Vote

[sechs]

I thought that Bush was from Maine.

 

[Fushigi]

Marriage is a religious institution that the government really has no business in licensing.

Really?

 

[jtr1962]

I'm curious. How would you propose spouses, offspring, and domestic partners of government employees get their health care? With what you're saying, they would become a huge burden to the free/cheap clinics and hospitals that are out there (since civil employees are by and large not well paid, buying private health insurance is not feasible). And those facilities would have to appeal to the government for funding, so you're right back where you started, except the funding would be more expensive than the insurance.

Why not let the employees buy into the same group insurance that is used to cover them if they want to cover their spouses and children? It would still be cheaper than buying it on thier own. My point here is that a single person working for an employer (municipal or otherwise) who provides health insurance benefits to spouses and children of employees in effect receives less compensation than they would if they had a partner or children. This is discriminatory any way you look at it, especially when those fringe benefits aren't even taxed. I suppose the employer can see which employee has the most children, see what it costs to insure them, and then pay the difference to all their other employees. However, that would be cumbersome, and then you'll have people complaining that they receive a smaller salary than someone who doesn't have children or a spouse. And for various reasons I've felt health insurance, like auto insurance, is a bad idea as it removes the financial consequences from not taking care of your health, or driving poorly, respectively. The best way IMO is to simply pay people a decent salary, drop all the fringe benefits, and let them purchase on their own any benefits they feel they need. I'm all for selling insurance to individuals at group rates, or simply letting people pay out of pocket. Medical savings accounts are another good idea. In all honesty, I'd rather work for a place that has no fringe benefits and can afford to pay me $10,000 or $15,000 more because of it. That can buy a lot of medical care, or retirement benefits, or whatever.

Healthy people pay for unhealthy people with health insurance. That's a fact. And before you say that eventually everyone will be on the receiving end as they age and it'll even out I need to point out that I've had quite a few relatives, especially on my mother's side, make it into their 90s (102 in one case) without requiring any medical care other than aspirin or maybe antibiotics if they were sick. If these people were in a hospital at all, it was for a few days immediately before they passed away. In many cases they passed in their sleep at home. If you take halfway decent care of yourself this will usually be the result. Most of the "sick" people in this country smoke, are overweight, are alcoholics, are drug addicts, are sedentary, or work in hazardous occupations (in which case their employer should pay if they get sick). Also, since the consumer never pays directly with medical insurance, other than maybe small copays, the cost of medical care is far higher than it would be otherwise. That's the fallacy of insurance-namely that medical care costs too much so you need insurance yet it is because of insurance that the care costs too much, and also that people simply don't take care of themselves. Even doing something as simple as staying within 20 pounds of your proper weight would save billions of dollars annually. I feel if people had to pay out of pocket for their health care, they might take better care of themselves. About the only thing which maybe should be covered is some kinds of cancers since they can randomly strike anyone and cost a lot to treat. I wouldn't cover lung cancer for smokers, or liver cancer for alcoholics, but thanks to air pollution and diet the chances of getting cancer are much higher than they should be. Ultimately we need to clean up the environment around us, but that's another topic entirely.

As for "free" health care like Medicaid, I'm all for eliminating it entirely other than for very basic things like innoculations, treating the flu, maybe setting broken bones and stitching wounds. Sorry, but I don't see why the taxpayer should pay for poor lifestyle decisions by someone who lacks the money to pay for their own medical care. It's a fact that medical entitlements are eating up more and more of municipal budgets annually. They'll need to be reigned in sooner or later. And maybe we should require students to take a multiyear course on how to live a healthy lifestyle. Many evidently aren't taught by their parents.

Allowing civil unions that full rights of marriage would make the odds of fraud the same as for married couples, eliminating that portion of the argument.

As long as those rights don't include spousal entitlements, whether or not fraud occurs is irrelevant. My main objections to the whole idea of gay marriage are fiscal. Despite the fact that I find the whole concept of homosexuality repulsive in the extreme I realize I have no right to interfere with someone else's decision, as long as that decision doesn't cost me money.

 

[Mercutio]

In other words, you're so concerned with the state of your wallet that you're unwilling to underwrite the statistically small net cost of including benefits for homosexual partners in those enjoyed by the other ~95 of the married population despite the obvious evidence of discrimination not having those benefits creates.

Wow.

jtr, I would not want to live in your world.

 

[Pradeep]

So how's MA treating ya. Are you having a wicked good time with all the massholes?

