Obama extends Federal Employee benefits;Same Sex Partners [Archive]

FUTURESTRADER

06-17-2009, 06:48 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/16/2009-06-16_president_obama_extends_federal_employee_benefi ts_to_samesex_partners.html

Obama to extend federal employee benefits to same-sex partners

I'd say my thoughts on this are hugely drawn from my recent research into the Chippewa Indians (as the government named them).

The point is - the more deeply you research into another culture that may be wholly different from anything you've ever known or experienced - if you honestly strive to gain knowledge in order to gain a deeper appreciation and understanding - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to not deeply admire the customs and the way of life which dominated the Chippewa Indians.

I realize the Native Americans (and the Chippewa) have nothing to do with Federal Employee benefits extended to same sex partners. If in any manner whatsoever - I offend anyone in this analogy I deeply appologize.

I only bring this up to stress that although my wiring and my way of life my not be in harmony with someone elses wiring and manner of life - it certainly does not mean that my way is the only way and that what I hold to is in itself more superior or right.

I am increasingly realizing that the Cheppewa lived in a manner far superior to anything I've known. Undoubtedly they were regarded as savages and essentially as inferior and unknowing. So with this in mind I will strive to be more open minded and accepting of other beliefs and ways of life that are different from my own. Only in this manner can I maintain a peace - and not allow negative thoughts grounded in prejudism and judgemental aspects to become pieces of garbage cluttering my life.

I guess, what everyone has to ask themselves is, are same sex partnerships (recognized marriages) good for the future of humanity? The children of such relationships?

Viva La Migra

06-17-2009, 06:50 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/16/2009-06-16_president_obama_extends_federal_employee_benefi ts_to_samesex_partners.html

Obama to extend federal employee benefits to same-sex partners

I'm okay with this. In California, gay domestic partners have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples, so this follows that same pattern.

Steadygain

06-17-2009, 07:14 PM

I guess, what everyone has to ask themselves is, are same sex partnerships (recognized marriages) good for the future of humanity? The children of such relationships?

Thanks so much for your response. :)

The only way anyone can answer the question - are same sex marriages good for the future of humanity - is largely grounded in the belief systems and environment they grew up in.

I grew up in an environment where the gay were despised. We pretty much knew them (and referred to them) as queers and fags. I can pretty much say that none of them hung around any of my circle. Compound this with me being deeply grounded in a Religion that viewed this as an abomination - and therefore we all the more felt we had God's backing to treat them and regard them as dirt.

So perhaps the best question is - as an individual do we promote humanity (and the future of humanity) - by holding to such rigid and dogmatic convictions - that we refuse to even remotely accept someone else who may deviate from our own beliefs; or would humanity honestly be better off if we tried to break from our deep grounding and strived to accept others for who they are.

In general - as an across the board thought - that is striving to be free of prejudicism and insisting on 'our way as the only way' I would say humanity is better off striving for love and acceptance.

FOR the children of such relationships - once again if we view this question across the board assuming that homosexuals have an equal capacity to provide love, nurishment, stimulation as heterosexuals - the question would more appropriately be: Are children better off without the love, nurishment, and stimulation (security I call it) from a couple working harmoniously together to provide this support. Or are they better off being shuffled to foster care; state and government homes; on the streets and so forth.

Silverbird

06-17-2009, 07:52 PM

Plenty of kids up for adoption...and not all hetrosexual marriages result in children either - we are not going to tell people not to marry after they are 50 just because of the "can't have children" issue. I'm more worried about kids not getting taken care of rather than how many are beget and who's bringing them up.

CountryBoy

06-17-2009, 08:17 PM

My question is not about the extension of benefits, but more of a question of where is it going to end. bHo reminds me a little child in a toy or candy store and wants everything, but unfortunately there are not any responsible parents around to say no, we can't afford it. How are we going to afford it? By raising taxes on every productive person in this country and tax about everything he can get away with, while we just kick the "future generation hyper inflation" can down the street.

It just seems like everyday, more billions and trillions of dollars are promised for someone or something. I was brought up that you can't have everything, but this country is being run, including Congress, by a bunch of irresponsible children and us, the public, are being failures as parents by not saying no, enough is enough, instead we're saying give me, give me, give me. :( With no end in sight.

A productive and vibrant society needs an equally productive and vibrant middle class to be anything more than a ho hum country, that just survives, but I don't see how we can continue without taxing the heck outta the middle class, thus reducing us to a plodding, dullard country, just waiting for the next check for Uncle Sugar.

I'm just at a loss on how we realistically expect to pay for everything, unless we accept the fact that future generations will foot the bill and we'll be living under a heavy tax load.:confused: I'm afraid we're going to see the end of the American dream, because we'll have to work until we die, just to maintain a basic lifestyle.

CB

The HalfBreed

06-17-2009, 09:27 PM

...... be more open minded and accepting of other beliefs and ways of life that are different from my own. Only in this manner can I maintain a peace - and not allow negative thoughts grounded in prejudism and judgemental aspects to become pieces of garbage cluttering my life.

Well said !

I have to admit it though.....there are those who Knowingly and Willfully keep and embrace Prejudice and Judgmental perspectives just so they CAN continue to collect pieces of garbage cluttering their lives. They Live for it.

For them, I feel sorry, because their tiny world get's smaller by the day.

Steadygain

06-17-2009, 11:09 PM

kids for adoption.

Well put !!! I wholeheartedly agree

going to end.

There is NO END in sight. Let's forget bHo altogether and simply putting a 'BLANK' in the presidential spot - and see what anyone would have had to deal with had they been in the exact same circumstances.

Let's take things one by one.

He comes in during the worst global economic crisis of our lifespan. The FED rate is already 0 and 'bailouts' had been a long standing issue.

In light of the Ongoing attempts to 'patch over' the long standing engine which controls the Economy - HE HAD NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE THE ONGOING GAME OF PLEASING THE BANKS and spurring the economy with a huge Stimulus Plan. It was too late to let everything fall after trillions of dollars were already spent to repair them.

He did not bail the Auto Industries - but forced them to seriously deal with the problem. He is going after the credit card companies. He immediately put a HUGE cap of the execs pay. He is looking for ways to make the excessively RICH pay their fair share. Given his circumstances and what we know his administration has actively been doing - there is no way anyone could say he's ignoring the problem or dealing with it lightly.

The USA has a long standing war with Iraq (OIL and not TERROR). We 'the good guys' have been actively engaged in torturing along with other things over the years.

He responds by immediately enacting 'No more terror' it is now against the law - it is wrong and not what our country or our people represent. Says close down the Cuban Torture Camp.

Makes it known that the Iraq War needs to come to a close and makes many strides towards this endeavor. Makes it clear there really is 'a war on Terror' we need to address. Goes to Mid East Countries and works with THEIR PEOPLE - and now and over the recent past THEIR PEOPLE have been going after the real terrorists.

Have you heard about another ship taken by the Pirates lately??

So as bad as things continue to be - we can't deny the legitimate efforts of his administration to deal with huge ongoing problems. The Department of Justice was also dealth with - and not wisked under the carpet - now that is huge to me.

