the first impetus for the rally was the cuts to services - most of the people at the rally were there protesting those cuts. Union members decided to join in later, after the rally was already scheduled and advertised. view in original post
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Excellent link By Gaia - 04/06/2011 - 5:35 pm Thanks! view in original post Public employees are not the By Gaia - 04/06/2011 - 9:11 am Public employees are not the cause of the state's economic woes, but this year they are the most popular scapegoats. The building wave of resentment against them is fueled by people who have more resources, and don't want the state looking in their pocketbooks. The more they can divert attention to "the union thugs" and create an atmosphere of blame, the less likely they are to have to give up some of their own wealth to help solve the problem. As for politicians being bought by unions - it's pretty clear, isn't it, that the current crop of politicians are not in the pocketsof the unions, isn't it?
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Collective bargaining is one of the many things that governments do on behalf of it's citizens. The 6 taxpayers can't have a direct vote in everything - there's a reason we have a representative government, because it's just too big to involve everyone all the time. Besides, at the local level, the taxpayers DO have a say when they approve or reject a town's budget and every line item therein. view in original post I'm a tax payer too. By Gaia - 04/05/2011 - 10:30 pm Before you made the 35% pay sacrifice, did you enjoy high wages, profit sharing and bonuses during the "good years.?" State Employees have already "prepaid" their sacrifice. During the good years when the private sector was getting profit sharing and bonuses, the public sector was quietly plugging along with moderate raises and decent benefits. The public sector NEVER gets profit sharing or pay increases that are based solely on the good economy. Picture a graph. A pretty much steady straight line goes across the middle. That's the public employee. Another line curves up and down, sometimes above the middle, sometimes below. That's the private employee. What's happening is that people seem to think that public employees should accept the worst of both worlds - no profit sharing or bonuses during the good times, AND make big sacrifices during the bad times. They fail to remember that we've pre-paid those sacrifices. view in original post Really. By Gaia - 04/05/2011 - 4:16 pm I wonder if Rep. Kurk understands that "the churches" are made up of tax payers. They are not some kind of corporate entities with extra bucks to spend on things they like. Asking the churches to step up means Log in asking the church members to step up - asking them to voluntarily pay what amounts to extra taxes so that to vote
Log in to vote
people don't fall through the cracks. People that the State should be watching out for themselves. view in original post Shared Pain By Gaia - 04/05/2011 - 9:53 am Admittedly, I don't know as much about teacher salaries and benefits as I do about state employee salaries. However, I want to point out that State Employees have already "prepaid" their pain. During the good years when the private sector was getting profit sharing and bonuses, the public sector was quiety plugging along with moderate raises and decent benefits. The public sector NEVER gets profit sharing or pay increases that are based solely on the good economy. Picture a graph. A pretty much steady straight line goes across the middle. That's the public employee. Another line curves up and down, sometimes above the middle, sometimes below. That's the private employee. What's happening is that people seem to think that public employees should accept the worst of both worlds - no profit sharing or bonuses during the good times, AND make big sacrifices during the bad times. They fail to remember that we've pre-paid those sacrifices. view in original post But Bill... By Gaia - 04/05/2011 - 9:31 am The same thing can be said about anyone with a 401K. Put two people next to each other - one working for the private sector, and one for the public. They both do the same job. Both have a retirement plan in place - for one it's an employer-matched 401K. For the other its an employee-contributed public pension plan. Most likely, the public employee is making a lower gross wage than the private employee, even before the retirement contributions are accounted for. view in original post The key here By Gaia - 04/04/2011 - 2:58 pm The key here is to educate people, and not allow the rich (who know what side their bread is buttered on) to scare "the little folk" with dire warnings about how something very precious will be lost if we move to an income tax.
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
The rich may have only one vote each, but they have lots of influence, and they've been very successful in Log in to vote pulling the wool over people's eyes so far. 2 view in original post Poppycockier By Gaia - 04/04/2011 - 2:54 pm Except for specific political appointments, like the commissioners of the various departments, there are no at-will public employees right now. Not everyone is a member of a union, but the collective
Log in to vote
bargaining agreements cover the non-unionized members and protect them as well. And those political appointments - they turn over and get replaced every time the administration changes. "At-will" means every public sector job will be available for political appointment. view in original post Justice By Gaia - 04/04/2011 - 9:07 am Article 38 "...a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government;..." I see that justice is the first thing on the list of governmental qualities enshrined in our constitution. view in original post Definition of "thug" By Gaia - 04/03/2011 - 10:58 pm thug /g/ S noun 1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims. Log in Origin: 180010; < Hindi thag literally, rogue, cheat Is that really what you mean to call the public employees who dare to stand up and refuse to be scapegoated for the sins of banks and mortgage brokers? view in original post Astounding By Gaia - 04/03/2011 - 10:43 pm Astounding how people can skew this. His point was that he has settled his entire life for a "lifestyle" that has few frills, in order to have stable benefits and a stable (if not cushy) retirement. Now he's being scapegoated as the cause of the state's problems. Private sector employees have, by default, chosen a path that is highly susceptible to the economy. When the economy is very good, they do very well. When the Log in economy is bad, they suffer. Until the economy recovers. Public employees choose a "steady," middle of the road path. When the economy is good, they do NOT get the benefit of profit sharing, bonuses, and big pay raises. The just plod along at that steady, no frills pace. The expectation is that, because they didn't get any special benefit from the good times, they should have some protection during the bad times. So yes, perhaps there is a sense of entitlement we've already made the sacrifices you didn't have to make during the good times. 3 6