LOL, the drivers here must be the worst. I thought New Yorkers were bad but MA has the cut-off champs! And this against a 1-ton cargo van!MA-2 wasn't a pretty picture this morning. Love how they call roundabouts "rotaries". Didn't actually get into Boston city, I was up in Ipswich and Leominster. Meant to snow tomorrow, good to be leaving. Pretty leaves.

 

[.Nut]

I thought that Bush was from Maine.

Not Dubya. Daddy, yes/no.

Daddy was born in Maine and has kept a nice little house on the coast that he goes to for a few weeks at a time every once in a while.

I believe when Daddy was prez, he actually claimed Kenibunkport (sp?), Maine as his official residence. But nowadays, I'm pretty sure he uses his Houston address as his official residence (much lower taxes), which is next door -- ironicaly -- to his one-time kinda-sorta-competitor, the retired Senator Lloyd Bentsen, and also sort of ironically, a house or 2 down from the late David Brinkley of NBC News (Huntley/Brinkley) and later ABC News fame. Lloyd Bentsen ran for President once way back in 1976 or 1980, but never made it beyond the Democratic primaries.

VP Cheney is allegedly from "Wyoming," but he's really from Fort Worth, Texas. Of course, having a sitting president and a vice president from the same state is... erm... illegal.

 

[jtr1962]

In other words, you're so concerned with the state of your wallet that you're unwilling to underwrite the statistically small net cost of including benefits for homosexual partners in those enjoyed by the other ~95 of the married population despite the obvious evidence of discrimination not having those benefits creates.

Wow.

Merc, I don't know about your current financial state but for the majority of people taxes hurt badly. Unless you're millionaire every dollar taken out in taxes affects you in some way or another. Even if you have enough left to buy what you need, the taxes you pay mean that you can't put away as much for retirement. This means you have to work more years before you can retire. Thanks to taxes, a single person who might otherwise be able to retire at 40 or 45 may need to work until they're 65 or 70. In effect, paying taxes = more years spent working. Unless you thoroughly enjoy your job, this is a negative. Most people can't stand what they do, and would be happy if they could stop doing so 20 years early by not paying taxes. That's the cold, hard reality of why people vote in someone who will reduce their tax burden. In an ideal world where the labor for handouts is provided by robots and the raw materials are nearly free your system might actually work. In 100 years I might actually be all for providing "free" housing, health care, food, etc. to anyone who asks because doing so will not burden society thanks to technology. However, as long as the working class pays for these things you're going to problems trying to convince people. I'm unwilling to work an extra 20 years to pay for benefits which I'll never be eligible for. If that seems selfish, so be it. If I was rich and didn't need to work, then I have no problems using my discretionary wealth for the betterment of others. However, there simply aren't enough rich to pay for all these programs. That's the main failure of liberalism-forcing those who really can't afford it to pay for programs they will usually never be eligible for.

People generally act only in their self interests. Sometimes financial constraints force people to act in their self interests regardless of their own personal feelings. That's the bottom line-most simply cannot afford more in taxes. Indeed, they really cannot afford the taxes they do pay. People making less than $50,000 shouldn't pay a dime in income taxes. Nobody should pay over 10 or 15%. Most of the people I know make less than $50,000 per year. That's enough to pay the bills and put away for retirement. You certainly cannot pay taxes on that kind of income without it affecting your standard of living, or when you'll retire, or in some cases even if you'll eat decently. You can't expect people like me to start thinking in idealistic terms when even their pretax income really isn't enough to cover their needs (I've made less than $10K annually since I was laid off in 1990). The hard fact is that taxing isn't a zero sum game where you can just keep raising rates to pay for yet more benefits. Eventually, the incentive to work is gone and the economy along with it, especially when the programs in question don't have popular support. Maybe statistically covering spouses of homosexual partners wouldn't cost much. Then again maybe it would as a larger percentage of homosexual men develop AIDS. Covering a person with AIDS costs a small fortune. Even more onerous is the fact that they'll die sooner or later even with treatment. Small cost or not, it's yet another burden which shouldn't be added to already overburdened taxpayers. All these little things eventually add up.

And as I mentioned I'm none too thrilled about covering the spouses of straight partners, either. Same argument as before. Don't cover either-that ends the discrimination part of the argument right there. After that, I don't really see why anybody should object to homosexual marriages.

