Being as old as I am, I sometimes keep company
with my grammaphone.
Now, that's a record! And I know how to play her.
Better than an Obama phone, any day.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
On 8/24/2013 10:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
that's what you radicals would love, put everyone that disagrees with
you in "re-education" camps, give them striped uniforms, make them work
for little or nothing and then give them a free cremation when you've
used them up
I hear what you're saying but it does make sense to insure everyone and
at least somewhat level the playing field. As it is, middle class
suckers like us are footing the bill for almost everyone else. I was
just billed all most $1k for a yearly physical. Fortunately I got the
insurance, (almost worthless despite the cost) to pay most of it, but
still, the charges were bordering on insanity. If I hadn't fought the
insurance company for every charge I would have had to pay the bill
myself. I'm sure many do.
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:26:10 PM UTC-4, gonjah wrote:
The only problem is, who do you think the suckers are going to
be who will be paying for most of the newly insured? It's the
same folks already paying high prices, one way or another, for
I've seen nothing under Obamacare that changes any of that.
There were a lot of vague promises about how it was all going to
save a lot of costs. But in reality, people's costs have escalated.
And despite being assured that anyone that had insurance and was
happy with it, they could keep it, nothing would change, well a lot
have learned that isn't true. People have either seen their policy
costs go up, their companies drop or lessen coverage, etc. Now
many people are starting to see their work hours cut to 29.5, so
the companies won't have to provide insurance. So, those poor
bastards still don't have company provided insurance, but now
they have less pay.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 05:18:05 -0700 (PDT), " email@example.com"
One would think so, with a reasonable plan but this atrocity puts the
costs onto those who can least afford it; the young. Those just out
of school (and paying for the loans the government is pushing on them)
will bear the burden of the older, richer people, as well as the bums.
Since the young tend to be leftists, maybe this isn't a complete
nightmare. Maybe they'll learn.
Does any one family really pay as much tax toward school funding as it
costs the schools to educate their children? Here in Michigan, our
schools are paid for from sales tax, so it isn't easy to guesstimate
how much a random family pays in sales tax (and I believe there are other
uses for sales tax funds).
However, it used to be that property taxes paid for schools, and I'm very
certain that my property tax bill for a year is much less than what the
schools get for a child. The switch from property tax to sales tax funding
of the schools was supposed to be revenue-neutral, so I think using my
property taxes as a placeholder for the funds now raised by sales tax
Clearly, the money for vouchers is coming not only from the parents' taxes
but from that of other people. (Like me: I have no children, but
I pay sales tax just as everybody else does.)
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:45:13 PM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
None of which has anything to do with the issue. Parents are paying
taxes, a substantial portion of which go towards public education.
When they are denied a choice of where to educate their children, then
they are helping to pay to educate everyone else's children and also
paying entirely for their own children. Nothing fair about that.
You also seem to neglect the fact that kids only stay in public school
for 13 years. If you're 65 years old, you've been paying property
taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, whatever for a hell of a lot longer
than 13 years. And that indeed would have more than paid to educate
a couple of kids.
And as far as money goes, the liberal solution is to just keep
pouring even more money into failed public schools. In NJ, for
decades now, courtesy of a screwly liberal NJ Supreme Court,
we've been pouring far more money per student into Camden, Asbury Park,
etc as we are into most of the wealthiest towns in the state. The
kids are still dumb as ever.
On 8/20/2013 2:20 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
If you're looking for someone to blame, it ain't the teachers and the schools.
Blame the parent(s) and their selfish lifestyles!
Most parents (I use that term loosely) are so focused on climbing the
corporate ladder, they find little time to devote to their children.
But hey, as long as they have a couple of late model SUVs in the driveway
of their McMansion, what else matters?
Or they are so focused on not getting evicted that they find little time
to devote to their children. They can't get good jobs because they
aren't educated. So they work two jobs and the kids raise themselves.
Which puts the kids into the same position.
So how about we help both groups to be better parents? Otherwise the
descendants of the first group will eventually be in the second group.
“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
That actually falls into two categories. The uneducated and low income
workers that have to work two jobs to keep a modest apartment and 10
year old car.
The other group is the good income couple that has a huge house they
don't need, a Beemer and huge SUV and can barely make the mortgage and
are maxed out on credit cards.
Same results, but one couple just looks prettier waiting for the sheriff
Probably too late to do anything for the parents, but you can hopefully
get the kids to understand they have to make a life for themselves and
they can control their own destiny.
That's a very hard cycle to interrupt. For a while, good manufacturing jobs
that paid very well allowed a lot of people to enter the middle class and
take their children along with them. That path for upward mobility it
slowly closing out in America and our politicians should be hard at work
figuring out how to maintain American prosperity. That's a tall order in a
world where rising industrial states like China and India are exerting
enormous downward pressure on American wages.
