Social Security

[1EZduzit]

LOL, I don't know what dream world Zendari lives in but he sure doesn't live in the same reality as I do. I think he has a severe case of silver spoonitis.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
OK it is a TAX. As the joke goes, it will run out as soon as I turn 68. What stings is that as a self-employed person I have to by the FULL 15.6% without any reductions for deductions of the number of kids I have. And instead of going into a retirement account, it pays for some losers like my wives step-cousins who are "not motivated" to find a job and spend all the money on WarHammer figures. Aruggg!

End of rant.

And the reason you have to pay 15.6% social security tax--George HW Bush and Alan Greenspan. But if you were rich, and made all of your money from dividends and capital gains, you'd be taxed at much lower rates. Maybe you can incorporate?

http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/05/07/har05007.html

 

[HomeAppraiser]

Originally posted by: conjur
Being as you're self-employed you'd also know that you can deduct half of the self-employment tax on your tax return.

Originally posted by: marincounty
And the reason you have to pay 15.6% social security tax--George HW Bush and Alan Greenspan. But if you were rich, and made all of your money from dividends and capital gains, you'd be taxed at much lower rates. Maybe you can incorporate?

That just means that I don't have to pay tax on top of the SS tax I pay. It is an expense like paper, toner and gas. People talk about small business expenses like Cosmo Kramer "It?s a write off. Just write it off". What happens is it comes off the gross income to leave an AGI (adjusted gross income) which then gets reduced by the standard deduction and exemptions for wife and kids. That all brings me down to a decent tax rate. Having three kids takes $3,000 off my taxes owed. SS tax does not get reduced by deductions, exemptions or kids so having to pay both employer and employee halves are a real burn. As I said I wouldn't mind if it didn't get wasted, but to me it is a tax that I will never see again.

A corporation is suppose to be charted for the public good. It cannot be formed just to avoid taxes and you cannot "live out of your company". You cannot work for free to avoid the SS tax and any salary draws would be taxed at the personal rate and subject to SS tax. But I have thought of it.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser

Originally posted by: conjur
Being as you're self-employed you'd also know that you can deduct half of the self-employment tax on your tax return.

Originally posted by: marincounty
And the reason you have to pay 15.6% social security tax--George HW Bush and Alan Greenspan. But if you were rich, and made all of your money from dividends and capital gains, you'd be taxed at much lower rates. Maybe you can incorporate?

That just means that I don't have to pay tax on top of the SS tax I pay. It is an expense like paper, toner and gas. People talk about small business expenses like Cosmo Kramer "It?s a write off. Just write it off". What happens is it comes off the gross income to leave an AGI (adjusted gross income) which then gets reduced by the standard deduction and exemptions for wife and kids. That all brings me down to a decent tax rate. Having three kids takes $3,000 off my taxes owed. SS tax does not get reduced by deductions, exemptions or kids so having to pay both employer and employee halves are a real burn. As I said I wouldn't mind if it didn't get wasted, but to me it is a tax that I will never see again.

A corporation is suppose to be charted for the public good. It cannot be formed just to avoid taxes and you cannot "live out of your company". You cannot work for free to avoid the SS tax and any salary draws would be taxed at the personal rate and subject to SS tax. But I have thought of it.

No, I'm not just saying write it off. I do realize that small businesses are the backbone of America. I'm just saying isn't there a legal way for you to avoid some taxes? Pay yourself minimum wage and take the rest as a profit? I'm not an accountant, so I don't know, but I do agree that the 15.6% soc sec tax is excessive.

 

[eits]

palehorse74 is a moron

the end.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, I don't know what dream world Zendari lives in but he sure doesn't live in the same reality as I do. I think he has a severe case of silver spoonitis.

He makes $20 an hour goofing off all day.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eits
palehorse74 is a moron

the end.

I nominate Eits as the "P&N Intellectual of the Month"...

