Political & Elections

let's also not forget that Congress is giving up $1 billion in tax revenue by not passing a bill to fund the FAA before they went on break for the month of August.

Lots of FAA employees (like the people who inspect planes) are not working right now.

" Something's got to give. We already know that we're probably going to have to work well into our 70s as we will not have anything other than our savings to rely on... I wish the current generation, which keeps piling on this debt, would have to work as long as we will have to. It's not right, in my opinion, that there are people living off retirement and retirement benefits for 30 some odd years if they are perfectly healthy and able to work. And yes, I fully realize that I probably feel that way because I'm young and energetic and I will eventually change my opinion. "

Interesting, that the younger generation that got this administration into office may have ended up completely screwing themselves by their vote.

I find it a sad but fascinating quandry. Seniors who have worked 40-50 years of their lives are begrudged by taking out the retirement benefits of the social security system whose funds were forcibly deducted from their paychecks. Should they work past retirement age, they are taking the jobs that young people want. Medical advances have made it possible to prolong peoples lives for decades, even if they are very unhealthy and just zoning out in a nursing home. Yet people who have gone to great effort to take care of themselves mentally and physically have paid into Medicare for decades for those who let themselves go, while not utilizing it themselves.

People are screaming about the cost of medicare, nursing homes and care facilities....yet we are unwilling to take on the care of our parents and grandparents ourselves. I figure it is the price we pay as a society to duck familial and personal responsibility. We don't really have to worry about paying for and taking care of Grandma ourselves, we'll have the state do it while being enraged about paying the taxes. I'm not really making a judgement on this, though I figure I'll pay the taxes forever, get no benefits myself and do whatever I need to in order to take care of my parents (who are extraordinarily healthy and doing 110% their part to stay that way). I dread a situation where they'd be impossible to take care of, but who can predict if someone will have demensia, then what do you do?

It seems like this society is definitely going the way of the have and have nots. Those who are well employed, have plenty of money, freedom and success. And those who are struggling just to get by. The middle class disappearing quickly.
I'd advise you young folks to make sure you're on the track of the haves. I would have said, "forget the money, follow your dreams," years ago, but now I'd recommend following those dreams where you can stay well employed!

The bush tax cuts should be eliminated for all Americans

No. No tax increases of any kind for any reason ever.

The problem is not that the government doesn't take enough of our money. The problem is that the government spends more than it takes. Letting it take even more not only solves absolutely nothing, it makes the problem worse.

And I should have added that Romani and her generation will continue to have to pay for the bills that Seniors and other old people are running up but unwilling to pay for. Generational greed continued. Sad.

[Insert generic statement regarding the idiocy of the US government here]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this bill is terrible, IMO.

It should've raised taxes, and it should've cut more. Cutting $1 trillion over 10 years? Come on.

A new commission to study what else they can cut? THEY JUST HAD A COMMISSION A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, AND EVERYONE IGNORED THEIR FINDINGS.

He doesn't complain about it, doesn't seem to bother him too much. But this summer he's interning in the South, not the east coast. I'm sure he'd rather be interning the the PNW, but you have to go where you get the job.

And what happens if you mention a BF?

Yes, timeouts are definitely for parents. We never even tried declaring a time out. But sometimes when one of the little guys was throwing a tantrum, I'd just go hide in a closet (obviously only at home) so when they realized there was nobody around, no reason to keep screaming.

Italy was incredible, so much history and so beautiful. After drinking endless amounts of wine and eating pizza and pasta every day, we didn't even gain any weight though, because on this trip I think we climbed thousands of stairs. No wonder those people look so fit. I am forever spoiled because of the wine, incredibly good, sometimes for only 1.5-2 Euros a glass....which is about $2.40-$3.00. Ridiculous!

Sure, Samurai, I'd like a time out. But my interpretation of that is sitting in the sun, drinking wine, and still getting paid (unlikely that one is going to happen). Do you mean that sort of time out?

We just got back from an amazing trip to Italy. First vacation we've ever had without kids (twenty years). I actually don't think they would have enjoyed it too much, but we sure did. I can visualize retirement, but it is oh so far away!

You know, to be fair, it also should be noted that the difficulty and stigma of divorce keeps some people together who should not be. I'd even say it's a safe bet that some unnecessary tragedies have resulted.

As far as the benefits are concerned, if one can find peace, safety, and contentment in one's life then yes, "the tax, health care, etc." are nice perks, but without the first three, the benefits offer little, if any, consolation.