I found Gilbo's post in this thread right on the money, actually. We're in trouble because the number of religious people and partisans outnumber the rational people. You're highly partisan, Merc, whether or not you realize it. I don't consider myself either. I'm not against any of the ideas of liberalism perse. I simply feel that at this point in our evolution many of them are impractical. By the same token I'm not against any of the ideas of conservatism. Again, some are not practical at this point in time while others are. I'm interested mainly in what is best overall. I'm not going to focus on helping 0.1% of the population if it greatly affects the other 99.9%. This simply drags almost everyone to a lower level. Also, I'm not going to let my personal biases affect policy. I'll freely admit I don't like homosexuals in general but I find discrimination against them to be very wrong. However, I also find forcing taxpayers to pay for someone's partner (gay or straight) with AIDS to be equally wrong. In fact, intellectually I'm starting to find the very concept of marriage wrong if such marriage conveys special benefits not available to those who aren't married. Maybe instead of recognizing marriages for homosexuals we should stop recognizing marriages period, at least on the state level. I think sechs is dead right that governments have no business issuing marriage licenses. Religions will of course be free to continue to do what they want. I tend to think that would solve the problem. Inheritance and other things can be taken care of legally regardless with the proper legal documents. When you come down to it, you're either committed or you're not. A piece of paper saying so is irrelevant.

 

[RWIndiana]

Well now, if we would use the old-Testament law of dealing with homosexuality (only reason I am bringing religion into this is because it is part of the discussion at present), that would take care of things quite well, and may even reduce crowding:

Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)
"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Just a thought?
Actually this is one of the reasons I think there would be an attempted ban on the Bible if homosexual marriage was legalized. It would be considered a hate crime to sell Bibles.
But (as was mentioned earlier) I'm not sure why homosexuals want to take a biblical institution such as marriage and mix it with nonbiblical affection. And IMO, a civil union is basically the same as a marriage. Gays (wanting to get "married") just want religious recognition of their anti-religious philosophies. What would the world do without religious people to shock with anti-religious ideas? What could they complain about then? I think everyone would commit suicide. 8)
Face it merc, you would be lost without us here for you to dump on. LOL

 

[BooST]

I'll freely admit I don't like homosexuals in general but I find discrimination against them to be very wrong. However, I also find forcing taxpayers to pay for someone's partner (gay or straight) with AIDS to be equally wrong. In fact, intellectually I'm starting to find the very concept of marriage wrong if such marriage conveys special benefits not available to those who aren't married. Maybe instead of recognizing marriages for homosexuals we should stop recognizing marriages period, at least on the state level. I think sechs is dead right that governments have no business issuing marriage licenses. Religions will of course be free to continue to do what they want. I tend to think that would solve the problem. Inheritance and other things can be taken care of legally regardless with the proper legal documents. When you come down to it, you're either committed or you're not. A piece of paper saying so is irrelevant.

I'm confused. I've been trying to keep up on this thread, but WOW there has been a lot of input.

The last time I checked, taxpayers weren't paying the majority of health benefits, private companys and individals are. I think that gay people should have the same option as married people do, as far as shared benefits. In most cases, you have to pay for the additional premium that this adds to your healthcare cost, so why should it matter if you're straight and married, or gay in a long-term committed relationship? I'm personally finding myself in the same type of situation, some companys do offer "partner" benefits, and this includes gays, and non-married stright people. I think that it's wrong that religion defines if you can share health benefits. My girlfriend has asthma, and cannot get her own insurance that will cover that condition beacuse it is "Pre-existing". Medicare will do nothing for her, medicaid will do nothing. What is she supposed to do?

I also believe that communist healthcare, or communist ANYTHING for that matter is a BAD IDEA... When the government controls everything, it all goes to shi*. Look at the department of Homeland Security for crying out loud. Everything our government touches turns to crap. Social Security? A joke. I'm never going to see a penny that I've paid into this crap, and can do nothing about it. Guess it's time to start pushing money into my 401K at the age of 21. Thank you George W Bush. How many vacation days do you plan on taking this year? I think he'll break his own record.

 

[Clocker]

Well said, jtr. :salut:

 

[bahngeist]

...Gays (wanting to get "married") just want religious recognition of their anti-religious philosophies ...

You may be wrong there. When the whole gay marriage issue starting gaining steam in Canada back in the 80s sometime, many of the gay leaders admitted that one of their principle corresponding interests was to gain the retirement and pension benefits that commonly went to spouses on the death of the principle breadwinner (generally the husband). Gaining religious recognition wasn't a primary goal; the principle goal was a matter of economics. Of course, this was/is part of their ongoing struggle to become accepted as a normal and natural part of society.