 

[techs]

And what party continued these practices when they were in power?
The Republicans.
And what party fixed this mess by balancing the budget and providing for huge surpleses to rectify they problem:
The Democrats
And what party saw these huge surpluses and turned them into huge deficits to put the system back into trouble:
The Republicans.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eits
palehorse74 is a moron

the end.

I nominate Eits as the "P&N Intellectual of the Month"...

i think you already won that...

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Source link?

you can look up each of those landmark decisions using Google.

Sure can.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp


Stop posting your email spam forwards.

Conjur, you are my true owning idol :thumbsup: :laugh:

- Turkish

 

[delas52]

LMFAO.

Palehorse stop spamming these forums with your reactionary bulls**t...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: delas52
LMFAO.

Palehorse stop spamming these forums with your reactionary bulls**t...

only when you stop spamming the boards with your socialist liberal bullsh*t... deal? didnt think so.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh man this idiot owned his own ass. I love that.

 

[BBond]

Here is a piece all of the young people here who are always complaining about the rotten deal they're getting should read and heed.

Here's a flash for all of you -- you aren't the first generation that has to work for a living and pay your own way.

Now stop your whining and get to work. And try listening instead of talking for once. Wait until you've acquired some experience before telling those who have how the world should always work in your favor.

The It-Sucks-To-Be-Me Generation

Twentysomethings who can't stop whining about how the economy is screwing them.

By Daniel Gross
Posted Monday, Jan. 9, 2006, at 5:12 PM ET

Oh, it's so hard to be young these days! Just crack open Generation Debt: Why Now Is a Terrible Time To Be Young, by Anya Kamenetz, or Strapped: Why America's 20-and-30-Somethings Can't Get Ahead, by Tamara Draut, and you're plunged into a world of darkness and sorrow.

This is, with apologies to the Broadway musical Avenue Q, the "It Sucks To Be Me" Generation. To hear these authors tell it, college graduates (and twentysomethings who haven't gone to college) are in a world of hurt. The deck is stacked against them: student loans and credit-card debt, budget deficits and McJobs, high housing prices and generational warfare waged by more-numerous baby-boomers.

The economic jeremiad written by a twentysomething is a cyclical phenomenon. People who graduate into a recessionary/post-bubble economy inevitably find the going tough, which compounds the usual postgraduate angst. And with their limited life experience and high expectations, they tend to extrapolate a lifetime from a couple of years. I know. Back in the early 1990s, when my cohort and I were making our way into the workforce in a recessionary, post-bubble environment, I wrote an article on precisely the same topic for Swing, the lamentable, deservedly short-lived David Lauren twentysomething magazine. If memory serves, the headline was something like "Generation Debt."

Of course, as I penned those words on my tiny, crappy Mac and rode my bike through Midtown to deliver the piece (that's how things were done before the Internet), the economy was beginning to heat up. What followed were seven fat years in which exciting new industries were created, the stock market rose, and interest rates fell. As the 1990s wore on, most of my pals who had lamented their student loans, crappy jobs, and gross apartments found great jobs, loving spouses, and better housing.

And so, here we are again. Now, today's twentysomething authors are clearly onto something. College is more expensive today in real terms. There's been a shift in student aid?more loans and fewer grants. The Baby Boomers, closer to retirement, are sucking up more dollars in benefits. There's more income volatility and job insecurity than there used to be. So, why are these books?Generation Debt in particular?annoying?

It's not that the authors misdiagnose ills that affect our society. It's just that they lack the perspective to add any great insight. Writing in the New York Times this weekend, economics reporter David Leonhardt called Strapped, "a grim tale of one-sided generational warfare." Draut argues that "with the possible exception of having a larger array of entertainment and other goods to purchase, members of Generation X appear to be worse off by every measure" than prior generations. Huh? How about the Internet and Starbucks coffee and Lipitor and not having to worry so much about AIDS or crime or Mutual Assured Destruction or getting drafted into the Army and getting sent to Vietnam?

