Bullhockey, illegals are paid in cash, there is NO tax being taken out. nm
Posted By: eaz on 2008-02-06
In Reply to: why do you even care? - Texas MT
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You're right - look elsewhere! I paid cash for my car
the current recession. (Also a nice used car.) I test-drove the car, talked them into letting me 'vet' it at my own mechanic, and when it passed, I showed up at the dealership with a cashier's check for $1.5K less than their 'bottom line'. I told them it was all I had. (It was the truth). The salesman went and talked to the manager, came back, and said 'You've got a deal.' (Also asked me 'where did you learn to buy cars?) I also talked them into a free extended warranty, radiator flushing and new coolant.
:D
you're wrong, S. FLA the illegals paid on the books
at least the ones I know.....the ones who did arrive with at least a visa.....and who get paid off a company payroll and not off the books or in cash is what I mean....
Jailing Kids for Cash
Tuesday 17 February 2009
by: Amy Goodman, Truthdig.com
 Hillary Transue was sentenced to three months in juvenile detention. Transue made a web page mocking her assistant principal. (Photo: Niko J. Kallianiotis / The New York Times)
As many as 5,000 children in Pennsylvania have been found guilty, and up to 2,000 of them jailed, by two corrupt judges who received kickbacks from the builders and owners of private prison facilities that benefited. The two judges pleaded guilty in a stunning case of greed and corruption that is still unfolding. Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan received $2.6 million in kickbacks while imprisoning children who often had no access to a lawyer. The case offers an extraordinary glimpse into the shameful private prison industry that is flourishing in the United States.
Take the story of Jamie Quinn. When she was 14 years old, she was imprisoned for almost a year. Jamie, now 18, described the incident that led to her incarceration:
"I got into an argument with one of my friends. And all that happened was just a basic fight. She slapped me in the face, and I did the same thing back. There [were] no marks, no witnesses, nothing. It was just her word against my word."
Jamie was placed in one of the two controversial facilities, PA Child Care, then bounced around to several other locations. The 11-month imprisonment had a devastating impact on her. She told me: "People looked at me different when I came out, thought I was a bad person, because I was gone for so long. My family started splitting up ... because I was away and got locked up. I'm still struggling in school, because the schooling system in facilities like these places [are] just horrible."
She began cutting herself, blaming medication that she was forced to take: "I was never depressed, I was never put on meds before. I went there, and they just started putting meds on me, and I didn't even know what they were. They said if I didn't take them, I wasn't following my program." She was hospitalized three times.
Jamie Quinn is just one of thousands that these two corrupt judges locked up. The Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center got involved when Hillary Transue was sent away for three months for posting a Web site parodying the assistant principal at her school. Hillary clearly marked the Web page as a joke. The assistant principal didn't find it funny, apparently, and Hillary faced the notoriously harsh Judge Ciavarella.
As Bob Schwartz of the Juvenile Law Center told me: "Hillary had, unknown to her, signed a paper, her mother had signed a paper, giving up her right to a lawyer. That made the 90-second hearing that she had in front of Judge Ciavarella pretty much of a kangaroo court." The JLC found that in half of the juvenile cases in Luzerne County, defendants had waived their right to an attorney. Judge Ciavarella repeatedly ignored recommendations for leniency from both prosecutors and probation officers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard the JLC's case, then the FBI began an investigation, which resulted in the two judges entering guilty-plea agreements last week for tax evasion and wire fraud.
They are expected to serve seven years in federal prison. Two separate class-action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the imprisoned children.
This scandal involves just one county in the U.S., and one relatively small private prison company. According to The Sentencing Project, "the United States is the world's leader in incarceration with 2.1 million people currently in the nation's prisons or jails—a 500 percent increase over the past thirty years." The Wall Street Journal reports that "[p]rison companies are preparing for a wave of new business as the economic downturn makes it increasingly difficult for federal and state government officials to build and operate their own jails." For-profit prison companies like the Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut) are positioned for increased profits. It is still not clear what impact the just-signed stimulus bill will have on the private prison industry (for example, the bill contains $800 million for prison construction, yet billions for school construction were cut out).
Congress is considering legislation to improve juvenile justice policy, legislation the American Civil Liberties Union says is "built on the clear evidence that community-based programs can be far more successful at preventing youth crime than the discredited policies of excessive incarceration."