Log in to vote
to vote
to vote
We pre-paid. Problem is, everyone seems to think that public employees should have the worst of both worlds - a lower-than-average wage during the good times, AND make big sacrifices during the bad times. view in original post And we're doing just fine? By Gaia - 04/03/2011 - 10:19 pm Do you think we're NOT "teetering on the edge of Bankruptcy?" You think we're doing just fine? Perhaps the state of all those states' economies has less to do with their tax structure and more to do with the fact that the whole damn country is trying to crawl out of a deep recession? The public is always going Log in to lag behind the private sector in recovery. Most states are in the crapper. to vote 2 view in original post No, not quite. By Gaia - 04/03/2011 - 10:10 pm The reason for taking money from the Delorean guy (and the Yaris guy) is so that the government can continue to maintain the architecture that allows each of them have the opportunity to own a car. (And for the car manufacturers to make and sell them, and the mechanics to sell their services, and the car wash Log in stores to continue making suds, etc. etc....) view in original post You call me a liar and still don't answer the question... By Gaia - 04/03/2011 - 10:02 pm You've insinuated that I'm being disingenuous, even though you're in no position to judge my intentions. But I will let that go, rather than getting totally distracted. We have the 45 or 46th highest property taxes in the country. It's probably going to go even higher when the state is done downshifting for this biennial budget. How is it fair and sustainable to rely on a property tax? view in original post Born and raised. By Gaia - 04/02/2011 - 11:27 pm Yes, I'm a 50 year old NH native. How about you? Have you forgotten about the $6 and something per thousand "state portion" of the property tax that goes to pay for education? How about the county portion? Have you forgotten about the state responsibilities Log in that get downshifted to the counties and towns? And the additional costs that will be downshifted after this to vote budget is passed. 3 Ideally, I'd like to see the towns switch to an income tax, but the bureaucracy created would probably 2
to vote
Log in to vote
make it impossible. However, it's certainly possible to create a tax structure that uses property tax to pay for town and county expenses, and an income tax to pay for state expenses. The income tax could start by replacing the state portion of the property tax and the things that have been downshifted over the past few years. You still haven't answered the question of how the reliance on a property tax is fair and sustainable. view in original post I still haven't seen a cogent argument FOR the property tax By Gaia - 04/02/2011 - 4:13 pm Can someone please tell me how it is fair and sustainable to rely on a property tax to fund state government? From purely a sustainability point of view, how can you continue to use a tax method that doesn't take into account the taxpayer's ability to pay (and the ability to keep paying year after year)? If my income doesn't keep up with my local tax burden I have two choices: 1. I can apply for a tax waiver from the town, which means that rates have to be raised on everyone else. 2. I can sell my house and buy or build a less valuable one. Or I rent. But that means I pay fewer taxes, so tax rates have to be raised on everyone else. Or my rent goes up so my landlord can pay his property taxes. Log in In the meantime, while I'm getting poorer and have less money to spend in the local economy, the rich are getting richer. Where's that trickle-down they promised me 30 years ago? I'm not getting even remotely damp! view in original post Hrrrumph By Gaia - 04/02/2011 - 4:00 pm So, what happens when too many people take advantage of that provision? The tax rate has to be increased on everyone else, which means even more people will need to take advantage of it. It's not a sustainable system, and it's nearing its breaking point. Log in
to vote
to vote
view in original post Money provides its own set of privileges By Gaia - 04/02/2011 - 3:55 pm When you have more money you have more opportunities. I pretty much agree with your assessment of property taxes, even though you probably thought you were being facetious. The problem is that people who bought houses they could afford 10 years ago are finding that their property taxes have increased a whole lot faster than their incomes. They should not now be accused of buying more house than they could afford. Let me offer another metaphor. If I am not wealthy and I decide to buy a car, I'm going to be looking at something like a Toyota Yaris. That's what I can afford, and it's the level of privilege I can buy my way into. The taxes I've paid on my income reflect the dues one needs to pay to enter the Yaris Club. If I am wealthy and I decide to buy a car, I can be looking at a whole range of cars, from the Yaris (if I choose) to a Delorean or some other prestigious vehicle. I can afford it, and its the level of privilege I can
Log in to vote
buy my way into. the taxes on my income reflect the dues one needs to pay to enter the Delorean Club. view in original post I'm sorry... By Gaia - 04/02/2011 - 3:53 pm I'm sorry Mr. Haas, but most of the time I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say, and this is one of those times. This is the definition of "dues" that I am using: "a regular fee or charge payable at specific intervals, especially to a group or organization: membership dues." view in original post Thank you! By Gaia - 04/02/2011 - 10:33 am This guy wouldn't answer my question a few days ago when I asked what he pays as a percent of income. You did the research and proved why he wouldn't answer. Excellent! view in original post it's simple, really By Gaia - 04/02/2011 - 10:30 am Income taxes are the dues that people pay for the privilege of living in a country that allows (and encourages) them to become as wealthy as their ambition and talents allow. view in original post Paving the way By Gaia - 04/02/2011 - 10:19 am It occurs to me that the reckless, disrespectful and callous actions of this legislature may pave the way for a house-cleaning next year, and therefore, finally, an income tax. When you yank the pendulum this far over to the right it's bound to swing equally far to the left - especially these days when the whole electorate Log in seems to be bi-polar. to vote 7 view in original post Yup, I expected crickets By Gaia - 04/01/2011 - 1:37 pm And got them. view in original post