Also, many of the economic issues the authors identify?job insecurity, low savings rate, income volatility, the massive ongoing benefits cram-down?affect everybody, not just twentysomethings. And the people hurt most by these escalating trends aren't young people starting out. They're folks in their 50s and 60s, middle-managers at Delphi whose careers have ended, coal miners in West Virginia who face death on the job, the people at IBM who just saw their pensions frozen.

Today's twentysomethings, by contrast, have their whole lives in front of them. Want a cheaper house? Quit Manhattan and move to Hartford, Conn. Want to make more money? Pick a different field.

In Kamenetz's book, there are plenty of poor, self-pitying upper-middle-class types, disappointed that they can't have exactly what they want when they want it. Sure, it's tough to live well as a violinist or a grad student in New York today; but the same thing held 20 years ago, and 40 years ago. To improve their lot, twentysomethings have to do the same things their parents should be doing: saving more, spending less, building skills that are marketable, and aligning aspirations with abilities. It's tough to have a bourgeois life at 26.

Kamenetz also makes cavalier statements about economics and career development. "The job market sucks," she proclaims. It may not be as good as it was in the 1990s, but suck is a pretty strong term. She complains that a $700 personal computer, a necessity for any young person, is expensive. Huh? Computing is incredibly cheap. The first PC I bought, that crappy, tiny Mac, cost $2,000 in 1990 dollars.

Kamenetz complains that: "No employer has yet offered me a full-time job with a 401(k), a paid vacation, or any other benefits beyond the next assignment. I have a savings account but no retirement fund. I can't afford preschool fees or a mortgage anywhere near the city where I live and work." Of course, Kamenetz doesn't have kids to send to preschool. And chances are, by the time she does, she'll be able to afford preschool fees. Most people in their 20s don't realize that their incomes will rise over time (none of the people I know who have six-figure incomes today had them when they were 25), that they will marry or form a partnership with somebody else, thus increasing their income, and that they may get over having to live in the hippest possible neighborhood.

Look. It's tough coming out of Ivy League schools to New York and making your way in the world. The notion that you can be?and have to be?the author of your own destiny is both terrifying and exhilarating. And for those without marketable skills, who lack social and intellectual capital, the odds are indeed stacked against them. But someone like Kamenetz, who graduated from Yale in 2002, doesn't have much to kvetch about. In the press materials accompanying the book, she notes that just after she finished the first draft, her boyfriend "proposed to me on a tiny, idyllic island off the coast of Sweden." She continues: "As I write this, boxes of china and flatware, engagement gifts, sit in our living room waiting to go into storage because they just won't fit in our insanely narrow galley kitchen. We spent a whole afternoon exchanging the inevitable silver candlesticks and crystal vases, heavy artifacts of an iconic married life that still seems to have nothing to do with ours." The inevitable silver candlesticks? Too much flatware to fit in the kitchen? We should all have such problems.

And does her fiance have one of those crap temporary jobs all the drones in her generation are destined to hold forever? Not really. He's a software engineer at Google.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I want 100% control of all of my money. I want a flat federal tax % for everyone, everywhere. I want the IRS dismantled and rebuilt from scratch to support the simple new flat taxes.

I wish to be 100% responsible for my own retirement funding. If I somehow blow it all and plan badly, then too damn bad for me.

None of these things will happen with a Deomocratic administration. No Democrat in office believes that the people know better than the government in terms of planning for the future and spending our own money how/where/why we wish.

You're acting as if markets allow a person to be fully responsible, that is utter nonsense. Depending on where you live and the local market determines how successful you will be, as well as a host of other factors you cannot change (genetics, etc) how would disabled people be able to do that for example? The survival of the fittest mentality doesn't work when you want a civilized society, I understand your sentiment perfectly, but come on there are market circumstances all the time that people would not be able to economically recover from economically and would just be out on the street, riots, etc would ensue. That method is not a method peace but a method that would eventually overthrow the market system of a big enough downturn occurred, when people can't eat or support themselves gracefully into old age, you can bet they are going to get violent and disrupt business, etc and make everyone elses life hell.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: zendari
Socialism will be the downfall of this country.. Already SS and Medicare are loading huge burdens on todays working poor.