I have watched rather closely how the state tries to rehabilitate a neighbor
crack addict and mother of two. The only thing that I am sure of is that
kids need to be taken away from clearly drug-addled parents, and maybe
forever. Harsh? Yes, but these kids aren't getting parenting - they're
just living with someone that has similar DNA. Until the courts say
"putting this kid back with its biological parent is not good for it" and
make it stick, the cycle will continue.
Temporary unemployment could be a boon instead of a drain. Anyone getting UI
needs to be either cleaning streets or getting some sort of education
certification that might lead to a better job than street sweeping. Paying
able-bodied people to stay home and watch cable should never happen yet it
does, time and time again.
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:07:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
There's a world of hurt coming to China, Asia and probably ultimately
here too. If you saw 60 Mins on Sunday, they had a story on real estate
speculation in China. I was over there a couple years ago, and saw it
for myself. They had construction crews working 24/7. I remember looking
out the window at 3AM in Shanghai and seeing all the arc welding flashes,
all the cement trucks arriving in a line, constructing building everywhere.
But then when you look closer, it was obvious that so many of the
finished buildings, especially condos, were totally empty. We went to
a brand new mall in Bejing, full of everything from dept stores to high-end
fashion stores. Only problem was that in the middle of the day, it was
totally devoid of customers. I took pics basically showing the whole place
was empty. It was obvious this was a disasterous bubble waiting to cave
in. I kept thinking what this would do to the rest of the world economy,
which 2 years ago was very shakey.
So, Leslie Stahl went there and did a story. She's one big dufus, but the
story is accurate. My favorite, she sees new building after new building
empty. She showed entire malls, with no tenents. Whole cities built that
are empty. She points out that in the aftermath of communism investing
in real estate was one of the few investments the Chinese people could
easily make, and it's typical for them to own 6 or 10 properties purely
for speculation. Then she keeps asking "Do you think this could be a
bubble"? They have built entire cities of empty housing, where a condo
costs 45 times a years salary. That would mean that in the USA, a
family earning $75K would be looking at a house costing $3.3mil.
Problem is, few people in China can afford that, so the houses are
not occupied, it's just people shuffling paper, on the theory that
prices can only go up.
The question she should have been asking is who owns all the paper on
this disaster? I would not be surprised that it extends all over Asia.
And you have to wonder what exposure Europe and even the USA will have
to what's going to happen there. The amazing thing is that unlike the
US housing bubble, what's going on in China is so obvious, anyone can
see it. This is in the class of the Tulip mania in Holland in the 1600s,
where people speculating convinced themselves that tulip bulbs were
worth as much as a house.
It's looks like it's finally about to collapse and when it
does, it's not going to be good for the world economy. Another curions
aspect, Stahl says the govt is finally starting to act. Remember
the China one child policy, she says? So, I'm thinking they've
lifted that so that now people can have 3 children, maybe then they'll
need more housing. No, not exactly. They now have a one real estate
property policy. Unbelievable. Exactly what you don't need, because
that's going to really kick the skids out from under this house of cards.
Probably doesn't matter though. This is so bad that there is no way out.
If you get a chance to see the 60 mins story, it's one of those
things everyone should see.
Yet oddly almost all your positions are 100% in line with the
libs who not only have no problem with all the above, they have
increased it and are clearly in favor of doing far more of it
given the chance.
Sure, but over time. The cost of a student in our schools was said to
be $5000. My two kids spent a total of 9 years in public schools (the
rest was private schools). It is about 18 years of my tax dollars to
educate them. But I've been paying property taxes for 47 years.
The tax funded public shools did not educate them as well as the cheaper
to operate private schools that I paid for though. Public schools are
not a good value in our experience, but that varies in each location.
No, but most of the systems I am familiar with put out a specific amount
of money that the state pays to the school for the kid. (Indiana schools
send things home to parents pleading to make sure their kids get to
schools the one day the state does the headcount and decides what the
schools get). THAT is the amount of money that goes in on vouchers (at
least in Indiana).
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
On Friday, August 16, 2013 1:59:25 PM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
Really? Many states have no income tax, not even 1%.
NJ's tops out at 9%. So clearly the income tax
is s not proportional or
in line with salaries as compared to many other states. Then
there are the crushing property taxes that have nothing to do
with salary or income. Here, a senior
citizen living on social security in a 2500 sq ft house can be
paying $8K or more in real estate tax. Then you go to buy something
and you're hit with a 7% sales tax.
It used to be, but the libs have turned it into hell.
Assuming NJ is like NY, the taxes in NY on a $150,000 house are about
ten times as high as they are in AZ. Salaries in NY are nowhere near
10 times as high, outside of NYC I doubt they are even 50% higher then
AZ. The taxes in NY, and I'm assuming NJ but could be wrong, are just
absence. I considered buying a second home sort of setup in NY but
the taxes alone would cost more then my house payment in AZ. Just
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.