Since when By Gaia - 04/01/2011 - 1:10 pm Since when does having vacation time on the books and deciding to use a couple hours make an employee appear to be "disposable?" Do you worry about your job being eliminated, or your dedication questioned when you take vacation time? view in original post The difference By Gaia - 04/01/2011 - 9:01 am is in the size of the turnout. Several hundred protesters need a few cops. Several thousand need a lot of cops. And you talk about "Unions" as if they are somehow different from "Employees." All of the "Union thugs" you talk about are public employees. They are actual cops, firefighters, and other public employees. They are the actual people who would be affected by changes in collective bargaining. They are the ones who will need to figure out how to continue providing for their families when if they lose their jobs or get their pay severely cut, or hae to pay a lot more for their benefits. view in original post You are deluded By Gaia - 03/31/2011 - 7:59 pm I have worked my entire life and payed every single tax I've owed. I've never drawn welfare or unemployment. And yes, I am screaming about the budget cuts because my NH tax burden is almost 12% of my gross income. Add in federal taxes and I'm up to about 18% of my income. What percentage of your income do you pay in NH taxes? view in original post The subject is NH taxes By Gaia - 03/31/2011 - 7:36 pm How much, as a percentage of income, did you pay in NH taxes? And how much did you have left over? I've worked my entire adult life. I've never drawn welfare or, thankfully, unemployment. Last year I made 63,000 before taxes. I have a modest home, with a market value of about $230,000. I paid 7300 in property taxes. That's 11.58% of my income, just for NH taxes. After also paying my Federal taxes, I had Log in about 52,000 left over. How do you compare? view in original post 3
Log in to vote
to vote
Thank you By Gaia - 03/30/2011 - 10:25 pm Excellent illustration, and spot-on. view in original post my personal opinion By Gaia - 03/30/2011 - 3:51 pm A family making between 40 and 200K. That said, there are degrees of middle class - lower, middle, and upper. I think that I subconciously include a factor of home ownership in there too - that a person either owns, or could afford to own 1 (and only 1) home. view in original post You say that like it's a bad thing By Gaia - 03/30/2011 - 3:45 pm Look - we have plenty of "socialized" services in this country already that nobody's complaining about, because they're necessary to a civilized society: fire and police protection, public education, building and maintaining roads and bridges, conserving national parks and monuments, national defense, etc. etc. So to the extent that I approve of tax money being used to fund those services, I guess I'm a socialist - but by that definition, so is everyone else who approves of that spending. But you still haven't answered the question - Why is it socialist to suggest that an income tax is the right Log in approach? I understand you don't like the idea. I understand you don't think it's a fair way to do things. But to vote the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it socialist. 12 Perhaps you'd like to withdraw your accusation now? view in original post Important question By Gaia - 03/30/2011 - 1:03 pm "What needs to happen is that we should decide what is important and fund it. Then decide what people should take personal responsibility for and not fund that. Then cut the fluff and fat everywhere else." If we decide what is important, and cut out the fluff and fat (even using your definitions), would it then be Log in ok to use a broad-based tax to fund the remaining spending? to vote 2 view in original post I want to tax everyone By Gaia - 03/30/2011 - 12:26 pm that's EVERYONE, including me, equitably and fairly. I have never suggested that the rich should pay all the taxes and that I should pay no or less taxes. I don't think you'll find a progressive out there who isn't willing to pay their fair share. Log in
Log in to vote
The problem is that we, the middle class, are currently paying a proportionately higher share of taxes than 10 the wealthy are. A middle class homeowner is taxed at a much higher pecentage of income than a wealthy
home owner, and that needs to change. view in original post I don't know? By Gaia - 03/30/2011 - 12:23 pm How's it working? view in original post you're evading the question By Gaia - 03/30/2011 - 12:22 pm The original writer was called a socialist because he/she stated that property taxes are regressive and income taxes are progressive. He/She suggested we have a revenue problem because of our regressive tax structure. Once again I ask - how does this statement make the writer a socialist? It's pure and simple name calling, a juvenile attempt to distract attention from a legitmate position, and a way to avoid answering a hard question. view in original post [eye roll] By Gaia - 03/30/2011 - 10:14 am Can't come up with a cogent argument against good facts? Call the writer a socialist! That'll work! I challenge you to point out what, exactly, is socialist about using an income tax, rather than a property tax to pay for services that states should be providing? By the way, "Socialism" does NOT mean "redistribution of wealth." It does not mean "taking from the rich and giving to the poor." Here's an easily understood modern definition: "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are Log in controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in to vote which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are 17 many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists." The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition view in original post
Log in to vote
14
I'm for an income tax By Gaia - 03/29/2011 - 9:12 pm And your proposal is what I've always advocated for. Start by replacing the "state" portion of the property tax with a state-wide income tax. Then adjust the rate up a bit in order to "upshift" some of the things that have been downshifted to the towns over the past few years. Get back to property taxes paying for local expenses like running the town government and schools. Let the income tax pay for the things that the Log in state is supposed to be providing. to vote 4 view in original post Thank you for the slap. May I have another? By Gaia - 03/29/2011 - 12:33 pm So, you are honorable and upstanding because you don't get paid for your service to the state. I, however, am not honorable or upstanding because I do get paid for my service. You care about what you're doing, as evidenced by the fact that you volunteer. I, however, don't care about what I'm doing because I get paid for it. And that goes for all of my fellow public employees. This is the most outrageous, insulting, condescending line of $&*% I've heard in years. Do you honestly think that the people who are putting their lives on the line for you, or educating your children, or dealing day to day with stressful, heartbreaking abuse cases are doing so just for the money? You think they don't care? I see what's happening. This is the year that SOMEONE has to pay. This is the year that things are so bad that we have to find an easy scapegoat. Making public employees into one monolic block of whiney, greedy, lazy pigs is the way to do it. What happened the last time a nation scapegoated an entire class of people, made them seem less than human, and severely limted their rights? Hmmm? view in original post I think you've just made our point for us By Gaia - 03/29/2011 - 9:30 am If 20% could raise that much money at $100 a month, imagine what could be raised by 100% of the taxpayers, paying a percentage of their income (and nowhere near $100 a month from the vast majority.) view in original post Alright By Gaia - 03/28/2011 - 4:39 pm I've crunched some numbers. An individual state employee who is in his first 5 years of employment with the state could, in theory, experience something close to a 35% increase in his own personal salary over the course of 6 years. This would be primarily due to merit-based step increases. Not all employees are getting step increases every year, because they've been around long enough to "max out" on their pay. To say, with a broad brush, that state employees got a 36% pay increase is disengenuous. The pay scales