So not to cause problems CB - my brother and friend - but the greatest and most substantial costs were largely unavoidable and it would have been FAR MORE COSTLY - to not insist on the Auto Industry doing their part to correct the problems; To let the USA continue as 'the ultimate Terrorist Nation' - to not strive to work in harmony with the Powers in charge of the countries where Terrorists groups are active and thriving - to not spur economic growth and doing everything possible to foster US products while at the same time striving to create better relationships on a global scale.

I think the greatest difference between me and you is simply the fact that I do not give bHo the credit for the overwhelming disaster we as a country - and as planet - have become.

WHEN IS IT GOING TO END? - It will take many years to break from the design which solidly shapes our world and the economy that largely controls it. It can not possible end as long as the machinery remains unchanged ... as long as children are hugely taken as slaves for endless work... as long as women continue to be reduced to the lowest measure ... as long as slavery in general remains at its highest level in history.... as long as Christians are tortured and killed at the highest level in history... as long as 'the System' keeps the Minorities and Blacks towards the bottom and all the other things which dominate our world continue to prevail.

afford it?

The same way as over the years. We will borrow more and more because 'we' have absolutely nothing to spend.

"future generation"

In comparison to future generations 'we' have lived high on the hog and no other generation could have had it any better.

I totally - completely agree with your assessment and what lies ahead but it is not bHo who is to blame - he's simply a politician that got thrown in the saddle. To the largest degree he is simply dealing with the 'EXPENSES of the past administration' - but this has been ongoing for decades.

more dollars promised

Politics my friend :D - it's worked that way for years. IN FACT that was to a large degee why I even started this thread. You see this change was enacted because he got a stinging response from the gay community and this was largely enacted to appease them.

Where my comments were genuine and true (as were yours) - we want the world to be a better place and the only way that can happen is by a unified effort to bring about changes for the betterment of the whole population. However - this would have to be done in a well thought out manner and not by simply giving everyone everything. But only in this one particular aspect do I now see 'us' advancing in the right direction. IMHO - and I stress the H; the gay community should not have to demand equal rights if they are living their lives essentially as 'heterosexuals'; but I would certainly say this for women and minorities as well.

I was brought up ...

This is probably the most accurate description of what 'we' have become - but it's not bHo that made this happen. My parents and yours came from the Great Depression and did with little to nothing so that 'we' would have it all. Then we grow up in the best of circumstances especially the 'Baby Boomers' - but the next generation were the 'GIVE ME EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING' population which has come to shape our world. They say I'll work if I feel like it - otherwise screw you. CB - buddy - you and I could go on and on about this garbage - but my friend it ain't bHo who brought this into being - this is the population he's having to deal with.

A productive and vibrant society.

I think you're right only to extend by which we've known the world so far - but here you are thinking only of the USA and have to ignore the rest of the world. I think a productive and vibrant society can not exist in a Class 0 Civilization - and the only way we can possibly achieve that goal is by working in harmony with one another - all nations working together in an effort for the whole.

We are mainly screwed up because of the huge and endless friction and divisions between so many within our own country - let alone the even bigger divisions between us and other countries. So if a vibrant and productive society is to ever be sustained it would be far easier to accomplish with nations working together. The Sun is more than capable of providing the energy needs for everyone on our planet - we do not have to depend on Oil and Coal - but as a civilization we are barely coming out of the dark ages.

future generations will foot the bill

CB - 'We' the 'Responsible' have been saying this at least since Nixon (if not before). No one could possibly argue this point BUT 'we' have continued on and on as though this REALITY does not exist and it does not exist 'until it becomes painful'.

We have long hoped we could delay the worst of the pain for a future generation - but in all liklihood we are finding the inevitale can no longer be prolonged. I suspect 'we' are in for incredibly hard times because the underlying machinery and circumstances have not changed for the better. $ 10 Trillion and counting.

Yet somehow - in someway - you and I continue to live in a dream world with a nice home; plenty of food - money to spare.

I'm afraid we're going to see the end of the American dream, because we'll have to work until we die, just to maintain a basic lifestyle.

CB

I am afraid that DREAM has already ended for Millions and many more will suffer a worse fate before the comfortable few get taxed to death.

This is why Lady posted the 40 some % charge by the credit card companies. They know she can afford it - and by golly if by some chance of fate she can't afford it - they won't hesitate to take a lot more. Look at everything right now CB - the majority have been hit hard and the Federal Employees have largely been sheltered. Many are working without benefits. If you are not living 'to survive' at this moment - you are very fortunate.

This is why a broader understanding - and acceptance - is so important - NOW MORE THAN EVER. This is why we can no longer simply blame 'the President' (whoever that may be) - but as a whole we need to come together and demand that the Political Structures do make changes which represent the best interests of the population. But how can we achieve this goal if Iran ignores the population and rigs the election. How can we achieve this goal when LAW dictates that women will not be given an opportunity for education and 'sex on demand' ... and it goes on and on.

Later my friend - hopefully hashing our thoughts can at least help us as individuals to have a better life .

Steadygain

06-17-2009, 11:29 PM

Thanks Halfbreed

On the previous post - first time here - but many times in the past with the PM world :embarrest:

anyway it said the message was too long and I had to reduce it by well over 1,000 charaters.

So had to chop CB's post to nothing - and reduce what I wanted to say.

For anyone interested --- you have to see what CB said to understand my responses.

Well good night all - it took longer to chop it down to POST than to write the initial response :(

But it's cool - so PEACE AND LOVE - we'll end on a good note

James48843

06-18-2009, 12:09 AM

Here's my issue.

Personally, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been, always will be. That's me.

I harbor no ill will towards what anyone else wants to do in private. That's up to them, not me.

But, when you put "marriage" out on the table for discussion, the center of the discussion seems to be, like this thread started- the BENEFITS associated with that status.

So, here is a good reason for single-payer health care....

---With a national health care system, with EVERYONE covered, "marriage" isn't a tool to get or withhold benefits. That knocks that argument out of the deal.

So, clearly, logic tells you that everyone who is AGAINST gay marriage, should be FOR national health care.

(That will have them spinning around, no? :D)

James48843

06-18-2009, 12:13 AM

hessian

06-18-2009, 12:39 AM

Hey James,
I agree. I think its a matter of just cherry-picking.
What flavor do they decide they'd enjoy today. :suspicious:
(What did happen to our "Rule-of-Law.")
VR

KevinD

06-18-2009, 02:21 AM

alevin

06-18-2009, 02:38 AM

When more and more people started inter-faith marrying and couldn't agree whether to hold ceremony at synagogue or at church? when divorced people wanted to remarry and church position was uh-uh? when more and more people began to leave organized religion and still wanted to get married w/o being hypocrites (avoid getting married by rep of organized religion)? Just guessing-no real clue.

ChemEng

06-18-2009, 03:18 AM

It's about time.

XL-entLady

06-18-2009, 03:58 AM

Tax code - Married filing joint, spousal and dependant exemptions, spousal IRA's if only one income, I'm sure there are more.

Survivor benefit from a pension, inheritance of an estate, custody of a biological or adopted child and on and on and on...

It ain't just health care.