Marriage, in a civil perspective marriage, has always been (until recently) a matter of economics -- the principle goal being to provide a stable, self-sufficient foundation for the raising of a new generation. And since it was only till just the recent past that women were the principle homemakers, it made sense that benefits were designed with the provision that widows would receive their husband's pension income in the event of his death. This was all part of an unspoken but pervasive social contract that encouraged women to be mothers and stay-at-home -- who in their right minds would have accepted becoming a homemaker otherwise. The practice was also designed to ensure that widows didn't become a burden on the public purse when their husbands passed on.

A concept basic to pensions (and social security) is that they were never designed to ensure that every participant would benefit -- it was/is expected that a significant percentage of potential recipients would pass on by the time they reached eligibility age, or die soon afterwards. From inception, pensions are in actuality more a form of social insurance -- particularly national ones such as social security. And they also serve functions that reach beyond individual needs, and instead are designed to support the social fabric in general.

And of course things have changed since then. Personally I have significant problems with the concept of gay marriage, since that isn't what the concept of marriage is about. I even have a greater issue with the concept of the surviving member of a homosexual union receiving spousal death benefits -- unless the surviving member actually sacrificed a career to raise children (which isn't uncommon for lesbians and some gays). The irony is the latter would actually fit within the intent of spousal death benefits. Of course, to make it fair and equitable, surviving spouses from a childless traditional marriage would likely need to be respectively disqualified.

All this suggests that some paradigms have changed, and perhaps some adjustments need to be made. However, one doesn't have to throw the old model out completely since it does serve a role in maintaining society. Its a matter of looking beyond ourselves, and instead looking out for the common good a bit more.

 

[sechs]

Once again, we need to separate the religious notion of marriage and the legal state.

 

[Mercutio]

Well now, if we would use the old-Testament law of dealing with homosexuality (only reason I am bringing religion into this is because it is part of the discussion at present), that would take care of things quite well, and may even reduce crowding:

Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)
"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Just a thought?
Actually this is one of the reasons I think there would be an attempted ban on the Bible if homosexual marriage was legalized. It would be considered a hate crime to sell Bibles.
But (as was mentioned earlier) I'm not sure why homosexuals want to take a biblical institution such as marriage and mix it with nonbiblical affection. And IMO, a civil union is basically the same as a marriage. Gays (wanting to get "married") just want religious recognition of their anti-religious philosophies. What would the world do without religious people to shock with anti-religious ideas? What could they complain about then? I think everyone would commit suicide. 8)
Face it merc, you would be lost without us here for you to dump on. LOL

I would be in a better world without people like you. Your holy book is an extremely hate-filled, violent and downright smutty book.

The god of the jews commanded that his flock not eat shellfish. Had any good shrimp lately? Other wacky commandments: Women should not be teachers of men, nor dress in men's clothes or wear clothes of two fibers (I rather like my cotton blend undies, thank you!), that slaves of other nations may be owned, and that men should not have contact with women during their menses (er, how do I tell?).

Expanding my search a bit I find that "No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord." Do all the guys in the world with Vasectomies know that they shouldn't go to church any more?

The punishment for many of these abominable acts is death. I don't know about you, but sometimes I *have* to work on the jewish Sabbath. Apparently I should be killed for that!

So you're adovocating genocide against homosexuals based on a religious text that makes a great many other clearly inane and pointless strictures against behavior that anyone in a modern culture would consider absolutely normal. I think that's great. I really do. Tell you what: grab a handgun, put it in your mouth, and repent for your last visit to Red Lobster, and then you'll get the tiniest sliver a of respect from me for adhering to your outmoded and useless morals.

Even the Jews don't believe most of that shit any more. So let's look at the Christian commandments for a moment:


Christians, lazy pukes that they are, condense 651 commandments of the Jewish God, down to just 10.

1: Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Beside Me
2: Thou Shalt Not Worship Any Graven Images
3: Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain
4: Remember the Sabbath Day to Rest and Keep it Holy
5: Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother
6: Thou Shalt Not Kill
7: Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery
8: Thou Shalt Not Steal
9: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
10: Thou Shalt Not Covet Anything That is Thy Neighbor's

Praise Jebus! You can take the gun out of your mouth RW! You're saved! God doesn't hate oysters after all.

Now I *suppose* one of those commandments could be about what a dude does when he lies down with another dude, but... I'm having trouble picking out which one that might be. Since adultery presupposes marriage, something that queers can't do, it's not that one.

As far as using homosexual genocide as a population control: It appears you're an Indiana resident, and therefore might not have had the best sex education in the world, but, uh, as a rule a couple of guys or a couple of girls have more than a little trouble in the conception department. I can probably come up with some pictures or diagrams if that isn't abundantly clear to you. If anyone is increasing "crowding", it's those involved in religious groups that frown on any type of contraception.