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
13
Log in to vote
have increased by perhaps 8% over the course of 6 years. I suspect that if you looked at private sector raises, you would find the same thing - individuals getting merit-based pay raises that amount to to somewhere in the 35% range. However, no one is going to say that private sector pay has increased 35% in 6 years, are they? Same applies to public employees. view in original post 12th grade reading level By Gaia - 03/28/2011 - 12:50 pm I copied and pasted her post into Word and ran the "readability" tool on it. 12th grade reading level. No passive sentences. I did fine with it. view in original post Troll By Gaia - 03/28/2011 - 10:50 am That's the only explanation. Otherwise he might occasionally have a fact or two. view in original post Lest you forget By Gaia - 03/27/2011 - 10:07 pm State employees are not allowed to strike. That's one of the reasons collective bargaining and evergreen are so important. If we had the right to strike, then lack of an evergreen clause wouldn't be such a big deal. view in original post Bull By Gaia - 03/27/2011 - 10:05 pm You still haven't provided your source, as I asked you last time you spouted this fantastical figure. Our last raise was 3 years ago, for about 2%, as I remember. 2 years before that, I think we got 5% over 2 years. view in original post Getting might tired By Gaia - 03/25/2011 - 10:53 pm of people who refuse to stay on topic with an argument. Everyone is suffering - private and public sector both. I get that. The original statement was that Public Sector employees refuse to sacrifice. I refuted the statement. We Log in have "done the same." So what was your goal here, other than to bait me with the "Obama recession" bit? to vote 2 view in original post
Please provide your source By Gaia - 03/25/2011 - 2:15 pm I can assure you that, on an individual employee basis, you are wrong. The current state contract (200920011) contained no pay raise. The one prior to that (2007-2009), I think about 2%. I don't remember what came in the previous contract, but it was not 35%. Individual employees who are in their first 5 years of employment may get a 4% raise a year if recommended in their performance reviews. After that, they have to wait 2 years (get a raise in year 7 and 9), then they have to wait 3 years (get a raise in year 12). After that they're "maxed out" and the only raise Log in they get is whatever is negotiated in the contract. None of this can add up to an average 37% pay raise in to vote 6 years. 7 I would like to see how your source is spinning the numbers. view in original post Have you forgotten? By Gaia - 03/25/2011 - 1:55 pm The current contract for state employees contains no cost of living pay raise, and an increased contribution to health insurance premium. We didn't even ask for a pay raise. We were also willing to accept furlough days that amounted to a 5% pay cut, until the governor changed the terms at the last minute. Wehn you say we're not willing to make sacrifices, you are grossly mistaken. view in original post Your alternative suggests By Gaia - 03/25/2011 - 1:46 pm Your alternative suggests absolutely no role for government. Need a cop? Pay for it out of pocket. House on fire? Expect a bill from the privately owned fire department. School? Everyone goes to private school. Neighborhood bombed or invaded by a foreign country? Well... either take up arms yourself, hire a personal army, or die quietly. One of the roles of government (in addition to providing services like the ones I listed), is to create laws and an environment that allows business to flourish and people to become successful and wealthy.
This is the "service" that the wealthy should then be paying for. Clearly they used to vote it "10 times more" than someone who is less successful. 7 The wealthy should be paying back the system that allowed them to become wealthy in the first place. They'll still have plenty of money left over to enjoy the benefits of wealth. This was not my original thinking - I credit Warren Buffett for pointing it out. It's HIS position. view in original post
Do you work for a company with 10,000 employees? By Gaia - 03/25/2011 - 1:30 pm The reason many very large business (and governments) have unions, and collective bargaining, is because the little guy gets lost in the crowd. I can't imagine being one of 10,000 trying to individually negotiate my pay and benefits with a single employer. Do you think the employer is going to make the investment of time and personnel needed to individually negotiate? More importantly, do you want the State to spend the time and money needed to individually negotiate?
Log in
More likely the employer is going to set terms as "take it or leave it." It'll only be when enough wellto vote qualified people "leave it" and quality of services declines that the public will understand what a bad move 6 this was. view in original post Who said anything about the rich? By Gaia - 03/25/2011 - 1:24 pm The pocket was picked by legislators. They may or may not be rich. I don't know. I don't care. All I know is that it's an abuse of power. view in original post Soo... By Gaia - 03/25/2011 - 1:16 pm Public employees should be willing to work for whatever wages the public feels they can afford.... because.... "Public Service" is a noble calling (or a "duty") and we don't to hire anyone who is not dedicated enough to the cause that they would be willing to do it for free? Clearly the people you are talking about are willing to do the job for the wages they are being paid (even the minimum wage for the job.) Otherwise they would not be in the job. The fact that you're also willing to do the job for those wages proves nothing. view in original post Please stop with the broad brush By Gaia - 03/25/2011 - 1:08 pm I am a state employee. I am satisfied with my wages and benefits. I completely understand why we did not get a raise in the last contract, and if we don't get a raise in the next contract, I will understand that too. You'll find many more public employees who feel the same way. You accuse us of "wanting more," when in reality what we are trying to do is just hold the ground we're on. view in original post Crickets By Gaia - 03/23/2011 - 11:07 pm .... chirp...... chirp.....