Our children need education and opportunity, not incarceration. Let the kids of Luzerne County imprisoned for profit by corrupt judges teach us a lesson. As young Jamie Quinn said of her 11-month imprisonment, "It just makes me really question other authority figures and people that we're supposed to look up to and trust."
Everyone and their mother withdraws their cash from the bank.
dd
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
(Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?)
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET
While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.
Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.
The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.
Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.
They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said.
Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.
I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength.
Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.
The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.
The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.
The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.
Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said.
Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.
Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.
Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.
For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.
A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.
A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions.
Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.
It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it.
Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.
There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.
It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said.
The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.
Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.
Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.
___
Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.
benefits for illegals...
Alright which party is for doing something about the illegals that are crossing our border and not just to work but to take advantage of goverment benefits. More specific which person who is running? Has this been mentioned by any of them? Let me enlighten everyone on some things. Let everyone see just how messed up this country is becoming. I live near an illegal immigrant who has found out she is pregnant. Well she went to the office where you apply for Medicaid to pay for the baby and they told her unless she could prove she was a US citizen no help. Well that is the way it should be. She goes to Georgia. They say same thing. She has now gone to Louisiana, which is not the state where she even lives either. They are going to give her benefits. They don't even check. What is the deal? She is illegal, has a job that she said wanted proof she could work in the US legally. She got around that somehow. I don't know how. She pays no taxes here. But yet she can get Medicaid? What the heck is going on here? She doesn't even live in Louisiana. She gave them someone elses address. How can the country let this continue?
SCHIP and Illegals
I do not have an article where Bush himself said it; I heard him on TV on one of those blurbs talking about it. The opposition of the Republicans is that the present bill is an expansion of SCHIP (to the tune fo 6 billion dollars) and opens the door to make it easy for illegals to get on the program legally...although some states who administer SCHIP already do it on the "honor system" and don't ask for proof of citizenship, so you tell me how many are already on it.
This is from an article that sums up what I have read:
Democratic SCHIP Bill Benefits Illegal Immigrants, GOP Charges
(CNSNews.com) - House Republicans said Thursday they hope to block provisions of a Democratic bill to expand health care coverage for poor children that could open up the coverage to illegal immigrants.
The Children's Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act would expand the existing State Children's Health Insurance Program - more than doubling it in size - and "improve beneficiary protections under the Medicare, Medicaid and the [SCHIP] program."
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the bill has come under fire from Republicans who view its expansions in coverage as a step toward nationalized health care. Republicans are now also attacking the bill because of three sections dealing with immigration issues.
"Illegal immigrants are about to get an unexpected boost thanks to the Democratic Congress," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement Thursday.
"The Democrats have a proposal that not only raises taxes on middle class families and slashes funding for a popular Medicare program ... it eliminates the requirement that persons applying for Medicaid or SCHIP service show proof of citizenship or nationality."
Calling the bill "poorly crafted," Boehner said the proposal would "dole out billions of dollars to states who then have the option of whether or not to verify that a person is an American citizen before providing taxpayer-funded health benefits like Medicaid and SCHIP. The bill also eliminates the current five-year waiting period required for legal immigrants to receive government health benefits."
One provision, Section 132, would remove a requirement that legal immigrants wait five years before being eligible for government-funded health care coverage, according to Republican opponents.
The other two sections have potential applicability to illegal residents. Section 143 would give states the option of requiring proof of citizenship for enrollment in the programs. Opponents say the provision allows states to "return to a system of blind trust."
As to pandering to get the Hispanic ILLEGAL vote, why do you think this bill is crafted this way from the Dems to make sure they can get their kids on SCHIP? Dems have been chasing the illegal immigrant vote even more so than Republicans...in fact, they COUNT on it. I have heard Bush talk about amnesty and that is one of the places that he and I disagree. Although, I don't think he is courting the Hispanic vote or he would not be vetoing a program that puts them right on the SCHIP rolls no questions asked...now would he??
I think it is more important to let the bill stay as-is for 6 months than to open it up as a freeforall for illegals to get their kids on it. YES, I think it is more important. I am not a Republican, but I am a fiscal conservative, and I certainly agree in this case.