I guess it's hard to explain. Just because I am generally more interested in women, that doesn't mean that I'm not fully "into" my bf. I am as committed to him as I would be if I was straight. Just because I am more attracted to women as a whole, doesn't mean I want to spend the rest of my life with a woman rather than a man. It just depends on the person.

I fully intend on having children- if possible (long story, but it's unlikely I will have children naturally) or adopting (or a mix). If he and I do decide to get married, it fully depends on what we decide to do post-graduation that will determine when we get married.

Time will tell :). (Or the world will end in December 2012, before we graduate, and this whole thing will be a moot point anyway! :p)

What a turn this thread has taken... :p

Haha, yes I was referring to the tangible benefits- the tax, health care, etc. It's the OTHER benefits (long term security, etc) that I believe can be accomplished without "marriage".

I fully intend on working full time and have little interest in being any kind of stay at home parent. Which works out well if I stay with my current boyfriend because he wants to be either an early elementary school educator or some kind of work-from-home dad so that he can stay home and raise children, if at all possible. He's very much a family-oriented person and it has always been his dream to raise his own children. Probably because he was raised by his brothers while his parents lived and worked in a different state.

However, winchester also had it right. I believe the "benefits" that people derive from a traditional marriage- security, love, more permanency, etc- can be done without a traditional marriage. Yes, it's easier to break up than to get a divorce, but I really don't believe fear of a divorce should be what forces people to work out their problems- if that makes sense.

The views I hold on marriage do primarily come from my family. But they also derive from the fact that I never though I would be interested in men (and therefore never able to marry as gay marriage didn't look like a possibility growing up in the Bush era). I came out in 8th grade as a lesbian and really had little interest in men until I started dating my previous boyfriend (I was raised in a Catholic school and with parents who had no LGBT friends so the concept of "bi" never really entered my radar until high school and I realized that I liked guys as well... I do have a preference for females though and I always have). I never saw myself being able to marry, so that could have something to do with the fact that it's not as romanticized to me as it could be. I was never the little girl who imagined her wedding day. 

I have nothing against marriage, and I will more than likely get married (possibly even shortly after college). I guess I just don't hold it in very high esteem.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Thursday 28th of July 2011 02:30:11 PM

Perhaps, winchester, you have a more romanticized view of what you thought romani was talking about when she said "benefits" than I did. My interpretation of the benefits she was referring to, was something on the order of tax, social security, retirement and medical benefits...the tangible benefits of marriage. It's purely a matter of interpretation of what she said in which I was merely speculating. Can you enlighten us to what you were referring to, as the benefits, romani?

Most of us view marriage roughly like our parents do.  Same with most institutions, I guess.  It's not a surprise that Romani sees it the way she does.  

I am not a religious person, but I have viewed marriage quite differently.  It's what holds us together as a couple when things get tough.  It's very easy to break up with someone. Not so easy to get divorced, particularly when children are involved.  

Even though I live on a coast, the community I live in has more married couples than divorced ones.  Kids who have divorced parents are the unusual ones.  

It's not always easy being married.  Nor is it being in a live in relationship with a boyfriend/girlfriend.  Having been in both types of relationships with different people, I can say that when I finally committed to one person for life it would have been abnormal for me to say - "let's just live together, for life".  Marriage was the natural progression.  I was engaged to someone else and even bought a house with him. However, I realized that I couldn't make a lifetime committment with him.  I am glad I figured it out before we got married or had kids.  I wish him the best, but he wasn't for me.  

There are perks to being legally married, but I don't think I realized what they were before I was married. It's waking up every morning knowing that there is someone there to watch my back and listen to the stories about my day or to ask me to help him find socks in the dryer or to discuss our kids upcoming visit to colleges and how it freaks us both out. It's a sense of security that we chose each other and made a commitment, that we will be a couple even through difficult times (and we have had a lot of those!), will laugh in the happy times and watch our kids grow up.  We are at the tail end of raising the kids and hope one day they bring us grandchildren for the cycle to continue.

Both of us were raised in two parent households (okay, mine lost a parent to death when I was a kid - but they would have stayed together).  Both of my parents came from difficult family circumstances.  Both of my parents parents had a two parent family.  

I wish whatever you do, that you are happy, Romani. Being young like you I found the right one not long after breaking up with the wrong one. I remember when you suffered a breakup and then met this new man in your life.  Happy that you found a great guy - you are awesome, and he is lucky!