 

[Handruin]

So how's MA treating ya. Are you having a wicked good time with all the massholes?

LOL, the drivers here must be the worst. I thought New Yorkers were bad but MA has the cut-off champs! And this against a 1-ton cargo van!MA-2 wasn't a pretty picture this morning. Love how they call roundabouts "rotaries". Didn't actually get into Boston city, I was up in Ipswich and Leominster. Meant to snow tomorrow, good to be leaving. Pretty leaves.

Wow, you were one town away from where I live... I live not far off RT 2 (MA-s, or whatever it's called). Did anyone pronounce Leominster for you, or where you already familiar with the word (lemon-ster)? First time I saw the town name, I thought it was leo - minister. I was promptly corrected by someone.

I'll agree MA has some real winners when it comes to driving. I grew up in CT and never have I been so stressed with driving until I moved to MA. And yes, I call them rotaries...lol. My navigation calls them "traffic circles", I get a kick out of that. People at my work who are from other various countries call them roundabouts. I love how it has so many names.

 

[Mercutio]

In response to BooST's comments about the "dangers of [socialism]", I think you might want to take a step back and consider some of the nationalized, public endevors that do quite well:

1. Our national transport system. Highways are great!
In contrast, our rail system, largely the product of competing private interests, is shit.

2. Rural Electrification. OK, it's not a new one. But huge swathes of the midwest would be dark without it, probably to this day.
Think I'm kidding? Doesn't take a long trip, at least in Indiana or Illinois, to find someone who lives in a place where cable TV is simply unavailable, to say nothing of modern services like broadband internet or cellular phone.

3. Public Education. Our's isn't the best system in the world, but it's more than acceptable. Someone in the USA who completes a public secondary school program should have at least basic knowledge of algebra and geometry, biology and chemistry, and have language skills sufficient to read or write in a business environment. Advanced students might very weill take university-level classes by age 15.

Furthermore, the Internet we're all using to communicate, was wholly created from public and military funds. Three different times, AT&T was offered full control and ownership of the ARPAnet, and three different times, AT&T turned it down.
One of the things that has happened since the internet has become essentially the domain of private enterprise is that there has been almost no advancement in our basic network software. Instant-message software came of age after "Black Semptember" (when AOL was peered onto the internet), yet in the last eight years, no one has managed to make a standard IM protocol, something that is harmful to almost everyone who uses that type of software.

And hey, when I look at private insurance, the state of our health care system, and the monumental failures of blue-chips "infrastructure" companies like Enron and Worldcom, I have to say that I think maybe MORE things should be in the hands of government, not less.

 

[BooST]

I'm not saying that all government is bad, but when EVERYTHING is controlled by the government it is... I personally really hate working, then seeing my paycheck flushed down the social security toilet. I just don't comprehend how you are so ready to give up your hard earned money to let the government piss it away into things like social security.

Merc, when is the last time you were on a highway? I-94? My god, if this is what you call great, I'd hate to see what you call bad.

 

[Mercutio]

jtr, I am aware of my status as a partisan. I am an opinionated person. In fact, it's something of a family motto:

Everyone is entitled to my opinion, whether they want it or not.

Truly words to live by.

But that does not change something very basic about me. I do not reach my opinions - especially not those I espouse publicly - without research and internal contemplation. I don't believe ANYTHING just because someone wrote it in a book.

Fundamentally, I agree with many principles of socialism. I see the entire political process in the US as right- or far-right, and as a matter of pragmatism I would rather have the former.

At any rate, I pay taxes four times a year for my business and once as an individual. I view the money that the government takes as the cost of earning a living and for the most part I don't begrudge Caesar his due - that money keeps my roads in good shape, local schools funded and a bunch of rednecks in Iraq. 1%, 5%, 10%... whatever change comes, I plan my affairs accordingly. It's not that hard.

To someone whose budget is dramatically changed by small percentage of additional expenses, I'd suggest making a slight change in lifestyle, either in the form of reduced amenities or in seeking better employment or education that will lead to better employment. People live with changes in expenses and earnings all the time ("How are we going to afford _______ on our income."). It's part of life.

(Incidently, to the anti-choice crowd out there: Babies are a luxury. If you want to live well on a modest income, don't have kids).