It's this simple minded responses like this that really bugs me, NO problem is as simple as "(socialism, capitalism, whateverism) is the downfall of...."

I have to laugh at this, how market systems currently work is the problem. jobs near the bottom of the economic pile have *stagnant* wage growth, there will alwas be people stuck in these jobs because that's nature, but markets dont work properly for these segments of the population, find out how many wal-mart employee's are saving, do they have any economic security? It's obvious how our money markets function is defective and these are not simple problems (look at the size of jails lately and prison populations if you need a clue) and if the government didn't step in, capitalism would have been overthrown for new experimental systems a long time ago, why do you think such things were implemented in the first place? because markets cannot solve social problems and markets create problems of their own that would destabilize society and peace if not for intervention. If they could we'd be using them exclusively. Have you ever checked history? Did you ever hear about the revolutions in america or the bolshevik revolution in canada (a million plus people)? You can bet the governments get scared as ****** when you get that many people clammoring for change.

How we value and distribute certain resources (food, shelter, etc) is fundamentally flawed, because of the relative devaluation of stagnation of wages, with items like food and housing that only go up in price (inflation). Adjusting purchasing power of the bottom rungs so they don't starve and can afford housing and electricity is a constant problem in market systems, I'd like to see current markets survive when countless millions of people can't afford housing, food, etc, you'd have an army (over 20 million by the way) at your door and political adjustment/overthrow of the economic system and it wouldn't be pretty.

In modern markets, economies do not work for everyone, and hence social problems ensue because markets create these as the built in effects of profit motive and controlling costs (i.e. we made billions in profits this year, but because we want the stock to go up we're not giving you a raise).

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: zendari

Says who? You? I love how liberals are so arrogant they think they can artificially decide who "deserves" what in the free market! :laugh:

Actually, genius, I'm not a liberal, but nice stereotype. To bad you can't actually listen to a comment that is made rather than just blowing it off with the excuse that the person that made it is just a part of some ridiculous affinity. Grow up.

You want to know who decides? In her case, government. So do you trust the government to determine how much you should make in a "free market?" You name one other profession where someone can have an actual college degree, a master's degree even, 20 years of experience and get paid that pathetically. Until then, why don't you actually ruminate over the idea of how your precious "free market" would operate if all the teachers in this coutry stopped working, and see if you can't figure out why they might deserve a little more money.

 

[delas52]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: delas52
LMFAO.

Palehorse stop spamming these forums with your reactionary bulls**t...

only when you stop spamming the boards with your socialist liberal bullsh*t... deal? didnt think so.

I don't recall posting liberal spam emails on here...

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: techs
And what party fixed this mess by balancing the budget and providing for huge surpleses to rectify they problem:
The Democrats

Since the U.S. Constitution (see Art. I, Sec. 7-9) specifically provides the legislative branch with the authority both to generate revenue and spend it, please tell us what Democratic Congress "fixed this mess by balancing the budget". Thanks.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
You want to know who decides? In her case, government. So do you trust the government to determine how much you should make in a "free market?" You name one other profession where someone can have an actual college degree, a master's degree even, 20 years of experience and get paid that pathetically. Until then, why don't you actually ruminate over the idea of how your precious "free market" would operate if all the teachers in this coutry stopped working, and see if you can't figure out why they might deserve a little more money.

The government doesn't decide how much you as an individual make. If you are unhappy with your salary you are free to pursue other employment opportunities. Clearly the government is able to find enough teachers at $31000 to satisfy educational needs, it is their duty to minize this cost and the burden on taxpayers.

If teachers want to strike, let them. They'd be replaced by others.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
You want to know who decides? In her case, government. So do you trust the government to determine how much you should make in a "free market?" You name one other profession where someone can have an actual college degree, a master's degree even, 20 years of experience and get paid that pathetically. Until then, why don't you actually ruminate over the idea of how your precious "free market" would operate if all the teachers in this coutry stopped working, and see if you can't figure out why they might deserve a little more money.