Log in Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote
view in original post There's a difference By Gaia - 03/23/2011 - 11:06 pm between living with the natural consequences of an election and being told that someone "needs to suffer." NEEDS? That's just over the top vindictive. view in original post Why not just address the specific problem? By Gaia - 03/23/2011 - 3:36 pm If there's a problem with the pension rules, then address the pension rules. Why the need for such draconian measures as to completely strip away bargaining rights of employees? Overkill much? view in original post Are you serious with that link? By Gaia - 03/23/2011 - 1:46 pm Do you really think it's ok for the NH legislature to target workers in NH because of something that's going on in WI? Please give me examples of NH workers being "thuggish:" recently. view in original post Exactly By Gaia - 03/23/2011 - 1:42 pm My thoughts exactly. view in original post Listen to your language! By Gaia - 03/23/2011 - 1:34 pm "They need to suffer?" WTH? Does everyone else who's on the losing side of an election also "need to suffer?" Are you saying that it's ok for the winners to vindictively punish the losers? WTH? view in original post pulling the financial reins? By Gaia - 03/22/2011 - 11:55 pm How, exactly, do any of these bills save the state money? Except perhaps the one allowing kids to drop out of school at any age. Or never attend at all. I suppose that Log in might save money in the short run, but what about when those kids with no to vote education end up on welfare? 0
to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
Log in to vote
view in original post OK, I get it By Gaia - 03/22/2011 - 9:42 am I get that you and nh yankee are highly annoyed by the fact that some state employees don't seem to be working as hard as you think they should. Do you understand that the changes you've suggested amount to barely a drop in the bucket when it comes to balancing the budget? Do you understand that they add absolutely nothing to the budget discussion? You are focused on one tiny twig in a vast forest of financial problems. It should be clear now that there's little to nothing left to cut, without severely impacting services. Those who say the state has a spending problem (not an income problem) have their heads so far up their butts they can't see anything but their own petty annoyances. The state needs an income tax to partially replace the property tax and many of those hundreds of nickle and dime fees and business taxes. view in original post No, that's not what I'm saying By Gaia - 03/21/2011 - 10:04 am Of course they shouldn't pay a higher rate on their property taxes. I'm not stupid or unreasonable. I said we need a fair tax system. I should have been specific. We need an income tax. We need to shift some of the expenses we pay for with property tax to income tax. We can start with the state portion of the property tax that goes for education. Your brother in law may have paid 85K in income tax, but it didn't go to the State of NH, did it? The portion of his overall tax burden that went to the state was probably proportionately smaller than the portion you paid to the state. view in original post Please review the purpose of this program By Gaia - 03/21/2011 - 8:56 am Somehow over the past two years the purpose of the program, in the public's eye, has simply been to increase recycling. Two years ago, and again last year when it was voted in, the program was clearly presented as a means for the town to save money. That's the primary benefit of pay-by-bag, which does the following: 1. Makes people responsible for paying for the trash disposal service that they use. Use more, pay more. Use less, pay less. 2. People generally want to pay less, therefore they will recycle more. 3. More recycling means less trash in the hopper, and therefore less that needs to be hauled away, at cost to the taxpayers.
This is not just a "feel good" measure. If given a chance, it will save the taxpayers money, and will protect the tax rate from future increases in tipping fees. view in original post Because By Gaia - 03/20/2011 - 2:39 pm They need to control the size of the bags in order to control the amount of garbage going into the hopper. The cost savings come through control of the amount of trash entering the system. view in original post Could it be By Gaia - 03/18/2011 - 4:29 pm Could it be that the protectors of the rich are, in fact, rich? Could it be that they are spewing accusations of greed on the part of the middle class so that no one will look at the fact that they themselves are getting free rides in so many arenas? Log in
view in original post You pervert what we're saying over and over By Gaia - 03/18/2011 - 4:27 pm I am not demanding that the rich fork over money to me. I am demanding a more equitable tax system. When I pay 20 or more percent of my income as taxes (due in great part to the property tax system in this state) and a millionaire in the same town pays 3 or 4 % of their income in taxes - why should I not complain?
I don't want the rich to give me their money. I want the rich to pay their fair share into the system, and I resist, with all of my might, their demands that I pay more of my hard-earned money while they get more Log in to vote breaks. 11 I have never asked for free pie and I never will. My question is - why do so many people here feel they must protect the rich from paying their fair share at the expense of the rest of us? Why do they need your protection? view in original post point of information By Gaia - 03/18/2011 - 4:12 pm Did you know that you can go back and edit a post (to correct spelling, for example) as long as there have been no replies to it? This is a good thing - typo demons plague me constantly. Log in
to vote
Please read the facts again By Gaia - 03/18/2011 - 4:08 pm Under the current law, you will never, ever be forced to join a union. And... the so called "fair share" dues can only be collected from you if the employer agrees they can be collected. If your employer does not want employees to pay fair share, there is nothing the unions can do about it. And lastly - union dues cannot be used for campaign donations. It's against the law. That's why unions have PACs. Contributions to the PACs are voluntary and do not accept any dues money. Please get your facts straight. view in original post Maybe... By Gaia - 03/16/2011 - 9:51 am We should build ourselves some good old fashioned work houses. view in original post NOBODY is forced to join a union now. By Gaia - 03/15/2011 - 12:00 pm Every worker in this state has the choice of whether to join a union. If they don't want to join, they don't have to. The real issue is whether it is right or ethical for unions to collect a "fair share" fee from employees who have not chosen to join the union. My opinion: If all employees will reap the benefits of a union-negotiated contract, then all employees should contribut to toward the expenses incurred during the negotiation and enforcement of the contract.