And yes, before you ask, I have children. I may not have everything I want, but I can insure my kids. And I don't make $80,000 a year either...about expanding SCHIP to cover "middle income" families. They are talking about a family of 4 with total income of $80,000 a year (2 adults 2 kids) being eligible for a program that was designed to cover low income kids. THat is what...400% of the poverty level and how much higher than the median income in the US? I'm sorry, but an annual income of $80,000...there should be a way for those folks to cover their children. They are not talking about cancelling any other programs or any way to pay for this 6 billion dollar expansion other than a cigarette tax, which everyone knows will not cover it all. Yes, I think kids should have health care... but if they are going to pay for it for an annual income of $80,000 they might as well pay for it for ALL kids, period. And that is the first step toward socialized medicine, and I don't need a Democrat or a Republican to tell me that. I can see the handwriting on the wall. Do some research on socialized medicine in Canada...the pros and the cons...and see if you really want that happening here.
And if they are going to do that, they might as well pay it for everyone = socialized medicine. Be careful what you ask for. Government run medical care...I don't think you want to go there.
And, frankly, if they want to expand it to cover a family of 4 making $80,000 a year, I don't think it should be a freebie. Maybe offered at a lower rate than families who make more than that...but come on. A family making $80,000 a year should be able to insure their children. Insuring their children should be their FIRST priority. You tell me what would keep a family of 4 with annual income of $80,000 from being able to insure their children? If anything, it is because 35-40% of their income comes off the top in TAXES right now to pay for all the social programs in this country. Why not LOWER taxes to help them pay their premiums instead of taxing us all MORE to give them health care? Why not do that? But you say tax cut to a Democrat and they get apoplectic.
Perhaps it is because people don't want to prioritize and don't want to do without anything in order to insure their children, would rather spend it on something else. There ARE families who choose to do that. You are naive if you think there are not.
Honestly, if we do not control spending, and we give more and more entitlements and extend those entitlements higher and higher up the income level...can you not see the vicious circle? Are we going to extend it in another 5 years for families of 4 who make $120,000 a year because we have taxed everyone so much that now THEY can't afford to insure their children? Come on! Why not prioritize? Take all the money earmarked for social programs, put insuring children at the top, insure all the children if that is what the american people think is most important, and whatever is left, dole out to the remaining programs. Try prioritizing instead of more programs, more taxes, more programs, more taxes. I personally think that 35-40% in taxes off the top of our incomes is ENOUGH.
Stimulating Illegals
Investor's Business Daily 03/12/09
Economy: At least 300,000 of those stimulus jobs will go to illegal aliens who are likely to send that money home to their native countries. Just whose economy are we stimulating?
The stimulus package is supposed to stimulate the American economy and create American jobs, but missing from it are measures to guarantee that. As a result, say both the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Immigration Studies, hundreds of thousands of these jobs will go to illegal aliens, and much of the money they earn will not be spent here.
The original House version included a provision requiring employers to check registration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. This provision was missing from the Senate bill and was not in the final version sent to President Obama.
The Obama administration has also delayed at least until May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify. It was supposed to take effect in January.
Last Tuesday, 75 representatives of both parties sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner urging them "to protect taxpayers and legal workers by including these critical jobs protection provisions in any future economic recovery legislation."
In a February report by the Heritage Foundation, senior research fellow Robert Rector looked at the 2 million construction jobs the stimulus is supposed to create. "Without specific mechanisms to ensure that workers are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work," he concluded, "it is likely that 15% of these workers, or 300,000, would be illegal immigrants."
Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, comes up with the same figure for construction jobs based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and other independent findings that 15% of all construction workers in the U.S. are illegal aliens.
Camarota says the total number of stimulus jobs going to illegals may be higher. At least a million more jobs are said to be created by the stimulus, and with 5% of the overall U.S. work force consisting of illegals, they could get another 50,000 non-construction jobs.
Rector sees another downside. "The fact that illegal aliens send a substantial portion of their earnings abroad reduces the stimulus effect that their employment has in the United States," he says.
Remittances, Mexico's second-largest source of foreign income after oil, dipped 3.6% to $25 billion in 2008, compared with $26 billion the previous year, according to Mexico's central bank. Will our stimulus improve Mexico's economy?
"It's outrageous that in a bill designed to provide employment for Americans, Congress has deliberately chosen to allow jobs to be given to illegal immigrants," Rector adds.