The government doesn't decide how much you as an individual make. If you are unhappy with your salary you are free to pursue other employment opportunities. Clearly the government is able to find enough teachers at $31000 to satisfy educational needs, it is their duty to minize this cost and the burden on taxpayers.

If teachers want to strike, let them. They'd be replaced by others.

Your naiviety continues to impress us all.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: zendari

The government doesn't decide how much you as an individual make. If you are unhappy with your salary you are free to pursue other employment opportunities. Clearly the government is able to find enough teachers at $31000 to satisfy educational needs, it is their duty to minize this cost and the burden on taxpayers.

Are you serious?? If you work for the Government, or for some entity that is supported through Government funds, THE GOVERNMENT DETERMINES HOW MUCH YOU MAKE!! It's as simple as that. And actually, no, they're not able to find enough teachers at $31,000 to satisfy educational needs. That's one of the major problems with education. Ever heard of the 20-30 students to teacher ratios? That's a result of a lack of enough teachers. Why is there a lack? Because they're not paid enough!!

If teachers want to strike, let them. They'd be replaced by others.

Yeah right, by who? You? Are YOU going to go to college for 4 years to take a job for $31,000 a year? Yeah, I didn't think so. And don't give me that crap about them having a choice, because they don't and didn't all have a choice. My mother was one of the first women to graduate from her college who had a choice of what to do other than being a teacher or a nurse. Up until that time, those where the only two options open to women. And at that time, teachers actually got paid somewhat respectibly.

Though I can understand why you feel the way you do about teachers. Whatever teacher taught you to think the way you do isn't worth $31,000 a year.

 

[nino]

As an engineer who has worked and is now pursuing a PhD I like to
1) keep things simple
2) fix the TRUE problem and not use "band-aids" which is very much contrary to what most people do
3) use logic

Over the course of this administration (and others) I have learned that the perceived image of the US is in fact not truly the fabric of the US. To illustrate the point, here's some things to think about,

I truly believe in democracy, free trade, the individual right to healthcare, and being rewarded for your efforts. I am only upset when our leaders preach one thing and then practice (either by encouraging the behavior or ignoring the offenses) differently. I'm certain that I have not done a very good job of advocating my points as written below but I'll flush them out as we go along here. There is too much to do in 1 sitting.

For the average person, I don't know if they'd care about a gov't that was democratic, socialist, communist, a monarchy, etc SO LONG AS the gov't was composed of honorable, moral, and ethical people. I know that I wouldn't care as the problem isn't the gov't, it's the people that make it up. I'd be just as willing to be ruled by a just, noble, honorable, and ethical monarch as I would a corrupt democracy. The fact of the matter is that we've got a long history of affixing labels to people so that we can isolate and ridicule them such as Liberal, NeoCon, Conservative, Communist, Terrorist, etc. When I grew up we used the word Commis as a slanderous term and now it is Terrorist.
I often wonder why people point at Russia and say "see how communism doesn't work" while they don't look at how corrupt the people who made it up were; of course, now we are seeing how widespread it was as they are screwing each other over in the name of capitalism. Of course, nobody points at China and their booming economy as evidence that it works - you can't have it both ways. Heck, almost every single empire that ever ruled fell apart due to corruption. No form of gov't is immune to it. By design, a democracy is less likely and our system seems to be the best form so far BUT as both sides become more and more corrrupt (which is what is happening) then the less likely we are to have a fair gov't.

observations about capitalism...

