It does affect your paycheck...
Posted By: Kendra on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: CA - katydid
Gays marrying gives them the same benefits and tax breaks as married couples. That means they can be insured through each other's workplace at the subsidized rates, which of course will affect how much employers subsidize you insurance. It also gives them married tax breaks and social security status. So, gay marriage does inadvertently affect your paycheck in a roundabout way.
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
If you want to just hand your paycheck to the govt.
Then by all means...support government funded healthcare! Nothing is free, and personally I would like the discretion on when and where to by my health ins. This country...or should I say it's people cannot afford healthcare for everyone. Look at Canada and look at the U.K. Their socialized healthcare stinks. People are dying waiting to get treatment. Besides, if we go to socialized healthcare then where are the Canadians and British going to come for quality health care like they are doing now? Do you know that if you have advanced stages of any diseases in these countries that the governments are starting to deny care to them? You don't get a choice. The government decides that you die! Pretty sad if you ask me.
"What's good enough for congress is good enough for me?"
Hardly....
We can and do affect this planet.
While I agree that we can't exactly know how much we have to do with changing cycles on the planet, there is simply NO doubt that we have had a profound impact upon it. Even when I was a kid there were springs we could drink from and rivers we could swim in without fear of chemical burns. The fields were loaded with turtles and other creatures, every pond and creek was alive wtih frogs and tadpoles and fish. Ask your grandparents what they remember the countryside being like before the supreme arrogance of corporate policy poisoned every water source we have. There was a time that tuna fish didn't have mercury in it. On and on. Don't dismiss the concern many have over the impact we DO have on our planet as arrogance - we are certainly having a BAD BAD impact globally.
And true, not just us. However, America along with other industrialized nations and bankers is certainly complicit in the globalization movement (i.e., move into other lands, usurp the resouces from the native people, give them toxic sludge for their crops as a sort of side joke, suck out all their groundwater, make the corporations richer). We certainly don't stand against it politically or financially.
While the planet may survive the sweeping changes its most prolific environment-altering parasites inflict upon it, we probably will not. Just look at Mars if you don't think a planet can die. Regardless of why, it's certainly dead enough. So are we going to wait to be shaken off like pesky fleas - or are we going to make some effort to SUSTAIN our world and keep it in balance rather than continuously insulting it to the point where we DESERVE to be exterminated? Some of us don't have a deep-seated death wish. Some of us don't think money is more important than good living. Some of us are actually fond of this planet. Excuse US for thinking of it that way.
So how would this plan affect you?
If it doesn't apply to you, then nothing about your mortgage would change. How is that unfair to you? Would it be more fair to charge the taxpayers, including you, whether in you're arrears or not or owning a mortgage or not, the $700 billion dollars?
I don't get what about this is upsetting to you. You already have a better rate and your credit must be great. Any resolution to this problem should not result in someone making out better than before the problem started.
How does this affect me personally?
AIG is losing more and more money every day... we all know that. My story is that my BF is on Worker's Comp for an injury. He will never be back to what he was, but is as good as he is going to get until he can have a knee replacement, which they will not because of his young age. So we are thinking it is time to settle with the insurance company - who is backed by AIG...
They are already offering us a lot less than what we expected because they say they don't have money to give, but what happens if we hold out and then the company goes belly up? Do we just lose out completely then?
Can WC go belly up? I mean, is it backed by the government since it is mandated by the government and he will keep getting his benefits if he does not settle or are we looking at maybe losing even his weekly check and medical benefits and so we need to take what we can get while we can? 
This plan is not going to affect this debt
growth rate at all, it will continue to grow on a daily basis. This stimulus package will just be added to the total debt. And, actually we do NOT KNOW THAT THIS MONEY WILL BENEFIT people. At this point, we can only pray that it will, we have no other choice. Time will tell.
Listen, this IS going to affect us, too. Watch as the...sm
tax rates are raised by end of the year that will affect all paying taxpayers on next year's returns! Unfortunately we are ALL going to feel this, in spite of that "generous" $13.00 that we will supposedly see on our checks.
Well, then you're lucky! Maybe it doesn't affect
nm
Roberts: Iraq Will Affect Future War Votes
Fool me once, shame on you....etc.
I feel better knowing Congress is smart enough to not believe BU_ _ SH _ _ twice from this farce of a president.
Roberts: Iraq Will Affect Future War Votes
Experience With Faulty Data Has Made Senators More Wary, Panel Chairman Says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 14, 2005; A04
The Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said yesterday that one lesson of the faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq is that senators would take a hard look at intelligence before voting to go to war.
I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action, Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) said on Fox News Sunday.
We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore, he added. We get into preemptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets.
He said that agreement has been reached on the Phase 2 review that the intelligence panel is doing to look into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused prewar intelligence. The review may not be finished this year, he said.
The intelligence panel vice chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), also appearing on Fox, called the review absolutely useful because if it is the fact that they [the Bush administration] created intelligence or shaped intelligence in order to bring American opinion along to support them in going to war, that's a really bad thing -- it should not ever be repeated.
Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said the White House is supporting the study, adding: I think that what you're going to find is that the statements by the administration had backing at the time from accepted intelligence sources.
He said that when administration statements turned out to be wrong, that was because the underlying intelligence was not true, but that's not the same as manipulating intelligence, and that is not misleading the American people.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), appearing with Roberts on Late Edition, said that Iraq became the center of terrorism after the March 2003 invasion.
I'm afraid we're going to see Iraq is not only the center of the war on terror, which it was not before we attacked Iraq, but now it is going to, I'm afraid, export it.
He added that Iraq has become the heartland of terrorism. It was not before we attacked.
Levin, a member of both the Senate intelligence committee and Armed Services Committee, has been a leading critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war.
Levin also said that the United States must get allies, as many as we can, including in the Muslim world because this is a form of fanatic Islam which has to be defeated by the moderate Islamic people.
In a column in yesterday's Washington Post, former senator John Edwards (N.C.), the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, said the failures of the Bush administration turned Iraq into a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists [and] has made fighting the global war on terrorist organizations more difficult rather than less.
The president and his senior aides have said since before the invasion that Washington went to war primarily because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States and its neighbors because of his connection to terrorists. Once fighting began, they argued that Iraq was the central front in the battle against terrorism.
In his Veterans Day speech on Friday, the president turned his original argument around, saying, The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity, and therefore, We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists.
I don't see how it can affect her ability to read questions and sit and listen to answers - nm
x
G. Gordon Liddy says he hopes Sotomayor menstruation doesn't affect judgment
A major conservative radio host, G. Gordon Liddy, attacked President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Thursday in perhaps one of the most grotesque politically-oriented tirades in recent times.
"Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate," Liddy said. "That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."
Liddy is no stranger to controversy -- in fact, he spent four years in jail for his role in the Nixon-era Watergate burglaries. His radio show is syndicated in 160 markets and on the Sirius Radio network.
Liddy also attacked Sotomayor for her affiliation with LA Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group (which was also maligned Thursday by former GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo, who called it the Latino KKK). Liddy referred to the Spanish language as "illegal alien."
"I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, 'the race,'" Liddy quipped. "And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments."
"And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote," Liddy added later. "And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body."
The comments were noted by the blog ThinkProgress. Audio of Liddy's comments follow.
The following audio is The G. Gordon Liddy Show , broadcast on May 28, 2009.
|