10
If employees do not pay for the service (of having a contract negotiated for them) they should not get the to vote beneftis of the contract. 2 In the end, however, I agree with others who say that "right to work" is a nicely-named effort to move weath from the middle and lower classes into the pockets of the upper class. And my saying this is not class warfare, it's class defense! view in original post No complaining here By Gaia - 03/15/2011 - 11:34 am You are manufacturing complaints in your imagination. I hear absolutely no complaints from my co-workers (or from myself) about our copays and the cost of premiums for in-service employees. It seems like you want to make state employees into some kind of whiney ungrateful mob so that you
Log in to vote
have justification to punish them for the state of the economy. view in original post Political contributions are NOT from union dues By Gaia - 03/15/2011 - 11:27 am This is extremely important to understand. Unions are not allowed to take union dues and make political contributions with them. Instead they create Political Action Committees (PACs), and solicit donations to the PAC. Those donations are always voluntary. view in original post That affected all workers By Gaia - 03/15/2011 - 9:40 am ... not just the unionized employees. NAFTA didn't target unions specifically. view in original post Why should someone who EARNS $50,000 a year By Gaia - 03/14/2011 - 11:38 am have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than someone who earns $10M ? THAT'S the thing that's unfair. The very wealthy have so many ways in which they can shelter their earnings that they end up paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes. Some of the wealthiest people in the country, like Warren Buffet, have acknowledged this fact. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wealthy+pay+less+taxes+as+a+percent... Reliance on a property tax is one of the ways this inequity gets perpetuated. My property tax is 18% of my 5 income. If my neighbor makes 10 times as much money as me, it's unlikely that his property taxes will be still be 18% of his income - it's likely to be much less than that. (House value does not track income in a parallel fashion.) view in original post It's pasturization that kills the bad stuff By Gaia - 03/14/2011 - 11:17 am I believe that you need a special license to sell raw milk, and probably the article would have specified raw if it were going to be raw. I suspect that the milk will be pasturized (which is probably why it's going to the plant in Portland). Homoginization is what mixes the cream into the rest of the milk so that it doesn't separate. It'll be interesting to see whether the milk has to be shaken before serving. : ) My money's on both pasturized and homogenized.
Log in to vote
view in original post Likewise, By Gaia - 03/12/2011 - 2:04 pm I think the victim is probably considering herself very lucky that Williams did not climb into the backseat with an actual bullet-firing gun. Guns don't discriminate between offense and defense. view in original post Even some of the newer cars are not that sophisticated By Gaia - 03/12/2011 - 2:01 pm I've got a 2008 Yaris. Gets great gas mileage, but it has manual locks. I didn't want to spend the money on the electronics package that includes electric locks. In hindsight, I should have spent the money. My only point is that a very large number of cars are incapable of being completely locked with the push of a button. view in original post Bottom line - it's a Christian Bible By Gaia - 03/09/2011 - 12:21 pm Regardless of whether you believe in the Bible literally or figuratively - all of the "rules" in there apply to Christians, and Christians only. If you are a Christian, you must decide for yourself whether being gay, or having gay sex is acceptable.. Basically, you have to decide whether to follow your own religion's rules. Finding something in the Bible does not give you the right to insist that everyone in the state (or country, or world) follow that rule. It's in the Bible. So what? Biblical law is not the law of the land, and never ever should be. I'm not Christian. I'm not required to follow specifically Christian rules, and you should not EVER, EVER get away with passing a law that requires me to follow specifically Christian rules. Or prohibits me from engaging in a behavior that some people find offensive on a religious level. Jews have a religious rule that requires them to perform no work from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. Should I ever be allowed to pass a law saying that all businesses must be closed on Friday nights and Saturdays, and that no one can work on those days? Of course not! Why is this so hard for people to understand? view in original post Does that mean God is both male and female? By Gaia - 03/09/2011 - 12:01 pm Methinks so. Then why does the Bible use only the male pronoun? Because the bible was written by men, complete with the biases of their time. If that male/female god had dictated the bible, methinks he/she Log in would have made a bigger deal about the whole male bias thing. to vote 3
Log in to vote
Unless he/she truly meant women were inferior and needed to be controlled and managed. But I digress. The whole point of the original letter is that homosexuality is "natural." Therefore, if you believe that humans are held to a different standard, you cannot simultaneously use the argument that homosexuality is "un-natrual" as a reason for denying same sex marriage. Can't have it both ways. view in original post OMG, please get the facts straight By Gaia - 03/09/2011 - 9:44 am Public emplyees do contribute to their pensions, and their health care, out of every single paycheck, on every dollar earned. I pay 5% of my gross income toward my retirement, and have been doing so for 25 years. More recently, we've been required to pay toward our insurance as well. 20 years ago the legislature, in its infinite wisdom, gave the TAXPAYERS a "free ride" by reducing the amount that the employers would need to pay as their share of contributions to the system. Now it's caught Log in to vote up to them, and instead of insisting that the employers get back on board and pay their fair share, the 1 proponants of this bill want the employees to pick up the employer's slack. Again. view in original post What does the NHRS have to say about this? By Gaia - 03/09/2011 - 9:38 am Where are the administrators of the Retirment System in all of this? What do THEY think? Do they think the legislature needs to fix things? Do they think they need to be reformed? Monitor? How about an interview with the people who actually know whether the system is broken? view in original post I'm sorry, it's not the same By Gaia - 03/09/2011 - 9:10 am People who "planned on keeping their jobs in the private sector" were not promised those jobs. They were not under contract when they were released. I agree that sacrifices need to be made. Public employees (most of them anyway) understand this and are willing to be part of the solution. Case in point, the State Employee union did not ask for accross the board raises for the biennial contract that started last July. That means no raises for 2 years. It would not Log in surprise me if they do the same again for the next contract. However, the changes being proposed in this bill will far outlast any 2 year budget cycle (they're PERMANENT), and I have yet to see anyone explain how making these changes will benefit the State budget here and now. Pensions are not paid out of taxpayer money - they're paid out of investment earnings. 1
Log in to vote
to vote
view in original post But... By Gaia - 03/09/2011 - 9:02 am The changes being proposed will last far past the recession. Even after the economy's back on track, employees and retirees (especially retirees) will still be short-changed. I agree that employees need to be part of the solution for the economic problems the state is facing. I don't agree that they should continue to pay the price forever - and that's what this bill is proposing. view in original post No, you've got it wrong By Gaia - 03/05/2011 - 12:10 pm I don't expect rich people to give me their money. I expect that everyone will contribute to the system in an equitable manner. If I am required to pay X% of my income as Federal Income Tax, I expect that those who make more money than I do will pay the same X%. I don't expect that they will be able to weasel their way down to a lower rate by gaming the system (which they system unfortunately allows).