Taxes, fees, revenue, money, control, authority, jurisdiction, regulation, rule...GOVERNMENT!
Recognizing that we are straying from the stated title of this thread, I would still like to share one story. I have a cousin who was in a committed relationship with her partner for many years and they also adopted a little girl together. My cousin's partner worked and my cousin quit her job to become the primary caregiver and homemaker. When their little girl was twelve years old and my cousin was in her late forties, the partner died. My cousin and her child had no more health insurance and no claim on the partner's pension. And the partner's family, who thought their committed relationship of almost three decades was an abomination, swooped down and made off with everything that could remotely be the partner's property.

My cousin once told me that people who think she chose her sexual orientation probably also think she chooses to hit her hand with a hammer too. I think she meant that nobody would purposely choose something that caused so many problems for her so often.

Lady

alevin

06-18-2009, 04:11 AM

Tax code - Married filing joint, spousal and dependant exemptions, spousal IRA's if only one income, I'm sure there are more.

Survivor benefit from a pension, inheritance of an estate, custody of a biological or adopted child and on and on and on...

It ain't just health care.

Taxes, fees, revenue, money, control, authority, jurisdiction, regulation, rule...GOVERNMENT!

Acshully, marriage has always been an economic institution (contract), as well as a cultural-religious institution. The aristocracy in Europe-the decisions were between families, not the couples, and typically based on economic-political-social advantage to one or both families. Marriage was the institution that formalized the contract between the families-ever heard of dowries? The peasants typically just lived together, they didn't have 2 pennies to rub together between the 2 of them. Read that in a book by Bishop John Shelby Spong some years ago-Episcopalian bishop. Some people might spit at his name-he's on the liberal side of theology but a pragmatist as well and he's given a lot of thought and study to these issues over his lifetime and worth reading for a different slant on such matters.

OBGibby

06-18-2009, 07:16 AM

President Obama's memorandum on this issue really only applies to the long term care insurance and the right to use sick leave to care for an ailing partner. Since the government does not pay any part of the premium for long term care insurance, there doesn't appear to be any cost to taxpayers. I suppose one could make an argument that leave somehow ultimately costs the government and ultimately the taxpayers some amount, but generally speaking I think most of us would agree that the leave issue is also another 'no cost' change.

In practical terms, I don't think much has really changed. My concern echoes other comments alluding to where this change may lead to down the road, in terms of social change. I have a sibling who is gay, and I must admit that I have not been able to come to a decision in my own mind on the issue of gay marriage. I tend to think traditional marriage between a man and a woman should be protected by excluding gay marriage; however, I also tend to believe that if two people love each other, let them live in peace. I am concerned about the children of same-sex couples, what negative effect it might have on them (if any) and what affect (if any) it will have on future generations of our society.

STEADYGAIN -

He is looking for ways to make the excessively RICH pay their fair share.

I hear this bandied about all the time. What exactly constitutes “excessively rich” and how much do they need to pay to equal “their fare share?”

We 'the good guys' have been actively engaged in torturing along with other things over the years... the Cuban Torture Camp.

I’m saddened you think of our country as active participants in administering torture “over the years.” Torture, in my opinion, is an extremely harsh term, and one that should not be thrown about loosely. Equating the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to a “torture camp” is reprehensible.

and now and over the recent past THEIR PEOPLE have been going after the real terrorists.

“Their people” have been going after the “real terrorists” (whatever that is supposed to mean), with the support and encouragement, and in some cases, as logical extensions of their own prerogatives, for several years, spanning several administrations. To think that the current president, by virtue of only his charisma, speech and ability to listen, has affected other countries’ stance and practice in the War on Terror (sorry, just can’t bring myself to calling it Overseas Contingency Operations, which is apparently favored by the current administration), is ridicules. While that notion plays well in the press, and the administration would love to lay sole claim to it, where the rubber meets the road, as they say, it doesn’t hold water.

Have you heard about another ship taken by the Pirates lately??

Piracy attacks continue to happen every day. An appearance of a decline in pirate attacks is most likely attributable to the absence of any U.S. flagged vessels being seized by pirates. Until the seizure of the Maersk Alabama a few months ago, a U.S. flagged vessel had not suffered seizure by pirates in 200 years. That fueled the reporting and attention on the issue of piracy. The problem has not gone away.

The Department of Justice was also dealth with - and not wisked under the carpet - now that is huge to me.

No idea what this refers to, but the apparent pejorative nature is intriguing.

To let the USA continue as 'the ultimate Terrorist Nation'

Please tell me you don’t really subscribe to this nonsense.

as long as 'the System' keeps the Minorities and Blacks towards the bottom.

How exactly does “the System keep minorities and blacks towards the bottom?”

I totally - completely agree with your assessment and what lies ahead but it is not bHo who is to blame - he's simply a politician that got thrown in the saddle.

I thought he was going to bring “change we can believe in?”

To the largest degree he is simply dealing with the 'EXPENSES of the past administration' - but this has been ongoing for decades.

I guess if you call spending$1 trillion in his first few months of office “dealing with the expenses of the past administration” it makes sense.

Steadygain

06-18-2009, 12:52 PM

OBGibby - I'll get back to your stuff later; OK :)

I promise you I have more than enough facts to back anything I even remotely express and I assure you that your represented feelings (and mine) are way more in common than you realize.

BUT - we are finially getting into some excellent discussions and I'd like to expand on some of the other comments before I do anything else.

OBGibby

06-18-2009, 01:49 PM

Steadygain

06-18-2009, 02:36 PM

Here's my issue.

James,
First I want you to know that the last 'rating boost' you got was from me and I forgot to sign my name. I truely admire the way you have lived and the sincere convictions you have -- especially regarding the Life, Spirit, Power, and Strength of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Personally, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been, always will be. That's me.

Of course you believe this - for that represents the thorough grounding in which your life was developed and all the more the central solidification of holding to 'Biblical Principles'.

Understood my friend - have been in the exact same mold throughout the years and never wavered - not even remotely - until the very recent past.

I think to the largest degree that I grew up believing that all guys were wired and made like me - and that all girls were wired and made up like girls - it was either one or the other. Yet I knew nothing about the wiring and make up of either one on an extensive technical level at that time. But as a boy - I grew up with the mindset that boys were boys and girls were girls.

Anyone who came across as 'gay' - I wholly believed was simply playing a game; PURE AND SIMPLE it was a silly game that seemed fun and if it got a little out of hand the individual 'could kind of start enjoying the game' - BUT I HAD NO DOUBT THAT THEIR BASIC AND GENUINE WIRING AND ESTABLISHED MAKE UP remained like mine. So I did what I thought was the decent and respectable thing and immediately became their therapist. From my perspective all they needed was 'to snap out of it' - to 'snap out of the game' and they'd be OK. So I'd start by verbally insulting them - maybe even threaten them until I was convinced they knew 'This game is ridiculous and needs to end'. But even if they immediately threw their arms up 'as if to surrender' and expressed they were just kidding around. Usually they were physically beaten as well - because I wanted to make sure they learned their lesson. As bad as that sounds I was not the bully type of kid - was overall the most peaceful, loving guy you could imagine. But something like that I felt was out of place and most of the crowd I grew up with felt the same way.

We had no control over our grounding - and what became the center of our beliefs and the mindset that dominated our existence.