What I *do* find disturbing is a government that gives its citizens a tax cut, then spends more money than it takes in. We aren't paying, right now, for a lot of the things our government is doing (cough*useless foreign wars*cough). But those of you with plans to breed need to understand that the money we're borrowing will need to be paid back some day. The high life we're living right now will be an economic hardship for your children. As someone with minimal concern for my personal future, I could be iiresponsible and say "It's not my problem, someone else will deal with it". It is everyone's problem that we aren't paying for everything we're buying. Anyone who has known the pain of high-interest credit card debt should understand the consequences of what we're doing as a nation. In the words of George Orwell, this is ungood. Self-interest or no, an individual needs to take as much responsibility for his or her future as his or her present.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm not saying that all government is bad, but when EVERYTHING is controlled by the government it is... I personally really hate working, then seeing my paycheck flushed down the social security toilet. I just don't comprehend how you are so ready to give up your hard earned money to let the government piss it away into things like social security.

Merc, when is the last time you were on a highway? I-94? My god, if this is what you call great, I'd hate to see what you call bad.

I believe we have a responsibility for those who came before us, BooST. What do you propose we do for those people who depend on social security if the young stop paying? Do we let them starve? Sleep in the streets? They don't all have families to provide for their needs. Lazy old people! Guess they should all go back to work.
Now, what would you do if you have that chunk of cash back in your paycheck. Would you spend it? Would you save it?

While I'm at it, I think privatising Social Security may turn out to be the worst idea to come out of the Bush White House. The financial services industry is horribly unregulated, mismanaged, and corrupt (e.g. finding out that Prudential analysts get paid to recommend certain stocks to customers regardless of performance.) even in the very most respected firms. What will happen is that some good-sized chunk of the elderly population will lose their savings on the basis of bad investments, resulting in the creation of a safety net and a bailout of whatever fund. We'd pretty much wind up with social security again.

For the interstate highway system all I can say is that it can get you where you're going. The best routes, like I-94 need lots of upkeep, which does get done. It's not like there are places where the road just stops or is so poorly maintained as to be impassable - you can take basically any car pretty much anywhere in the US using interstate highways.

I have to think that if highways were privatised there would be places that someone would say weren't economically feasible to maintain properly, and suddenly North Dakota or Montana or whereever would lose contact with civilization until our Chinese conquerors began sending teams of ethnographers into the untamed wilds of the Black Hills.

 

[jtr1962]

Merc, I do agree that the three things on your list are good things to socialize because the small amount paid in taxes for them is repaid many times over in commerce. And you know how I feel about rail transport. We do in fact have a great freight rail system here, but I wish we had a decent passenger rail system as well. A national high-speed rail and maglev system would pay for itself many times over. We could finally rid ourselves of using those noisy, gas-guzzling planes for domestic transport, and maybe also reduce our auto dependence somewhat. Basically, my vision of government is that it should grease the economic engine by building the needed infrastructure. That's what I call socialism of the good kind. Everyone uses electricity, roads, and education. Many would use a rail system, and even those who drive would benefit with less congested roads. You can add sewers and water mains to that list of things the government does as well. I could also make a pretty good case for taking electrical generation out of the hands of for-profit enterprise.

Where I diverge from you of course is on the other things like government funded health care, retirement, or safety net programs. I'll agree that we need some bare minimum of these things. Children need innoculations, we need to keep someone who loses their job fed until they get another, maybe we need to help people a bit with housing. However, having government run a retirement program or take over health care is almost guaranteed disaster. Either taxes will go through the roof or care will be rationed with government health care. As for retirement, I only need say two words-Social Security. It may have worked for a while, but any program which depends upon sustained population growth for solvency is destined for disaster sooner or later. A system of mandatory private accounts from the start would have avoided many of the pitfalls, but after 1929 people were loathe to trust private investments. And as for other sorts of cradle to grave care, I need only say three words-New York City. These things were an absolute disaster here as taxes went through the roof, businesses fled, and a culture of irresponsibility for one's actions developed. It'll take decades to completely reverse the damage. Even now NYC suffers from an unemployment rate higher than the national average, and a chronic shortage of decent jobs thanks to the largely poorly educated population.

To someone whose budget is dramatically changed by small percentage of additional expenses, I'd suggest making a slight change in lifestyle, either in the form of reduced amenities or in seeking better employment or education that will lead to better employment. People live with changes in expenses and earnings all the time ("How are we going to afford _______ on our income."). It's part of life.