a) everything works on supply vs. demand - not true in my profession or that of many others. I will have studied ME for 14yrs and I will be an "expert" in my field when I leave. How much should I be worth? Consider that I could be a MD and study my field for 4yrs (not including residency) and get $300k or that I could be a Chiropractor with 4yrs of study in my field and make about the same. Note, unlike MDs and Chiropractors I don't include their pre-professional education as I think that is done to validate their wages. I don't see how a 4yr education in Liberal Arts prepares me for my Med or Chiro profession so I don't buy into the 8yr educational argument. Sure, they need 8yrs of college but they've only rigorously studied their field for 4yrs. Again, I've studied ME for 14 yrs and I'm 1 of a hundred with the expertise in the area of my specialty. The facts, I will make $80k starting.
I've seen Professors who are the leaders in their field (that's the top) and irreplaceable cap out at $150k. Explain how capitalism works here. Explain how the corporations that feed of their work are paying their CEOs 10x that amount. Without them, they'd have NOTHING yet that's the system. What's the incentive to be an engineer, scientist, mathematician, etc if the pay isn't there and will never be there? Many of you will answer "well you do what you love" without realizing that this isn't what capitalism is about. It isn't based on the hope that people will work for less because it is their passion. It's about supply vs. demand. This is the same argument used for giving teachers a piss-poor paycheck.
Ask yourself why this might be. I think it is evidence of another capitalistic lie. We claim (even GW Bush) that we need more scientists, engineers, and mathematicians but instead of paying them more we just import more foreigners so we are artificially inflating the supply. That is not capitalism but I'll only be cynical until we start exporting CEO, CFO, CIO, etc positions to foreign countries but that isn't happening at all.

b) a similar case to (a) can be said for farming and the ignoring of the illegal immigrants doing farming work for lower wages. Again, this is artificially inflating the supply. We don't do this because it would cripple our economy in the short term and the market would crash (it's gonna happen sooner or later). The question you should ask is who is it going to hurt more - who's going to lose MORE money. The poor will get by just fine by being resourceful but I'm not sure the rich will be able to.

c) we have a HUGE demand for healthcare in this country and also a huge foreign supply so why aren't the costs coming down. In fact, costs have been going up at a rate 3x-4x what inflation is. Why do MDs still make what they used to make and why do their foreign counterparts make the same? Shouldn't that drive the costs down? The only answer that I have is the insurance industry. The MDs that would work for less don't have to as they can just bill the insurance industry whatever the next guy does. This seems like an artificially inflated sector of our life and a HUGE problem but no real solutions have been developed. I think this is due to lobbying.

d) I believe in true private capitalism, SO why is it that our gov't subsidizes research in pharmaceutical companies and "energy" companies with OUR money only to be fleeced by them later. That's right, why are we paying MORE for their goods than foreign countries. Our gov't should be "investing" our cash if they are giving it to private companies. In other words, we should be getting that money back when that company begins turning profits. We should encourage companies and help get them started but ALSO get it back when they are up and running. The hypocritical part of our gov't is that the handing out of research dollars to profitable companies is OK but handing it out to people on welfare or SS is NOT - say WHAT? THAT is so un-American. If a company makes money off my $$ then, sure as ******, I'm going to ask for it back when they profit. Not only does this NOT happen but they then turn around and charge US (the American public) MORE than foreign purchasers. How is THAT right?

observations about free-trade...

a) free trade is good as it will keep the Mexicans in Mexico because their economy will boom and there will be more jobs for them. Well, I'm still waiting for that to happen. So long as the pay here is greater than the pay there then there will always be a flow of illegals coming here and sending money home.

b) I can't see how free-trade helps us in the long run based on what I've seen. Free-trade is good because we can buy things cheaply which is good for us up until the point where our jobs go overseas. That fear has been quelled by the explanation that we will just have to get a better education and get better jobs outside of manufacturing. Well, how is the average American who is making $40k/yr going to get retrained when college costs an average of $25-$30k/yr (including everything). Yes, the cost of college is ridiculous when compared to salaries. I'd like to see a LONG-TERM explanation of how free-trade helps us.