We think so too.
He wants amnesty for illegals. How is that
How is amnesty for illegals GOOD for Americans? It's NOT! Cut off the ability for them to work here. Every time they are picked up by police, ship them home. Secure the border. Compared to all the spending Obama wants to do, these are CHEAP solutions that will free up jobs for hard-working Americans. Not great jobs, no, but jobs that can help make ends meet in hard times! Jobs for the ones first laid off! Spending money on "good" causes is not what is needed during a crisis like this. Saving money and very careful spending that promotes private enterprise and hiring are what will rescue us.
I completely disagree with the Republicans who stopped the 95% taxing of the bonuses to AIG employees. That was one obviously smart thing the Dems were trying to do, and I'm furious the Reps stopped it.
I've been sending faxes to my reps on these important issues. You can too, through the Numbers USA website. Let our elected leaders know we aren't falling for their propaganda, and we know there are smarter, cheaper solutions to our country's problems. www.numbersusa.com/
Amnesty for illegals
I am amazed nearly everyday with the idiotic things that come from our government. This one about made me spit out my beverage when I heard it. Amnesty for illegals is a horribly bad idea. What message does that send to the ones who are trying to become citizens the right way. This also sends a message for more and more illegals to come our way. This is an outrage. Absolutely ridiculous! We spend billions of dollars on illegals the way that it is.
This wouldn't have anything to do with Obama's aunt or anything.....now would it? Or maybe this is just his ploy to get more votes by turning them into legal citizens. Either way.....it is an ignorant thing to do. This is one area I truly 100% disagreed with McCain on. He wanted amnesty too.
BAD IDEA!!!
My biggest concern is how many illegals are
+
1 MILLION ILLEGALS have mortgages!!
nm
This thread is about bailing out illegals,
but I don't agree with bailing out the banks and CEOs either.
Illegals voting???? One word ACORN. nm
nm
I want secure borders to keep out terrorists and illegals...
Having lived in a border state and, now, even further north, it is evident that illegal immigrants are taking over our country. We are in a financial crisis and yet, much of a social service money goes to those who do not even pay taxes on the money they earn. They sure as heck spend our taxes, though. I am not against immigrants, just those who do not do it legally. There are certain hoops that need to be jumped through and, I bleieve, are well worth it to live in this great country.
By law he can detain illegals......unfoturtunately our laws
nm
And yet MILLIONS of illegals are taking jobs in this
nm
we'd be better off without illegals..he deserves a commendation, not a civil suit...
++
heck I wouldn't mind giving illegals benefits if I could
and i'm nervous about my 3 month waiting period at my new job for health insurance!
That's right. He was paid but he
drove a used car and made about 10K a year. Apparently, he didn't do it for the money, so what's your point?
And those that do less, get paid less....
xx
And you really think HE paid for them?
Hate to break it to you hun, but in the end, we still paid for them. He works in the GOVERNMENT. Meaning he is paid with TAX dollars. OUR tax dollars.
They are running a campaign. Obviously, image is everything. Otherwise you all wouldn't be hating on the fact that John is an old man or that Sarah is a beauty pageant winner.
I'm so glad this is an important issue. If you want something donated to charity, contact O and tell him to sell his jet and give the money to hungry children.
Sheesh.
You PAID them? Gee, let's put you in DC
nm
No stress here. If anyone is getting paid here...
it would seem to be the dem attack machine. thanks for your concern tho.
She paid for the tanning bed herself...
not the taxpayers. Maybe we should go in all the gov mansions in the lower 48 and see who installed what. Sheesh! lol.
As to the rape kit thing...you act as if Wasilla, Alaska is the only city who did that. It is common practice in the lower 48 as well. That does not make it right, but it is not isolated to Sarah Palin. And it you look closer, the Wasilla Police Department AND the State police (not under her jurisdiction) were actually paying for the testing, and then passing the cost on to the patient, which prompted the STATE, because of the state troopers billing as well, to ban the practice. So if you are going to take Wasilla to task for it, add several towns in the lower 48 to the list.
Yes, and the devil will be paid. n/m
It's not about what she wears. It's about who paid
of the populist appeals to the no frills, no elites allowed "working folks" who they are trying to dupe into believing they give a rat's butt about. If they are so cavalier with their campaign contributions, no telling what they would be willing to do if they ever got their hands on taxpayer money.