I'm not ticked off that the rich are rich. (Although I don't think you can ever make to vote a case for the idea that every rich person in the country got there by their own 3 sweat.) I'm ticked off because many of them consider themselves exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us. view in original post Good question By Gaia - 03/05/2011 - 10:30 am If public employees have it so good, why re there always vacancies? They're not just from retirement! Also, technically, pensions are not directly paid by taxpayers. The retirement system collects 5-11% of each employee's paycheck, plus an amount from the taxpayers that is needed to fully fund the retirement system that year, and invests those monies in the market. Last year those investments saw a 12.9% return. Pensions are paid from the earnings on investments.
Log in
In the long run, this panic about "fixing" the retirement system is manufactured, to vote probably as a diversion from other things, like job creation. The retirement system 1 is not broke. It's on its way to recovery following changes that were put into place a few years ago. http://nhrs.org/News/Files/10_27_10_NHRS_Responds_to_Claims.pdf view in original post
No By Gaia - 03/05/2011 - 10:19 am The retirement system also invests in the market - same as the private plans, and has had a good track record. It did take a dip during the stock market downturn, just like the private plans, but is now recovering. Just like private plans. view in original post We have offered a solution - over and over By Gaia - 03/05/2011 - 10:08 am The solution to "making the wealthy pay their share" is to institute an income tax that replaces the "state" portion (or more) of the property tax. The wealthy in this state have a proportionately smaller tax rate than the middle class because much of their tax burden is based on the value of their homes, not their income. Someone who makes a million dollars a year doesn't usually have a house that's 50 times more valuable than someone who makes $25,000 a year. The reason the middle class are taking the hit is because of the property tax - our taxes go up but our income does not. Sometimes our income even goes down, but our taxes do not. An income tax levels the playing field. view in original post Man, I'm tired of this characterization By Gaia - 03/03/2011 - 7:39 pm I consider myself a liberal. Sometimes I'm a flaming liberal. Yet I fully expect to pay my own way, to the best of my ability. As my income has increased over the years, the amount of income tax I pay has increased as well. This doesn't bother me in the least. I see it as a fair return for the privilege of living in a country that allows me to be as successful as my level of ambition dictates. My ability to pay is directly related to my income. It is not related to the size or value of my house especially if I happened to have inherited the family home, or if I'm retired. There is nothing "unfair" about an income tax, and there is plenty about the property tax that is unfair. What's wrong with fairness? Oh, I know, those who make more money might have to part with some of it. Unfair! view in original post D'oh! By Gaia - 03/03/2011 - 6:48 pm Let's see if I can pull out the most important fact here for you. Wouldn't want you to over exert yourself.
Log in to vote
The state retirement system benefits from NOT being a 401(k) plan, since under a 401(k), employees who to vote
leave without being fully vested get to take both their own and the employer share as well as accumulated 2 investment income, and if they die, their heirs get the full amount; under NHRS's 401(a) setup, the employee who doesn't retire under the system takes only their own contributionss and earnings so NHRS gets to keep the employer match and the investment income on it. view in original post Ok fine By Gaia - 03/03/2011 - 6:25 pm I looked it up. As I suspected, churches do not pay property taxes because they are non-profit entities. Just like your favorite charity. view in original post disproven By Gaia - 03/02/2011 - 2:43 pm The link between autism and vaccinations has been thoroughly disproven. http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20100913/cdc-study-shows-no-vacci... view in original post how do you make a living? By Gaia - 03/02/2011 - 2:33 pm Are you an employer, employee, or self-employed? view in original post Serious question By Gaia - 03/02/2011 - 1:21 pm Please educate me. Are churches exempt from property tax because they are religious organizations, or because they are non-profit organizations? Are other non-profit organizations exempt from property tax? view in original post Close-minded? I would submit... By Gaia - 03/02/2011 - 1:18 pm that rabid believers are just as close minded as rabid non-believers. Neither of them seems to understand that both ends of the spectrum are a matter of faith, not facts, and neither of them seems leave any room in their beliefs for the possibility that they might be wrong. Nobody can either prove that God exists or doesn't exists. Same with concepts of an afterlife (or lack thereof.) Nobody on this side of the death can truly know what happens when we die. Nor can we know that the same thing happens to everyone when they die.
Log in to vote
13
We can believe very strongly one way or the other, but strong belief is not the same as fact. I believe that we could all get along so much better if only we could say "This is what I choose believe, but I can't prove it, so I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Therefore, I also acknowledge that you could be right. Let's agree not to waste time and destroy lives fighting about something that can't be proven." view in original post The system is not broke By Gaia - 03/01/2011 - 10:12 pm Far from it. Please see this explanation: "NHRS Responds to Erroneous Claims." http://nhrs.org/News/Files/10_27_10_NHRS_Responds_to_Claims.pdf view in original post This is patent misinformation By Gaia - 03/01/2011 - 11:17 am Please offer evidence that there are cops making more in retirement than they did on the job. Pensions are calculated as a percentage of working pay, based on years worked. See for yourself: http://nhrs.org/Members/serviceretirement.aspx Here's the formula for group 2 employees: 2 % x average final compensation x creditable service (maximum of 40 years) = Log in approximate annual pension amount. to vote 6 The math simply doesn't allow you to go more than 100% of your final compensation. And to get 100%, the cop would have to work for 40 years. So, unless you can offer real evidence to the contrary, please stop spreading incendiary mis-information. view in original post tax payers were not purposefully negligent By Gaia - 03/01/2011 - 11:16 am What I'm saying is that public employee salaries and benefits are paid, ultimately, by tax payers. When the counties/cities/towns failed to raise enough tax money to fully pay for their obligation to the employees, the taxpayers got an un-noticed break. The counties/cities/towns are responsible to meet that obligation. They have two ways of doing it: raise taxes (and no, I don't know how much), or cut other services to free up the money.