And ya know what James - I probably felt God was proud of me.

I have absolutely no problem with your personal beliefs as long as they reflect the true Spirit of what Christ represents - His 'unconditional love' - His never ceasing devotion to spread the love of God and bear the burdens of others. So at this point I would say 'FORGET THE MARRIAGE' and focus only on the people. Here you and I (and everyone else) need to accept the FACT that all boys are not wired the same; nor are all girls. We all have DISTINCT DIFFERENCES and I have no 'Spirit inspired basis to condem - reject - abuse - or abandon anyone because their make up caused them to be suspectable to having acne; because of their skin tone; because they are short, or because they are genuinely gay. Dealing wholly and completely with the individual - and their wiring and genetic structure - there is not one person who has any ground to condemn me or me them. I am what I am - wired like a man - heterosexual to the max - tall - white - and all the numerous kinks and flaws that are part of my brain and body are largely beyond my control.

BUT THE MOST CENTRAL POINT OF THIS THREAD - IS TO POINT OUT THAT OUR BELIEFS CONTROL HOW WE REGARD ONE ANOTHER. BUT WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CONTROL OUR BELIEFS AND THUS WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO GROW IN GENUINE LOVE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ACCEPTANCE OF ONE ANOTHER.

I fully admit my lack of understanding over the years - and the manner in which my rigid beliefs DID NOT ALLOW ME to threat a huge population as they deserved to be treated.

I harbor no ill will towards what anyone else wants to do in private. That's up to them, not me.

At this point in time - that's not enough. Do you harbor ill feelings because of their genuine and true wiring and make up? ONLY you know the real gut reaction and deep convictions regarding that question. If you are uncomfortable with a gay individual it is likely they will perceive it; do you extend genuine and true friendship and acceptance to them as 'people' or are they largely dismissed? It is not what 'they' do in private that is the issue here. The issue is: 'Are they genuinely homosexual' and if they are do they not deserve to be openly and genuinely accpected for who and what they are.

James (and everyone else) and James please know I am not picking on you I am in no way suggesting that we interact without restraints. We do not touch one another inappropriately and I am not in even the slightest degree saying that 'inappropriate touching' or whatever should remotely be involved with our interactions. That is NOT what they want and not what we want. But I do believe that the bulk of heterosexuals somehow feel that wholly accepting homosexuals in a loving and supportive manner 'means you have to let down your guard'. This is more a reflection of our distorted belief system.

Here let's pause for a moment and reflect on Lady's post on this thread. Then consider the 'Good Samaritan' by Jesus Himself. The Samaritans had everybit the 'bad stigma and karma' that any gay person today could have. Look at what happened and the characters involved in the story. 'WHAT WAS THE POINT OF HIS MESSAGE'

It is the exact same point that I'm trying to convey. So for now please forget 'MARRIAGE' and know it is only because of my rich and genuine desire to discover all I can about the Chippewa Indians that I am forced to recognize 'the lack of genuine love and acceptance' I have maintained by my lack of understanding. I see all the more how ignorance leds to hostility - negativity - bad karma - and these things are our greatest enemy because they are in reality the things that hold us back from demonstating the Love and Life of Christ.
But, when you put "marriage" out on the table for discussion, the center of the discussion seems to be, like this thread started- the BENEFITS associated with that status.

So, here is a good reason for single-payer health care....

---With a national health care system, with EVERYONE covered, "marriage" isn't a tool to get or withhold benefits. That knocks that argument out of the deal.

So, clearly, logic tells you that everyone who is AGAINST gay marriage, should be FOR national health care.

(That will have them spinning around, no? :D)

Side note-

I got thinking about this today.

The announcement about benefits extension for marriage-----

Now, I consider marriage a "religious" ceremony, tied to our cultural roots, rather than a "civil" ceremony. Again, that' just how I look at it.

So, how did we ever get in the position in our society where the GOVERNMENT issues "marriage licenses"?

Think about that for a minute.

Where did the separation of church and state fall apart, and the government step in and issue "marriage licenses"?

Anybody know?

I need to run - sorrry but it's a flood today and I want to at least get this out for you to reflect on.

Steadygain

06-18-2009, 05:29 PM

President Obama's memorandum on this issue really only applies to the long term care insurance and the right to use sick leave to care for an ailing partner.

Here let's not forget he is a President and this is largely 'politics' as usual. I believe his memorandum is mainly meant to foster 'a good communication' for general support - reputation ... and so forth - and all this is wholly geared for the 'gay community'

Regardless of his 'true motive' it gives us the opportunity to examine our belief system and how this shapes our conduct towards this population.

Since the government does not pay any part of the premium for long term care insurance, there doesn't appear to be any cost to taxpayers.

I would say that only 'a taxpayer' would qualify to pay for it.

I suppose one could make an argument that leave somehow ultimately costs the government and ultimately the taxpayers some amount, but generally speaking I think most of us would agree that the leave issue is also another 'no cost' change.

Wow - I hadn't really thought about any of this stuff. But knowing the expense of obtaining Long Term Care Insurance - I would absolutely beyond the shadow of any doubt guarantee you the Taxpayers in general would undoubtedly keep this 'Service' in operation.

In practical terms, I don't think much has really changed.

GOOD POINT !! It's basically political hogwash - meant to sound wonderful .... like these sweeping financial changes ;)

My concern echoes other comments alluding to where this change may lead to down the road, in terms of social change.

I wholly appreciate your apprehensions - but I believe to the largest degree your concerns (as well as the concerns of most) are misplaced by distorded beliefs and a genuine lack of rock bottom understanding.

In terms of Social Change - the gay community will no longer have to remain in the closet and maintain the 'stigma' the population at large places on them. The relationships like Lady described will be more openly welcomed and accepted - as our heterorelationships are. The greatest change by far will be the Heterosexuals acknowledging that they are just as 'SAFE' with them as with each other. That in REALITY the differences between us are a thousand billion times more in common than not in common. Ultimately it would result in a more hamonious relation that would be far better for the community at large.

I have a sibling who is gay, and I must admit that I have not been able to come to a decision in my own mind on the issue of gay marriage.

Thank you !! and I deeply appreciate that. I would say 'forget the marriage' and focus more on the individual and if your sibling has a significant other does that person foster love, harmony, support, understanding, encouragement, and bring your sibling to a higher quality of life. If he (or she does) then it is wholly based on THE BRAIN and the chemistry - energy - that has developed between them. This is equally true with any other 2 people regardless of who they are.

I tend to think traditional marriage between a man and a woman should be protected by excluding gay marriage; however, I also tend to believe that if two people love each other, let them live in peace.

I have felt the same way my entire life - exactly - and it's not that I'm pushing 'gay marriages' - it's simply the fact that I no longer see their harmonous and sustained relationships as A THREAT to my marriage or to any other heterosexual marriage. Somehow we are convinced this is the case - but our marriage remains unchanged. My endeavor to discover the brain - through and through - was met with equal hostility because everyone believed that my discoveries would THREATEN God's Sacred Secrets..

I am concerned about the children of same-sex couples, what negative effect it might have on them (if any) and what affect (if any) it will have on future generations of our society.

My message above equally addresses this.

