|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 14 new of 176 responses total. |
jadecat
|
|
response 163 of 176:
| 
Mar 17 16:23 UTC 2006 |
resp:156 CNA=Certified Nursing Assistant, LPN=Licensed Practical Nurse
and RN= Registered Nurse. :) My Hubby is going for the RN (via a
associates degree, nursing at LCC) although at the end of the next term
he can take the LPN licensing exam.
resp:161 A 16 year old may also have friends that they want to see and
parents may a- not want to drive them every where, and b- teach levels
of indpendence, trust and self-reliance to their child.
|
jep
|
|
response 164 of 176:
|
Mar 17 16:27 UTC 2006 |
Children are educated in any number of ways by their parents and other
elders. My stepdaughter will be educated in, among other things,
driving a car. This in turn will present her with the opportunities to
learn responsibility for driving safely and maintaining the car, as
well as the need to provide the resources for the opportunity she will
have. Additionally it will substantially help her mother and me, as we
won't have to drive her to some of the various activities which make up
her life. (These include band practices, medical appointments,
shopping trips, etc.) She will be able to drive to school. Remember
that, until this week, she couldn't walk across the room without pain,
so someone has had to take her to school.
In short, Sindi, driving is in many ways a good thing. The decision on
whether it is worthwhile, and whether it should be allowed, are complex
matters which are highly dependent on individual circumstances. Her
mother and I are familiar with all of those circumstances. Further, we
have the responsibility of watching out for her welfare. And, we have
the accompanying power to make the best decisions for her. Finally, we
have our own resources and the power and ability to manage them as we
see fit. With all due respect, it is not your decision whether my
stepdaughter should have a car. I hope you will be able to recognize
this and somehow manage to deal with the fact that she is going to have
access to one, even though, if you had a 16 year old, he or she may not
be driving.
|
klg
|
|
response 165 of 176:
|
Mar 17 17:18 UTC 2006 |
Why is sindi so concerned about the realively few millionaires, when
the thousands of people working real hard are living lives that 100
years ago even royalty could not enjoy?
|
slynne
|
|
response 166 of 176:
|
Mar 17 17:19 UTC 2006 |
Working hard is a virtue. I think that most people here can agree on
that. However, raising the minimum wage does not reward the lazy but
rather encourages work.
|
klg
|
|
response 167 of 176:
|
Mar 17 17:30 UTC 2006 |
(If their jobs are not eliminated or cut back.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 168 of 176:
|
Mar 17 18:04 UTC 2006 |
Indeed. Raising the minimum wage would not be a good idea in a labor
market with a very elastic demand for labor. But since the labor market
we are currently in seems to have a an inelastic demand curve for
unskilled labor, I'll go out on a limb and say that raising the minimum
wage might be a good idea.
|
tod
|
|
response 169 of 176:
|
Mar 17 18:11 UTC 2006 |
re #126
because lower wage earners put more of their income back
into the economy than the rich
It makes sense since the economy has quicker effects on lower wage earners.
If I live in Detroit, are you saying I should buy one of the Big 3's cars just
because the majority of that economy is affected by my car purchasing
decisions because that is what I'm reading from your statement.
What's the point of capitalism if the IRS is going to rob everyone? Its not
like your taxes are paying for anything more than it is paying for war in the
Middle East. You should be thinking more about tax CUTS for lower wage
earners rather than tax HIKES for higher wage earners.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 170 of 176:
|
Mar 17 18:51 UTC 2006 |
> Nate, do you honestly believe the over-paid CEO is working 1000 times
> harder than someone on the factory floor or in R&D?
No, but there are other factors that play into whether I think a salary
is appropriate for somebody. For example, lets say you open a company
and work 70 hours a week building it up. You might even pay yourself a
very small salary (if anything) the first few years. You might also put
yourself into personal debt by taking out a 2nd mortgage to fund your
business. After all of this, if you decide to pay yourself a high
salary, I'd say you've earned it.
But a CEO of a large public company making millions of dollars a year
is ridiculous. They rarely even work full weeks (ie less than 40 hours).
|
edina
|
|
response 171 of 176:
|
Mar 17 19:23 UTC 2006 |
I know that the managing partner of my office makes a good 7 figures. Is he
worth it? I believe so. Number one, I *know* he works at least 12 hours a
day. When I go home at night, I stop thinking about this place - he doesn't.
He takes work home with him. Number two (and this is me being incredibly
partial) - he's a legal genius. His intelligence generates a lot of money
for this office in terms of postive verdicts and business.
|
tod
|
|
response 172 of 176:
|
Mar 17 19:52 UTC 2006 |
I know what I pay our gardener is worth every penny.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 173 of 176:
|
Mar 17 20:18 UTC 2006 |
heh!
|
tod
|
|
response 174 of 176:
|
Mar 17 20:51 UTC 2006 |
I've been sitting on interview panels for jobs that don't pay much at all.
Its kinda weird there are so many hoops.
|
gull
|
|
response 175 of 176:
|
Mar 20 04:35 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:31: The minimum wage is currently at its lowest level since it
was created, if you adjust for inflation. I wouldn't worry about it
getting too far ahead of inflation.
Re resp:58: That's good to know. For the record, I don't really
consider klg a representative conservative, either.
Re resp:68: Good arguments can help, but money and fear are what really
win elections.
Re resp:138: A drop in taxes *can* result in an increase in revenue, but
only if the tax rate is so high that it significantly hinders the
economy. There aren't any respected economists that I'm aware of who
are saying we're on that side of the demand curve. Republicans take it
on faith that we are, because it supports their policies -- much like
they take supply-side economics on faith, in spite of the fact that it's
disproved about once a decade.
I know some people will point to Reagan, but the fact is, tax revenues
only increased under Reagan if you don't adjust for inflation, which was
pretty high in the early- to mid-80s.
|
klg
|
|
response 176 of 176:
|
Mar 20 11:44 UTC 2006 |
1. Who, in your considered opinion, is a "representative coservative?"
2. Do you have any facts/figures to support your assertion that a
general reduction in income tax rates reduced tax revenues?
3. What was the increase in federal tax revenues under Reagan and what
was the inflation rate
|