Comments about education
We, as a nation, need to ask ourselves if it is in our national interest to do better than we are doing and if the answer is yes then we need to pay up. My views are that good teachers and good educational programs will lead to better students and better citizens and that we should be spending A LOT more on education.

a) my wife has a Master's in Education from a leading US university and gets paid $31k because the schools (whether by unions or not) pay based on years of service. I think this is wrong and that good teachers should be rewarded and poor ones let go. This isn't the case. I don't like teachers pay being tied to how students perform on exams for a number of reasons but here are some things to think about
- if I was a teacher then I'd teach so my students aced the exams. Students would learn the material backwards which is scary. It's best to learn concepts and then learn how to apply them to get the proper end result. Teaching students how to get the proper results and worrying about the concepts later is bad teaching. Since this is a "capitalistic" society that focuses on $$ and knowing that people will do what is best for them then I'm 95% confident that teachers will focus on teaching their students how to pass exams.
- my wife teaches special ed kids, 50% of which are there because their parents were too irresponsible to properly care for them (i.e. not genetic). How is some standardized test, which they will all fail, be a good measure of her effectiveness.

b) with regards to the other post where it was said to just replace the teacher as there will be another to take his/her place, how is this a GOOD thing. If you have a great teacher then you WANT them educating our kids. It isn't about putting a body into a position. It should be about getting the best person to mold the students' minds. Our country depends on this and we haven't been doing our fair share. In this same vein I'd like to see a voucher system enacted where a parent can take his/her kid to ANY school. I should be able to decide where I want to spend my money on my child's education OR keep my money if I homeschool

c) I won't go out of my way to encourage my kid to be an engineer, scientist, or mathematician. While the demand is huge, the "free-market" has for some reason not responded. Again, this is happening for reasons that violate what we preach. I'll have them all be Chiropractors ;-D. By the way, mine made over $500k last year - for cracking backs.

Comments about our spending
- I'd rather see $10k of my tax dollars going to keep an elderly person properly medicated than to a convicted felon. Yes I'm religious and yes it pains me to say this but I don't think we should rule by religion alone and that we should rule by what is best for society. It would be best for the society to take care of the elderly that have contributed 40+ yrs of work than to spend it on felons that are thrice convicted. Sorry, that's how I feel. If we have PLENTY of $$ to do this then keep them both alive but right now we are spending $35k/yr on convicted felons and asking the elderly to spend their SS payments on their meds - that doesn't sit right to me. Think of all the good that we could do with the extra $$.
- $500 billion (sounds like a lot) and using 100 square miles of Arizona will get us off of oil and coal for household needs. I got this info from a solar panel leading researcher that presented at our university. He has a vested interest in promoting his industry so let's say that it is $1 trillion. Sound like too much? We'll spend $4 trillion in Iraq before we're done and we would have done nothing to lessen our dependence on oil. Unfortunately we don't have any visionary leaders in WA that have discussed this. Germany and Japan have depleted our solar panel production capacity and rates have increased but if Germany thinks it's a good idea to put solar panels on their homes (gov't subsidized) in a cloudy area of the world then I'm pretty sure it will float here in the US.
- I want a leader who will spend more money now to save more money later but this admin is doing the opposite. I have strong feelings that Iran will be next and if so, the ****** will hit the fan. Iran will not be a war that is won. Going into Iran will involve China, Russia, and the Shia which are present in Iraq also. We'd be sticking our dick in a hornet's nest.

Comments about healthcare...

a) it's out of control.
b) we have a socialist healthcare program. YES, we do. I am picking up the bill for all the uninsured out there - this is a socialist idealism. While we're at it, why is the insurance industry sitting on a $450 billion surplus and claiming that they will have to RAISE rates due to Katrina (probably the same reason that gas and oil prices are going up while the companies sit on their surpluses)? Anyhow, since we have a socialist healthcare system already, why doesn't the gov't step in and do the right thing. As can be seen, the insurance industry is making a bundle off of it. No, I don't trust the gov't but I trust the insurance industry even less.
c) I'd like to see companies STOP paying for healthcare and pass the $$ onto their employees instead. I think THAT would drive healthcare costs down tremendously. I'm pretty educated and I'm weighing saving the $14k/yr and investing it. What are the odds that I'm going to need $14k * 40 yrs before retirement? Now imagine what investing that money would do for me. Anyhow, give the money to me and let me decide. The end result will be lowered medical costs. I know that I go to the MD because my insurance is paying it. If I had to pay out of pocket then I wouldn't go and the rates would drop.
d) The current program is NOT free-choice and therefore very un-American along with the list of MDs that I can and cannot go to. Let there be free choice and pay me what you'd pay my insurance agency.
e) I'm waiting for the offshoring of healthcare. You know, those Harvard educated Asians or Indians going back home and then using airplanes to fly in their patients for a fraction of the cost. THIS will dramatically drop the cost of healthcare in this country but I'm sure they won't. It'll just mean more $$ for the insurance industry. Anyhow I know people that are working on this right now. As a patient, I'd rather go to India (for a major surgery) by a US educated person, get 5-star treatment, and go on vacation for 3 weeks at a beach to recover for $20k then the $100k that will be charged to my insurance agency of which I'd pay about $20-$30k.