And yes, I'm a tax payer too,, so I fully understand what I'm proposing. I agree that ultimately it is the fault of elected officials who mis-led taxpayers. view in original post The point is... By Gaia - 03/01/2011 - 10:44 am over and over.... State employees have done their share, out of every single paycheck, for every single dollar earned, they have contributed to the retirements system. They have kept up their end of the contract with no complaints. The employers, on the other hand, have not kept up their end. They (and the taxpayers) have not done their share. Once the employers have caught up and done their share, the employees will be happy to sit down and see what else they (the employees) can do to solve the problem - if there's any problem left to solve with the retirement system. view in original post (cont) By Gaia - 02/28/2011 - 9:05 pm Pensions are paid out of the earnings on investments. Employee's pay into the system - a percentage of every dollar earned. Taxpayers pay the employee's salaries, and they're supposed to be paying a match into the retirement system, but they've underpaid for years.
Log in to vote
10
Log in to vote
Now the pols are trying to find some way for employees to bail out the employers, so the employers don't 0 have to pony up what they've supposed to have been paying all along. view in original post Well, actually, By Gaia - 02/28/2011 - 9:02 pm State employees can "squirrel away" their leave time, simply by not using it. When they retire, the state must pay them for any unused annual leave, and 50% of their accrued and unused sick leave. Under current rules, this becomes part of their "average final compensation," which their pension is based on. The real problem is that no one has reported what this number turns out to be - what 's the actual aggregate Log in increase in pension payments due to leave payouts? to vote 0 In the absolute worst case scenario, a person who has worked over 21 years and has "maxed out" on both their annual and sick leave accrual, having taken no leave for essentially years, would be paid for 825 hours of leave time in his final year of employment. His regular hours would be 1950 each year (37.5
hours per week * 52 weeks). Average final compensation is an average of the last 3 years: 1950 +1950 +1950+ 825, all divided by 3 = 2225 hours. That's 275 extra hours, or an increase of 14%. That's the most a person could increase their pension. Remember - this would be for the worker who has more than 21 years in, and has taken no vacations or days off for 2 years and taken no sick time for 8 years. I doubt that happens very often. I'd love to know the actual real-life numbers. But.... the more important thing is that the whole hoopla about the retirement system is way off base. Corrections have already been put into place that will bring the system back up to "full" in a few years, without legislative intervention. Taxpayers don't pay retiree pensions. (cont.) view in original post Did ya'll miss the point of this story? By Gaia - 02/28/2011 - 4:18 pm There's no ban on incandescant bulbs. Nobody has told you what you can and can't buy. I think a chill pill is in order. view in original post not to mention the fact that By Gaia - 02/28/2011 - 10:15 am all the the federal taxes paid by NH residents would just disappear into other states, never to be seen again. Although I did read one line in the article that makes me wonder if the proponant is suggesting we should stop paying our federal taxes because "it's silly to send it to washington just to have it come back with strings attached," or some such. I agree with Mr. Richardson - there's an awful lot of anti-government paranoia going on. It's as extreme (in Log in the other direction) as true socialism. (And I'm not talking about the democrats who are accused of to vote socialism just because they believe the government should have a role in assuring the health and welfare 7 of all citizens.) view in original post Not bloody likely By Gaia - 02/26/2011 - 11:39 am for a retiree to "make more in retirement than they ever did working." Pensions are calculated as a percentage of working pay, based on years worked. See for yourself: http://nhrs.org/Members/serviceretirement.aspx A group I employee would have to work 66 years (WORK 66 years, not work untill 66) in order to make 2 100% of their working pay in retirment. A group II employee would have to work 40 years. I suppose it's possible for a cop to start at 20 and retire at 60, but after putting their lives on the line for that many years, perhaps they deserve to retire at full pay.
view in original post One suspects... By Gaia - 02/26/2011 - 11:18 am One suspects that it may be the "young" aspect, rather than the "liberal" aspect of these students that allowed them to be so disrespectful. Not an excuse, but perhaps an explanation. view in original post They won by campaigning on By Gaia - 02/24/2011 - 10:53 am They won by campaigning on fiscal responsibility and job creation. Yet the first things on their agenda are idealgocal, not economic. And in fact, they fly in the face of fiscal responsibility. They may have won, but they're not living up to their promises, and they still have a responsibility to their Log in constituents. ALL of their constituents, not just the ones who elected them. to vote 11 view in original post Why not? By Gaia - 02/24/2011 - 9:02 am Because the NH constitution does not allow for a public referendum on anything, including same sex marriage. We can't vote on it unless you change the constitution first. view in original post apples and oranges By Gaia - 02/24/2011 - 9:00 am Sex between men and boys is illegal (and immoral), not because it's homosexual, but because it's an adult and a child. It's illegal for the same reason that sex between adult men and minor girls is illegal. So no, it's not just an "alternative lifestyle" that' being unfairly repressed. Please sort your produce properly. view in original post

Gaia Comment Stream 1-50

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Gaia Comment Stream 1-50

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

heh By Gaia - 04/17/2012 - 8:50 pm IB was first touted by a republican administration?

view in original post An ounce of prevention By Gaia - 03/12/2012 - 1:44 pm

[tweak!] view in original post interesting By Gaia - 12/30/2011 - 1:40 pm

view in original post

view in original post

outraged and call it socialism (and you'd be right).

view in original post

view in original post

view in original post

Anda mungkin juga menyukai