 

 

 

"The basic answer is I will marry the person rather than the gender. And yes, I will marry because of the benefits. If there were none, I would really see no reason to get married in any kind of traditional sense."

Now I have no issue with whether one decides to marry a man or a woman. But I do find it sad to not see any reason to get married in the traditional sense for any reason other than benefits. I always envisioned (though perhaps I should be more pessimistic because of the high divorce rate), that the reason to get married was because you were making a decision to marry the person you were going to be with for the rest of your life. And if you couldn't make that kind of "forever" commitment, then you shouldn't marry that person. It is surely not the same if you don't have that kind of commitment, if you are just living together, or if you think "it's just a piece of paper." I don't care about the piece of paper or the benefits, I care that I have made that commitment to stay with this person until death do us part, in sickness, poverty, bad times, whatever. I'm just lucky, I suppose, that my husband has been exceptional, with nothing for me to truly complain about besides those dirty socks on the floor. And the toilet seat issue.

I hope you find someone in your life, man or woman, that you feel that way about some day.

romaingypseyes, if you are bisexual, will you marry and if so how will you decide whether to marry a male or female? Inquiring minds (actually nosey, minds; so disregard if you don't want to answer) want to know.

-- Edited by Razorsharp on Wednesday 27th of July 2011 06:26:04 PM

Same topic, different vein:



As the debt-ceiling debate drags on, a new CNN/ORC International Poll reveals a growing public exasperation and demand for compromise. Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.
According to the poll, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines. Democrats and independents, according to the CNN/ORC Poll, are open to a number of different approaches because they think a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a major crisis for the country. Republicans, however, draw the line at tax increases, and a narrow majority of them oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.
Fifty-two percent of Americans think Obama has acted responsibly in the debt-ceiling talks so far, but nearly two-thirds say the Republicans in Congress have not acted responsibly. Fifty-one percent would blame the GOP if the debt ceiling is not raised; only three in 10 would blame Obama.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/26/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Thoughts?

winchester... on one level, I do think that both parties believe their policies are the correct ones.

However, there should NEVER be a question about the US paying its debt. NOTHING good can come from defaulting.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have to play this card or else the Democrats will never agree to any cuts, despite the fact that we are spending $1.4 trillion more than we are bringing in.

This is not a one month issue. The country needs to get its spending in order. The debt ceiling needs to be raised, and then they need to sit down and come up with something.

And I don't know this for sure, but I'm pretty sure all the "cuts" they are talking about like "save $4 trillion" is actually "saving $4 trillion compared to the projected increase over the next X number of years"... so the debt will still be skyrocketing, just at skyrocketing - $4 trillion instead.

DW used to have severe Migraines lasting 1-4 days, vomit, couldn't tolerate light,  chills, could not tolerate noise. It was torture for her. Hell for everyone else. Pills were $30 apiece, after insurance.

She now only has migraines about 2x/yr of shorter duration and intensity. However, I still git out of the house. No sense in getting abused or making her suffer.

Its the Hell that concerns me.

I read a headline this morning that said Jefferson, Kennedy and Grant suffered from migraines? Don't know about that. I do know migraines are more common in females. I used to suffer from them monthly...they typically lasted from 2 1/2 to 3 days. They were absolutely awful. It sounds as if Bachmann's are even worse than mine were, since I did not have vomiting. I mean, if she has had to go to the ER hers must be pretty extreme. As longprime said, they may become a non-issue after she goes through menopause. Mine stopped then and turned into "optical" migraines which last a much shorter period of time and have much milder symptoms.

The only thing each party is interested in doing is whatever is in direct contrast to what the opposing part is doing. If the R's suddenly wanted to raise the debt ceiling the D's would find a reason not to. It's pathetic.

the budget stuff is really funny, because the Republicans are threatening to vote to not raise the debt ceiling.

In 2006, every single Democrat in the Senate voted not to raise the debt ceiling.

Both parties have no interest in creating functional policies that are right for America, rather they are trying to win the war of public perception.

I don't know... listening to the squeals of a party (well, a few of it's voting blocs anyway) being pulled off the teat is bound to give anybody a headache - maybe she's just been doing the wise thing and taking a prophylactic dose, lol.

As giddy as the left... 'scuse me... the media, is with the idea of a Bachmann run and smug with the idea of ripping the Mormon a new one if its ever needed, it's all wishful thinking. Their time would be better spent trying to figure out who will be the tag-end:

Perry/?

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 20th of July 2011 04:21:50 PM

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 20th of July 2011 04:22:15 PM