Easy homework assignment - show how the recent Bush Administration created a $10 Trillion dollar DEBT to the USA. Then so we don't single him out - research the National Debt in general - when it started and how it's grown over the years.

Sorry - this is PART 1. My response was too long

Steadygain

06-18-2009, 06:02 PM

STEADYGAIN -

He is looking for ways to make the excessively RICH pay their fair share.

I hear this bandied about all the time. What exactly constitutes “excessively rich” and how much do they need to pay to equal “their fare share?”
Please know I'm not trying to be difficult here but I will largely respond as a teacher to his student. Do your homework - and find out after what amount of money are you essentially FREE OF TAXES regardless of how much you make. Anyone making over that amount is not paying their fair share. FAIR is paying tax on every dollar just like the 98%.

We 'the good guys' have been actively engaged in torturing along with other things over the years... the Cuban Torture Camp.

I’m saddened you think of our country as active participants in administering torture “over the years.” Torture, in my opinion, is an extremely harsh term, and one that should not be thrown about loosely. Equating the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to a “torture camp” is reprehensible. Thank you !! Thank you !!! Thank you for feeling this way. This is how you should feel and the way everyone else should feel. Guantanamo Bay is at best the tip of the iceberg and there is far worse than that. Homework assignment - be willing to honestly discover the truth by using 'reliable sources of information' and you will be shocked to the core.

and now and over the recent past THEIR PEOPLE have been going after the real terrorists.

“Their people” have been going after the “real terrorists” (whatever that is supposed to mean), with the support and encouragement, and in some cases, as logical extensions of their own prerogatives, for several years, spanning several administrations. To think that the current president, by virtue of only his charisma, speech and ability to listen, has affected other countries’ stance and practice in the War on Terror (sorry, just can’t bring myself to calling it Overseas Contingency Operations, which is apparently favored by the current administration), is ridicules. While that notion plays well in the press, and the administration would love to lay sole claim to it, where the rubber meets the road, as they say, it doesn’t hold water.
Excellent points and I commend you wholeheartedly as the 'MEDIA' largely shapes our understanding and beliefs regarding whatever is happening with Pakistan/and the 'Terrorist Group'
It has largely been reflected on both the National News and Public Broadcasting Networks about Obama's 'deeply enriching discussions with their Government Officials and how 'their own armies' have been aggressively 'smashing the Terrorists groups'. This was only highlighted after Obama intervened with them. I'm only presenting the facts - you determine what is true.

Have you heard about another ship taken by the Pirates lately??

Piracy attacks continue to happen every day. An appearance of a decline in pirate attacks is most likely attributable to the absence of any U.S. flagged vessels being seized by pirates. Until the seizure of the Maersk Alabama a few months ago, a U.S. flagged vessel had not suffered seizure by pirates in 200 years. That fueled the reporting and attention on the issue of piracy. The problem has not gone away.
Very Good and you get Extra Credit for that observation. My question was have you heard about it lately. If you go with the typical National News and stuff - what use to be 'huge news' has been absent. Gives the appearance things are better - a thing of the past.

The Department of Justice was also dealth with - and not wisked under the carpet - now that is huge to me.

No idea what this refers to, but the apparent pejorative nature is intriguing.Homework assignment - you can use Google and I guarantee it won't take anytime to find out. HINT: DOJ - does everything possible to wrongfully stack the cards against an 'innocent person'. We are talking majorly high level staff here. Welcome to America. ;).

Easy homework assignment

Part 2

Wow I have no idea how your writting turned out so small - on my sheet it was even ?????

Steadygain

06-18-2009, 06:09 PM

To let the USA continue as 'the ultimate Terrorist Nation'

Please tell me you don’t really subscribe to this nonsense.PLEASE be open minded and honestly research this matter using the most realiable sources possible. Begin with Iran and see how the CIA did things over there way before 1979. See how 2 Foreign Powers took control and to the largest degree held the entire population captive while taking their Oil.

See how the CIA staged the Pamama War - why they staged it and how it all played out. Look at the American Based Industies throughout the globe and see for yourself how the workers and population are forced to live outside of the USA but by their control.

Look more deeply into Sadden Hussein - the US support he got and how he was supplied with weapons to use aganst Iran - but guess what they supplied Iran as well.

See how the 'good guys' pushed Japan to where they essentially had no other choice but to attack and then how we responded. Take a much harder look at Vietnam - honestly go as deep as possible and see who started everything and how they were provoked to a point they had to respond. Tell me how many bombs were exploded for every enemy soldier who got killed.

Please DO NOT get me wrong. I am as American as you can get and I proved my loyality as much as anyone could ever prove it. Everything we do 'sounds good' because it sounds like we are always doing it in the name of Freedom - Honor - Dignity. We are always (and without exception) doing the 'Right Things' and trying to correct the Wrong.
You can't even remotely begin to know how much it has pained me to see things from the ENTIRE PERSPECTIVE and not the slanted and grossly limited views we were all forced to believe.

as long as 'the System' keeps the Minorities and Blacks towards the bottom.
How exactly does “the System keep minorities and blacks towards the bottom?”
Minorities do not have the equal access to success as the Majority. Blacks are dealing with a legal system largely established against them.

I totally - completely agree with your assessment and what lies ahead but it is not bHo who is to blame - he's simply a politician that got thrown in the saddle.

I thought he was going to bring “change we can believe in?”

Series of BIG GREEN SMILES - Did not show up

To the largest degree he is simply dealing with the 'EXPENSES of the past administration' - but this has been ongoing for decades.

I guess if you call spending$1 trillion in his first few months of office “dealing with the expenses of the past administration” it makes sense.

Easy homework assignment - show how the recent Bush Administration created a $10 Trillion dollar DEBT to the USA. Then so we don't single him out - research the National Debt in general - when it started and how it's grown over the years.

Steadygain

06-18-2009, 06:47 PM

Hey all ya lovely Butterflies and Squirels

Listen - my head is spinning from all the thoughts and having to deal with all the real life situations here as well.

Just want EVERYONE to know - I am not trying to get on anyone's nerves...

am honestly not trying to push any agenda....

and in no way think I'm going to revelultionize (sp) and change anyone's thinking simply by reading whatever thoughts randomly flow out....

I simply know as I honestly make every effort to understand a population I've never known before and I do this with the sincerest and most genuine effort to be a part of their community later on in life.....

that it forces me to acknowledge my 'unwillingness' to accept other populations - and when I really come to grips with this and realize IT IS ME and NOT THEM

I feel it's making me a better person

Viva La Migra

06-18-2009, 08:36 PM

Here's my issue...
But, when you put "marriage" out on the table for discussion, the center of the discussion seems to be, like this thread started- the BENEFITS associated with that status.

So, here is a good reason for single-payer health care....

---With a national health care system, with EVERYONE covered, "marriage" isn't a tool to get or withhold benefits. That knocks that argument out of the deal.

So, clearly, logic tells you that everyone who is AGAINST gay marriage, should be FOR national health care.

(That will have them spinning around, no? :D)
No, here is a good reason to go to a flat tax system, where there is no "married filing jointly/separately" and no "marriage penalty." For healthcare, life insurance, and probate matters, recognized domestic partners should be given "spousal" benefits in health/life insurance and wills should be created to protect beneficiaries in probate matters.