I am not b*tching about how little MTs are paid....
and we the people DO pay for union contracts with higher prices on goods. Union dues DO NOT pay for their benefits. Employers DO, who pass that on to consumers. I know you know that.
You don't have to tell me about Sam. I grew up in Sam country. I know a few blue haired ladies who started in the first store built in my little town who are rich today because of the profit sharing.
Yes, I shop at Wal-Mart. As do many millions of Americans. And not all their products are cheap knock-offs.
Oh I see...doesn't matter who someone associates with or what he does, or what a union does illegal or not, as long as it benefits the union members. I can see why Obama is not a concern to you.
Wonder how much Google is getting paid
Now that Google is tracking your search of symptoms put in by those who think they might have flu, they will send that info to the government and let them know where flu outbreaks may be? Now, of course, there will be those that think that is wonderful but those of us who do understand our privacy should be a freedom in this country, we know this is an out and out invasion of our privacy. Google has no privacy safeguards in place, so if Google is giving the government information on things we google, as they already have, you still think your government is wonderful and looking out for you? Google should be ashamed.......they are selling us out. There will be more and more companies invading our privacy as the government invades more of our private lives and these companies do their bidding.......
It probably will not be paid back.
Besides, we already owe China and now more? We still need to pay back the first debt. Looks like United States will be sold soon.
I think that if you truly paid attention
to the complaints on this board, you would realize that what we are complaining about is not the fact that our money is going to government programs to help people who need it. Most of us are upset because these government programs are being abused and misused by dishonest people who would much rather not work and be lazy just to receive government assistance. I have no problem helping people who need it. I think Clinton did a good thing by reforming welfare and I think it is a shame that Obama is undoing that. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up.....not a hand out.
Not wanting to help people in need is not the issue here and I wish that you guys could understand that. We aren't being heartless here. We are just sick and tired of people mooching off of the government when they could work and make a living for themselves.
If the dishonest people who are abusing the system could be taken out of the welfare equation, just think of the extra money we would have to really help those in need. Think about it.
Maybe if they ALL paid their taxes....
instead of hiding money in their freezers, offshore accounts and various tax shelters.......THEY ARE ALL GUILTY IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
It is probably not an MT and a paid blogger. sm
They are on all the political boards. The first hint was CV. You brought up some topics that are a no-no. I know it is hard, but try to ignore and not respond to posts attacking you. People need to question. I hope people do their research and there is some discussion on these topics. It is crucial that everyone understand the monetary system.
He was paid, the firm wasn't. SM
Either way, he could have said no and he didn't. Mind you, I have a limitation on what I think gay rights should extend to, but I won't go into that here because I will get slaughtered.
He paid with his own earnings? Oh how awful.
And what was your point? Wouldn't you tend to trust a candidate more who paid for his campaign with his own money, rather than taking bribes from special interests that he has to pay back later by stealing more freedom and cash from you?
And if your point was that his take on the case was so high that he could finance a whole campaign with it, again, so? - A jury of your peers made that award and likely you would have too had you been on the jury and had a chance to hear the facts. If he had been representing you in a case in which your child was disemboweled by a defective piece of equipment which the manufacturers knew full well tended to disembowel children but they sold it to you anyway, would you think the jury awarded too much or the lawyer might get paid too much?
Or instead of actually thinking about the need to have lawyers represent people who have been egregiously harmed by incompetent and negligent companies, and the need to have juries hear the facts and make appropriate awards when justified, is it just easier to nod at the bullcrap propaganda which says you don't NEED to be protected because look how much money the lawyer makes?
When it's your turn you're going to want that lawyer and you're going to want that jury to hear your story. So what is the problem you have with holding villains accountable and seeing other people get the settlements they deserve?
Yeah, I forgot, he never paid
*No child left behind* either....remember that...Yeah, silly me, he would never do that. My sincere apologies....javascript:editor_insertHTML('text',' ');
javascript:editor_insertHTML('text','');
again...as usual...paid no attention...