It's not the small change by adding yet another benefit. Rather, it's the sum total of all these little "it's just another $5 a month" tax increases which hurts people. And despite education, opportunities are lacking in many regions of the country. Even professional jobs are going overseas. Getting better employment or even employment is not easy. If I abandoned my idea of running my own business for higher income, I doubt I could find anything paying more than $15 an hour, with $10 being more likely. It's an insult to have to pay about 20 to 25% of that out in taxes yet that's what I would have to. Sure, people deal with extra expenses all the time. The difference here is that they don't mind expenses which bring them some benefit. Past the things I mentioned earlier, a lot of what government tries to do today doesn't benefit the vast majority, even indirectly. Why should someone who by any standard is among the working poor pay any taxes, let alone 25%? Incidentally, Kerry's wife paid a smaller percentage than that on a income of $5 million. Funny how that works. If she feels so strongly about some of these programs along with the other "enlightened" members of the celebrity crowd then she should voluntarily pay the government extra. Don't ask someone making a piddling $25,000 or $30,000 on a miserable job to surrender 25% of their pay for something which will never benefit them. It's morally reprehensible.

To show how onerous this is, if I had gotten a decent job out of college, lived with my parents as I do now, and saved most of my earnings, I would probably be thinking about retiring now at almost 42. Without income taxes I probably would have been able to retire in my early thirties. This is ten years, or if you want to get technical about 2500 work days, or almost seven years of my life. I should still count weekends in the total since they were always a lost cause when I worked full time, but I won't. Even so, that would be almost seven years of my life lost because of the government. If I had a family and other expenses it might be closer to twenty. People do seven to twenty years for felonies like murder or rape. That's what the taxes to pay for all these social programs really amount to for a middle class person-a long prison sentence in a job you hate. It isn't a given that everyone should work until they're 65. One reason for essentially giving up your youth by getting a good education as I did is to enable one to retire at an age when they're still young enough to enjoy it. Retiring at 32 would have been much better than at 42. Thanks to a lack of decent jobs, I'll probably be worried about earning money until I die instead. I'll agree some taxes are needed, but they should be 100% taxes on trade or sales, and user taxes. Income taxes are evil, especially when the lower and middle classes must pay them. The US lived on trade taxes until WWI. It can do so again.

On the deficit spending, it bothers me also, but there is a simple solution-spend less. Both parties are equally guilty here of living beyond their means.

 

[iGary]

What do you propose we do for those people who depend on social security if the young stop paying? Do we let them starve?

Give the white tail deer all those excess guns from Iraq. They'll fix the problem.

 

[sechs]

I think that it's funny that people don't want to pay for something until they need it.

No one really enjoys losing their hard-earned money to FICA, yet, if you need Social Security, you're damn happy that you did.

 

[.Nut]

...Didn't actually get into Boston city...

If you did, you might've found that you were scraping paint off both sides of your 1-ton van driving on some of those Beacon Hill streets. Boston's the most interesting "big" city in the region.

 

[BooST]

Merc, yet again, I'm not saying that all these things need to be privatized, but social security is a BIG problem. The money that I've been paying in, I will most likely never see. It was a great idea, poorly implemented, and now my generation will have to pay the price for that, unless the feds come up with somthing pretty quick.

 

[flagreen]

Mercutio,

I would be in a better world without people like you.

I don't know if you're a big enough person to apologize or not. But if you are this would be a good time to do so. The above comment is way out of line. There is no excuse for having made it to any member - let alone a brand new member.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio,

I would be in a better world without people like you.

I don't know if you're a big enough person to apologize or not. But if you are this would be a good time to do so. The above comment is way out of line. There is no excuse for having made it to any member - let alone a brand new member.

Any apology I might offer would not be sincere. Someone who hates the people I care about enough to suggest, even in jest, that the proper solution to their problem is to kill them, is someone I don't think should be plauging the surface of the earth any longer than absolutely necessary.

I don't have a "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality. All I have to judge this person by are his words, and to me his words are criminal.

 

[Clocker]

We could all do well to make sure we're following these:

http://www.storageforum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=177

Do not post or link any material that is illegal, injurious, threatening, sexually explicit, disrespectful, or offensive: as determined solely by StorageForum.

 

[Mercutio]

OK.

With all due respect, I think people like world would be better without people like RWIndiana.

Better?

 

[Clocker]

I was referring to SF in general (including myself) as things have gotten a little loose around here. But, I think you're at least on the right track.

 

[Howell]

Even the Jews don't believe most of that shit any more. So let's look at the Christian commandments for a moment:


Christians, lazy pukes that they are, condense 651 commandments of the Jewish God, down to just 10.