XL-entLady

06-18-2009, 08:48 PM

No, here is a good reason to go to a flat tax system, where there is no "married filing jointly/separately" and no "marriage penalty." For healthcare, life insurance, and probate matters, recognized domestic partners should be given "spousal" benefits in health/life insurance and wills should be created to protect beneficiaries in probate matters.
Yes, viva la flat tax! Too bad that we'll never get a flat tax. Because it's always, "I want a flat tax except a deduction for ____ (mortgage interest/charitable deductions/etc.... fill in your pet answer)."

Lady

CountryBoy

06-18-2009, 08:57 PM

Amen on the flat tax and everyone pays, regardless of income.

CB

Viva La Migra

06-18-2009, 08:59 PM

Recognizing that we are straying from the stated title of this thread, I would still like to share one story. I have a cousin who was in a committed relationship with her partner for many years and they also adopted a little girl together. My cousin's partner worked and my cousin quit her job to become the primary caregiver and homemaker. When their little girl was twelve years old and my cousin was in her late forties, the partner died. My cousin and her child had no more health insurance and no claim on the partner's pension. And the partner's family, who thought their committed relationship of almost three decades was an abomination, swooped down and made off with everything that could remotely be the partner's property.

My cousin once told me that people who think she chose her sexual orientation probably also think she chooses to hit her hand with a hammer too. I think she meant that nobody would purposely choose something that caused so many problems for her so often.

Lady
Do you know if your cousin's partner had a will naming her as the beneficiary? That might have helped somewhat, but I don't know about the pension. Pension laws and/or probate laws may need to be changed to grant domestic partners automatic beneficiary status.

I hear a lot about gay partners wanting to have recognized marriages, because they are often kept out of the loop in emergency medical decisions for their partners. This could be overcome with the use of an advance directive or a power of attorney designating the partner as the only person authorized to make medical decisions in the event they are incapacitated.

My point is there are legal tools that can be used to address these issues, but I can understand why gay couples would seek marriage instead. Why get an attorney to assist with wills, powers of attorney, advance directives, etc when marriage covers many of these things?

Steadygain

06-18-2009, 09:16 PM

But, when you put "marriage" out on the table for discussion, the center of the discussion seems to be, like this thread started- the BENEFITS associated with that status.

Sorry about the delay - and James please know that when I first started this Thread somehow I felt capable and qualified to handle any question or circumstance.

But I am no more qualified or capable than anyone else on the MB but I do want to finish our discussion because I admire your deepness and think (maybe insanely) that some may benefit from this.

I honestly did not mean to stress 'the BENEFITS' associated with marriage. I meant to stress the BENEFITS assocaited with a genuine acceptance of one another. The Benefits of acknowledging the manner by which 'our beliefs' and 'our grounding' prevent a harmony our civilization has lacked throughout the ages.

It's honestly NOT MARRIAGE I had in mind. It's a relationship by which 2 people are wholly committed to each other to every degree that a man and his wife may have. I talking ONLY about a harmonious relationship grounded in the endeavor of providing love and support for one another. I do not believe that can only exist between a man and a woman.

So, here is a good reason for single-payer health care....

---With a national health care system, with EVERYONE covered, "marriage" isn't a tool to get or withhold benefits. That knocks that argument out of the deal. I don't know how to respond to this one. To me the issue is not 'obtaining marriage as a tool' - to me it is much deeper. If the Homosexual Population is striving for anything it is simply that all may come to know that they are capable of living, loving, caring, nurishing, and providing and everything esle every bit as much as the Heterosexuals.

Our Heterosexual status does not in and of itself give us any kind of edge in our varied aspects of 'relationships' other than to the opposite sex who are also heterosexual.

So, clearly, logic tells you that everyone who is AGAINST gay marriage, should be FOR national health care. I believe the USA Health care system is one of the greatest disasters forced upon our population. The Gay issue has nothing to do with it.

Hopefully you're not suggesting that the Gay community is responsible for the Health Care System that's been in place.

(That will have them spinning around, no? :D)

I'd say there is undoubtedly some misunderstanding on my part and I'm not fully understanding what your communicating.

I bet on the most fundamental level - we probably see eye to eye.

Side note-

I got thinking about this today.

The announcement about benefits extension for marriage-----

Now, I consider marriage a "religious" ceremony, tied to our cultural roots, rather than a "civil" ceremony. Again, that' just how I look at it.

This we'd have to pick to pieces and unravel to the highest extent.

The only way we could come to a common understanding is by elaborating on what 'Religion' you have in mind. If it is the Christian Religion then we would first and foremost have to DEFINE how God intends (and intended) our relationships with one another, with other forms of life, and with our planet is (and was) meant to be.

Did God intend this ceremony to bond 2 people together to have a seperate live from the rest of the world - or did He intend them to function as a TEAM - reaching out to one another.

Let's go back to your other post. In what manner can we bear the burdens of one another by making their loads lighter??

A 'religious ceremony' can not be isolated from the population as a whole. If it is meant simply for the mechanics of producing children then we have totally and completely LOST what God intended and desired. Here I am not saying that God is pushing for Gay Marriages - I am saying that God who created ALL LIFE would way more want us to be openly extending His love and wanting us to break the barriers that prevent this extension.

Again PLEASE - PLEASE KNOW - I am not challenging your beliefs on marriage and God's ordaining of what a marriage should be and how it should be represented. I would like to say I think it is ridiculuous and almost entirely meaningless to belief that because a man and a woman profess to be 'Christians' and are married in a church that that in any way, shape, or form is going to give them a superior relationship - or that by saying 'I DO' they will fulfill the true intention of what God desires or intended.

This is a very deep matter based on mutual understanding - determination and committment. Both parties will undergo many changes over the years if it is to grow and prosper. God can be in the center of relationships regardless of marriage and marriage in itself does not make one relationship superior to another. At least that's how I see it... but I'm totally and completely OPEN to anything that you or anyone else has to say.

So, how did we ever get in the position in our society where the GOVERNMENT issues "marriage licenses"?

Unfortunately because 'we' - to the largest degree have LOST the religion that God intended. 'We' have failed one another in almost every way imaginable.

Think about that for a minute. I think about it every day James. I wonder how we have gotten so far from the Grace that was meant to florish and sustain us - how Christianity has become an effortless religion with little to no committment - private lives removed from one another - and being content with the multitude of obstacles that devide us and making no real effort to change who we are - to make those obstacles disappear.

Who knows James - I can say I have undoubted failed over and over in the manner I have treated many others; by thoughts and deeds and by my refusal to strive to break the obvious barriers that were largely established in my own life to keep 'them' away.

Where did the separation of church and state fall apart, and the government step in and issue "marriage licenses"?

Anybody know?

The Church has to a large degee 'fallen asleep' and perhaps gotten lost in it's own doctrines and unique endeavors. God has not lost any power whatsoever - and the Spirit of God is everybit today what it was at any other point in history. It is up to us to bring that Spirit to life - and if that Spirit takes control - as it is honestly meant to do then it should spread to all around us - and all should be drawn to it.