Comments about Democracy and it's spreading...

a) I believe democracy, like religion, shouldn't be forced upon anyone. If their leader is a decent person and the citizens are ok with it then who cares if they aren't a democratic society.

b) I have yet to figure out why we went to Iraq because it has been proven that it wasn't for the reasons that our president told us. It can't be for, the now trumpeted reason, of spreading democracy as there are a LOT of OTHER countries where we could have spread democracy in a more noble manner with a lot less of a cost to this country. We could have gone to Dar Fur for one. Why haven't we saved the millions in Africa from their genocide? We could have done this for a fraction of a cost and gotten a heck of a lot better press for it too. If it wasn't because of WMD and it wasn't about the spreading of democracy, then what? I will say that having a tactical base in Iraq is a good military move BUT that gives us NO RIGHT to invade. Sorry but that goes against everything we are supposed to represent. Democracy should be encouraged NOT forced. If the Iraqis rose up in the name of democracy and Saddam squashed them, THEN we should have gone in - like we should have during our evacuation of Desert Storm.

In short, I see a trend in this country...
1) Worry about yourself and make as much as you can at whatever cost - $$ over people

2) Worry about today (reference above point) and tomorrow will be the problems of tomorrow - shortsightedness. It is only the rich that will profit no matter how our country does. It is they who are free to shuffle their money around from country to country protecting and increasing their wealth. The person who is making $40k and treading water will never have this luxury.
The TRUE cost of doing something should not be measured in weeks but decades. This shortsightedness has resulted in pollution, global warming, passing on debt to future generations, terrorism (yup, that too because of our foreign policies), dipping into SS, etc.

3) Many things in this country are well designed but poorly implemented such as Welfare, Social Security, etc. We want to can Welfare because of the people that are abusing the system as opposed to tearing down the system and rebuilding it in a more constructive fashion. Why not KEEP welfare and make people work for the money? Why not put a cap on the amount of money given to a family regardless of the number of children? Again, Welfare COULD be an empowering plan but in it's current implementation it leads to dependency. That is the opposite of the intent. Let's actually FIX the problem as opposed to destroying programs that were created for proper reasons.
Similarly, Social Security destruction shouldn't even be discussed. Why didn't we protect the money? Why didn't we pay our nation's best (and most ethical) analyst a significant sum of money to properly invest it? Ask the American public if they'd be willing to take the risk? I know I'm going to pay someone to invest my money for me so why wouldn't I do it with my retirement account? Or just invest 1/2 of it. Whatever! A proper analyst would have made a boatload of cash for the program and we would NEVER have to worry about it.

4) It isn't the form of gov't that matters - it's the people that make up that gov't that matters. Similarly, a capitalistic society is more likely to become corrupt than a socialist one - by design.


Anyhow, these are just a FEW of my thoughts about the hypocrisy of this country and after saying all that I still LOVE it because it is still better than whatever else is out there. Until we get some pure, moral, ethical, and just people in another country's gov't - I'm staying here.

 

[ijester]

How come people don't talk about the real issues, like how the government bureacracy could function with half the head count, and how we pay huge amounts of welfare and food stamps to illegal immagrants?

Oh, maybe they haven't gotten the emails?

 

[1EZduzit]

Agreed.