The taking one more shot post appeared LONG before your cease fire....you just had not seen it yet. But it would not have mattered. I didn't read this latest diatribe...too tired and really don't give a darn. And I will give you a clue dear, one of those 4-letter words...I did not say the GOP then does not resemble the GOP now....in fact I agree whole-heartedly. The GOP has turned into Democrat lite. Which is why I don't belong to the grand old party anymore. Only register as Repub in primary years because if I didn't, I couldn't vote, and I want to have a say, no matter how small. You should really ask questions before you jump off the deep end...but you don't care, because you are always right, aren't you? Speaking from that high horse of moral authority. You must have the word "bigot" in your shortcuts, you sure invoke it enough. LOL. Really too bad that just you typing it here doesn't make it true....or maybe it is, the gospel according to Globetrotter....LOL geezzz.
If we were being paid bloated wages, maybe, but
if they want to go any lower than they already have gone (I had a truly insulting offer a few weeks back of 0.0625 cpl with 30 years experience), I say let India have it. MTSOs need to be going in the opposite direction and MTs might want to look into unionization themselves. Peronally, I think we are also worth $28/hr and do not consider that to be an exorbitant for MTs or for auto workers, given the COL. JMHO.
I paid attention and I ain't even republican
Now that your hope for racist remarks have no doubt been proven unfounded, you gotta start grasping at anything you can find, because those "racial" remarks were really all the democrats had going for them. Those mean 'ole republicans.
Are you really so racist that you don't think a black man may actually like McCain instead of Obama? Are you that deluded in your thoughts?
I have several black neighbors and they have made it quite clear they will never vote for Obama. They work their butts off and don't believe anyone has the right to their money!
I don't care where they came from, as long as he paid for them - nm
x
If she paid a lot of money for the B-52's hair
.
Palin's stylist paid twice as much as
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=9234675&nav=HMO6HMaY
they went out to people who paid taxes, too.
x
on-call is paid time
you do realize they would be paid to be on call. So they could be on call at home or on call at the facility. they would be paid either way. Are you familiar with on-call pay?
union people will still get paid for doing nothing.
Apparently you have paid NO attention.
This talk about NWO has been out there since Bush 41, almost two decades. Where have you been? But if it makes you feel better to blame Obama, have at it.
This election was bought and paid for by
P.S. We paid off our mortage last year
and DH's truck is free and clear also. It took us 15 years to pay the mortage and 4 years for the truck. If we want something, it will be in cash. We bought and paid for our cars and pickup truck with cash. We haven't had car payments since I was stupid enough to buy a brand new car back in 1985. If we can't afford a car with cash, we would wait. We're waiting now. I would love to have a newer car and DH really should have a newer truck because it's part of his business, but that's not in the cards. Maybe next year (saying this for 3 years now).
Maybe if the O appointees paid their taxes.....sm.
This is from the Washington Post. The name of the article is titled: Federal Insider: Staffing Shortage Hinders Treasury's Progressţ
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030902807.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Most beneficiaries draw out FAR more than they ever paid in.
I don't have time to hunt down the information, but I've heard for many years, from many different sources, that the average beneficiary collects every cent they ever paid into the system within something like 5 years, and every penny paid after that is a freebie from you and me, the folks currently paying into the system. Frankly, it's one great big inter-generational pyramid scheme.
In fact, when the retirement age was originally set at 65, way back when, the average life expectancy was UNDER that by a few years, so the system was designed for people NOT to collect from it.
My mother retired at 65, and she's going to be 88 next week. So that's something like 18 years the rest of us have supported her. She might also be getting some sort of widow's benefits; not sure about that, but if my dad were still alive, he'd be 96 (he died 15 years ago), and anything he paid into the system would have been paid out LONG before he died.
So, do I want to take away people's benefits, even if they're getting a freebie? No, of course not. They were promised this, and they're getting it, albeit at our expense. What I would like is for the rest of us to be given a choice to opt out, either entirely or for at least a percentage, because at this rate, my money would do better for me stuffed under the mattress than entrusted to the greedy hands of the politicians in Washington.
(And no, I don't stash cash in my mattress, so don't be coming over here to hunt for it! I'll sicc my psychotic killer gecko on you!)
I paid attention during history lessons. sm
El Duce and Fat Moose were Mussolini's nicknames. I would love to discuss the facts, not debate (argue) political viewpoints because it distracts everyone away from reality and the facts. That is precisely what they want us all do.
|