That is how a 'seperation' can occur and the government would be way better off.

Good night my friend - and good night to everyone else

Steadygain

06-18-2009, 09:33 PM

No, here is a good reason to go to a flat tax system, where there is no "married filing jointly/separately" and no "marriage penalty." For healthcare, life insurance, and probate matters, recognized domestic partners should be given "spousal" benefits in health/life insurance and wills should be created to protect beneficiaries in probate matters.

I thought about you last night - and meant to say something this morning SO THANKS FOR REMINDING ME.

Thank you so much for your input !! I really appreciate it.

THIS POST TOO - is excellent and I wholly agree and think I'd expressed that awhile back. A flat tax is the 'Best Choice' for everyone.

Later all

Buster

06-18-2009, 11:23 PM

http://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_special.gif

mick504

06-19-2009, 05:07 AM

I agree....with the flat tax...and no deductions for anything. If people want to have 10 kids...so be it....NO DEDUCTION....BIG $5 MILLION HOUSE....GREAT...NO DEDUCTION.

FUTURESTRADER

06-19-2009, 01:07 PM

Side note-

I got thinking about this today.

The announcement about benefits extension for marriage-----

Now, I consider marriage a "religious" ceremony, tied to our cultural roots, rather than a "civil" ceremony. Again, that' just how I look at it.

So, how did we ever get in the position in our society where the GOVERNMENT issues "marriage licenses"?

Think about that for a minute.

Where did the separation of church and state fall apart, and the government step in and issue "marriage licenses"?

Anybody know?

Separation of church and state fell apart when we put "In God We Trust" on our money. Interesting, that the first ones to say "Anything is possible" or warn you "You never know" will be the ones most insistant to not even consider the possibility that there is no God :)

Intrepid_Investor

06-19-2009, 01:26 PM

Side note-

I got thinking about this today.

The announcement about benefits extension for marriage-----

Now, I consider marriage a "religious" ceremony, tied to our cultural roots, rather than a "civil" ceremony. Again, that' just how I look at it.

So, how did we ever get in the position in our society where the GOVERNMENT issues "marriage licenses"?

Think about that for a minute.

Where did the separation of church and state fall apart, and the government step in and issue "marriage licenses"?

Anybody know?

I believe that churches were the ones who started issuing marriage licenses. Probably because of all the inbreeding going on in West Virginia..........:cheesy:

No offense WV-girl. :D

nnuut

06-19-2009, 03:52 PM

XL-entLady

06-19-2009, 04:17 PM

I wonder how they identify a qualified Same Sex Partner, do they have an ID or something or can just anyone of the same sex qualify for Federal Benefits. Is there an amount of time you have to be pardners? If I found an Opposite Sex pardner and we were NOT married why can't she QUALIFY? ...
Now that opens up a whole other interesting problem. I would think you would have to have some kind of legal partnership agreement, whether it is a marriage or a civil union or whatever.

As a side note: Not many people know that there is a "common law marriage" law on the books in several states (and Utah is one of them) that says if you and another person enter into a legal agreement that represents you as husband and wife then you ARE. So if Mr. Stan Jones takes his sweetie of the moment to a hotel and checks in as "Mr. and Mrs. Stan Jones" then they really ARE man and wife! Lots of bigamy issues could result if this law was enforced across the board. :rolleyes:

Lady

Steadygain

06-19-2009, 04:50 PM

To let the USA continue as 'the ultimate Terrorist Nation'

Please tell me you don’t really subscribe to this nonsense.

No I do not subscribe to this nonsense - I've never decicated my life more complelely to anything beyond Special Forces. Never for a split second questioned the Mission - only set out to get it done. Never failed one time - always came back and my mere presense signifed Mission Accomplished. It made no difference who got hurt or what happened; the only thing that mattered was getting the job done. But never did I train harder and plan out anything more carefully than freeing the Iran hostages. Hour after hour; day after day; week after week; month after month - this was by far the biggest and 'the Best' because just like the Navy Seals recently dealt with the Pirates and got 'our guy' back - This is One Mission that would actually make the Press. This one would clearly show the whole world - what happens when you 'Do this and talk S***' And just as we got the 'Green Light' - the plug got pulled. The most rediculous attempt imaginable - totally doomed to fail - cost American lives and made us look like idiots. So it's a Mission our Team never got a chance to complete. I've had a lot of anger issues to deal with over the years - and what you've seen me express here simply reflects that and everything else.

I never harmed anyone in Iran - but over the years I've made a point of researching the country and the circumstances that led to that 'Situation'. It is absolutely amazing how much damage 'our country' via CIA and 'American Influence' has done to that country and their people. That was very hard for me to deal with!! You just can't imagine how it hit me in the face like a baseball bat. To really see 'The Whole Picture' and know the Real Truth was hard for me to handle. I went into this RESEARCH to justify my Hatred and willingness to wipe them off the Earth. But it is impossible to hate a beautiful population that has one of the richest cultures to ever be on our planet. It is impossible to not feel for a population that is forced to work for bare survival while a Foreign Power is taking 'Their Resources'. The more I found the more I FELT for them.

From there I researched the other events - Pearl Harbor; Panama Canal; Vietnam...

So I'm sorry man - I'm honestly trying to let it all go - trying to be a better person. Trying my best to get 'Rid of all the Garbage in my own life' because there is so much throughout the world.

************************************************** ******

When Disney first extended Benefits to the Gay Community - that was like the most Revelutionary Event imaginable. I thought WTF is this world coming to. Thoughout most of my life I've had major issues with Gay people - not because they ever did anything even remotely personal to me - but because of my solid indifference; my huge prejudism; my religious beliefs WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON THE LOVE AND GRACE OF GOD - but based on taking one or two little pieces and using them as Clubs to beat them down. Based way more on the Church Community and their general NEGATIVE and Hostile Sentiment - which I had to believe was largely justified.

BUT - I have found LOVE - I have honestly experienced the Ultra Completeness of what 2 people can find and enjoy. If any 2 individuals are able to find LIFE on that level - whereby their chemistry and everything is wholly flowing and they are ONE then there is no way I can 'Look Down on That' - or consider it wrong.

So I'm stiving to be a better person - and when I recognize that homosexuals have everybit the same capicity to live and love and make LIFE wonderful - and ADD to our environment - then it's easier for me to not only Accept this Potiential - but all the more to support it with 'Understanding', 'Good feelings (and not bad ones) and not let it in any manner 'Limit my Religious Life' but rather enrich it by allowing me to love them and accept them on the same level I do the heterosexuals.

I sincerely appreciate all the comments that were posted on this Tread. I thought it could easily result in a terrible way - but it was very beautiful as a whole

and I appreciate everyone allowing me to air my feelings

OBGibby

06-19-2009, 05:49 PM

Steadygain

06-19-2009, 06:49 PM

STEADYGAIN -

I'm just going to have to respectfully disagree with you. We're so far apart it's if we're on different planets. My perspective comes from being a criminal investigator (GS-1811), a veteran, and someone who's spent time in the intelligence world. Incidentally, I spent several months at Guantanamo Bay and know intimately the inner workings of some of the detainee issues. Obviously, your thoughts about torture, GTMO, [implied] American meddling around the world, a biased criminal justice system, etc., etc., are so far from what I know to be reality from my experiences and perspective, it seems to me that I'll just leave the discussion as it is. I do appreciate your willingness to explain your positions, though.