For the sake of accuracy and your continued education it is important for you to know that the 10 commandments were given by God 1st, in ~1450BC. The other laws were given subsequently and are an elaboration. Notice the first four relate to God and the last six to other humans.

Additionally it is unnecessary to summarize the teachings of the Bible ourself. Jesus himself distilled the purpose of the law in Mat 22:34-39:

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[2] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

The first one references our relationship to God and the second one our relationship to other humans.

 

[Howell]

I don't have a "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality.

And unfortunately you assume that your failure is everyone's failure.

 

[Howell]

RWIndiana,

Double-Check your attitude.
1 Cor 13:1

 

[RWIndiana]

The comment was made completely in jest and does not represent my true feelings even in the slightest degree, but I realize now that it was absolutely out of line and I sincerely apologize to all.

 

[Pradeep]

Wow, you were one town away from where I live... I live not far off RT 2 (MA-s, or whatever it's called). Did anyone pronounce Leominster for you, or where you already familiar with the word (lemon-ster)? First time I saw the town name, I thought it was leo - minister. I was promptly corrected by someone.

I'll agree MA has some real winners when it comes to driving. I grew up in CT and never have I been so stressed with driving until I moved to MA. And yes, I call them rotaries...lol. My navigation calls them "traffic circles", I get a kick out of that. People at my work who are from other various countries call them roundabouts. I love how it has so many names.[/quote]

Yeah I was calling it leo-minster. Still do

.Nut: Talking of scraping bottom, on the way back we were behind this dump truck that had one of those crane thingies between the cab and bed. I guess the guy didn't have it down far enough cause he went under a bridge and *bang* sparks flying everywhere. Fortunately we weren't too close. He gets out, gets on the controls and the whole thing collapses into the bed of the truck. Guess it severed his hydraulics or something. And then he's on his way. With us giving him a wide berth.

 

[RWIndiana]

In defense, I just want to say that since I had seen reference to "nuke"ing right-wing religious folks, I thought my foolish remark to be somewhat justified in the prevailing atmosphere. Although it was quite small of me to do so.

 

[RWIndiana]

Woops, Hello there Pradeep. lol. Stop talking when I'm trying to interrupt.

 

[jtr1962]

RW, in Merc's defense he is a bit hypersensitive on both homosexual and abortion rights. The other members here know that and don't push those buttons too often. NVidia and Sony are other topics where Merc has, shall we say, very strong feelings (he's anti both). Just a friendy word of warning.

 

[BooST]

You forgot Western Digital :lol:

 

[Handruin]

Lol BooST, I was thinking the same thing. How the heck could you forget WD. If there was ever a poster boy for anti-wd, Merc is the man. :rotfl:

 

[Tea]

Well now, if we would use the old-Testament law of dealing with homosexuality (only reason I am bringing religion into this is because it is part of the discussion at present), that would take care of things quite well, and may even reduce crowding:

Actually, you could reduce crowding much more effectively by getting rid of the hetrosexuals. As a general rule, homosexuals tend not to have a lot of children.

 

[e_dawg]

Finally, I'm sorry for you that someone you despise with every fiber of your being got reelected, but as Clocker says, deal with it. I felt similarly when Clinton was reelected. Things aren't going to be as bad as you think they are. In retrospect, consider yourself lucky that Kerry lost. I believe he would have thrown the nation into a full-blown depression trying to nationalize health care and save Social Security.

Hmm... For some reason jtr, your post makes me feel like offering my 2 cents in this thread... mostly random thoughts, not necessarily in response to anyone's points in particular. Here goes:

- Kerry would never have been able to nationalize health care and save social security. He would never have been able to do much of what he promised, especially without control of the house or the senate.

- Clinton was a cool cat. He had the charisma and magnetism I haven't seen since Trudeau and JFK. Not that they have much of a direct bearing on the issues that affect peoples' lives, but they are desirable qualities in a leader.

- Bush is the Mel Lastman of American politics when it comes to communication skills and reminds me of The Manchurian Candidate with all of his conflicts of interest. While it is said that at least you know where Bush stands on the issues, that he is firm, resolute, has the conviction of his beliefs, and has character, how much of it is misplaced, uninformed, unduly influenced, and irrational?

- While Kerry is a good speaker, that's all he strikes me as, and seems adept at criticizing and promising a superior alternative but not actually capable of delivering on his promises or having his own personal vision. He's kinda like Paul Martin for me in Canada. More of a polished politician than a genuine human being.

- While it would be nice to have secular government, that's a bit of a pipe dream, especially when the electorate is mostly religious.