On a side note (and totally unrelated to the subject of this thread) relative to your Iran comments: I'm wondering if you've read Guests of the Ayatollah: The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam (http://www.amazon.com/Guests-Ayatollah-Hostage-Americas-Militant/dp/0802143032/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245433235&sr=1-1) by Mark Bowden. I recently read All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/047018549X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245433281&sr=1-1) by Stephen Kinzer, as well as The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower (http://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Dealing-Superpower/dp/0307408671/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245433318&sr=1-1) by Robert Baer.

I've read and liked most of Bowden's earlier works, to include his work for The Atlantic magazine. Iran is of interest to me only because of the geo-political aspects; its culture is absolutely of no interest to me. I'd be interested in hearing your comments about "Guests of the Ayatollah" if you can offer any.

We could easily be on different planets - and yours is most likely a way more accuruate representation of what is real and true. Mine could be borderline psychotic - very out of touch.

My last comment was meant to reflect my 'distorted view' and wholly make it clear that I DO NOT view the USA as the ultimate 'Terrorist Nation'. In my own twisted little way I honestly meant to express I was as devoted to this country and every shread of my being lived for that. All the Shah's men - was one of the first books I read and it clearly showed the details of how England and the USA took their Oil and treated the population at large as completely insignificant.

MY THOUGHTS - previously expressed do not represent the USA - on the whole my thoughts honestly reflect the Industries and Powers throughout the ENTIRE WORLD - and horrible conditions they force on the overall populations. I am enraged at the thought of children forced into slavery and the booming 'sex trade' world that they are forced into. I have 'no room' for any country to reduce women to nothing 'in the name of religion' and force them to live without a hope of ever finding 'Real Life' and 'Real Potiential'. I don't have to deal with the Ayatollah and all the others who represent the most incredible 'EVIL' imaginable - when I see Religion all around me taking on the Mask of 'Goodness and Love' when they warm a pew for a half hour a week - but refuse to any manner let their lives be controlled by the Spirit of Grace and Love and ignore all those hurting around them.

I guess the bottom line from my perspective is the whole f***ing world is messed up - me and you included - and maybe it's time to stop blameing the President - to stop blaming the USA - to stop blaming everyone else and pointing fingers - ALWAYS WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT 'WE' ARE INNOCENT. So my friend if there is anything I could do to turn things around - if God Himself would say get 2 others and do as I tell you and I will make the USA as it should be - then I would get Birch and CB and do whatever because it would be worth whatever we had to do. So I am not againt the USA and its Departments - I simply am not crazy and stupid enough to believe that 'we' are not seeped in lots of 'bad too'. In reality we are not 'always the good guy'.

My last message to you was meant to let you know - and anyone else who may have read my previous comments - THAT THEY WERE MISPLACED AND WRONG.

I'd be interested in hearing your comments about "Guests of the Ayatollah" if you can offer any. My sincerest comment here is to strongly make known 'We live in a very SICK WORLD'. I can not change the Ayatollah and anyone else that represents this kind of mindset. All I can do is DEAL WITH ME - and do what I can to be a better person. I believe if the entire population would be willing to abandon their rigid views - and honestly strive to love and accept one another on the richest and most thoroughly commited terms that people like the Ayatollah could not exist. They exist because 'we are so divided and sick' - and if You and I would make the start then maybe 'we could be united and healthy' - but this is impossible when we refuse to thrist for their culture and customs - and are content to say we live on different planets. We don't need to - but it has to be a genuine commitment to maybe meet halfway.

Steadygain

06-19-2009, 09:15 PM

The Golden Nuggets scattered throughout

So with this in mind I will strive to be more open minded and accepting of other beliefs and ways of life that are different from my own. Only in this manner can I maintain a peace - and not allow negative thoughts grounded in prejudism and judgemental aspects to become pieces of garbage cluttering my life.

Perhaps the best question is - as an individual do we promote humanity (and the future of humanity) - by holding to such rigid and dogmatic convictions - that we refuse to even remotely accept someone else who may deviate from our own beliefs; or would humanity honestly be better off if we tried to break from our deep grounding and strived to accept others for who they are.

In general - as an across the board thought - that is striving to be free of prejudicism and insisting on 'our way as the only way' I would say humanity is better off striving for love and acceptance.

assuming that homosexuals have an equal capacity to provide love, nurishment, stimulation as heterosexuals - the question would more appropriately be: Are children better off without the love, nurishment, and stimulation from a couple working harmoniously together to provide this support. Or are they better off being shuffled to foster care; state and government homes; on the streets and so forth.

So with this in mind I will strive to be more open minded and accepting of other beliefs and ways of life that are different from my own. Only in this manner can I maintain a peace - and not allow negative thoughts grounded in prejudism and judgemental aspects to become pieces of garbage cluttering my life

Well said !

I have to admit it though.....there are those who Knowingly and Willfully keep and embrace Prejudice and Judgmental perspectives just so they CAN continue to collect pieces of garbage cluttering their lives. They Live for it.

For them, I feel sorry, because their tiny world get's smaller by the day.

Recognizing that we are straying from the stated title of this thread, I would still like to share one story. I have a cousin who was in a committed relationship with her partner for many years and they also adopted a little girl together. My cousin's partner worked and my cousin quit her job to become the primary caregiver and homemaker. When their little girl was twelve years old and my cousin was in her late forties, the partner died. My cousin and her child had no more health insurance and no claim on the partner's pension. And the partner's family, who thought their committed relationship of almost three decades was an abomination, swooped down and made off with everything that could remotely be the partner's property.

My cousin once told me that people who think she chose her sexual orientation probably also think she chooses to hit her hand with a hammer too. I think she meant that nobody would purposely choose something that caused so many problems for her so often.

Lady

I simply know as I honestly make every effort to understand a population I've never known before and I do this with the sincerest and most genuine effort to be a part of their community later on in life.....

that it forces me to acknowledge my 'unwillingness' to accept other populations - and when I really come to grips with this and realize IT IS ME and NOT THEM

I feel it's making me a better person

God has not lost any power whatsoever - and the Spirit of God is everybit today what it was at any other point in history. It is up to us to bring that Spirit to life - and if that Spirit takes control - as it is honestly meant to do then it should spread to all around us - and all should be drawn to it.

All I can do is DEAL WITH ME - and do what I can to be a better person. I believe if the entire population would be willing to abandon their rigid views - and honestly strive to love and accept one another on the richest and most thoroughly commited terms that people like the Ayatollah could not exist. They exist because 'we are so divided and sick' - and if You (no matter who You could be)and I (no matter who I could be)would make the start then maybe 'we could be united and healthy' - but this is impossible when we refuse to thrist to appreciate their culture and customs - and are content to say we live on different planets. We don't need to - but it has to be a genuine commitment to maybe meet halfway.

I began this Thread - airing some feelings and hoping to find something.

Thank You !!

It was helpful and I appreciate all the reflections - but these are the ones I'll most want to treasure and hold on to.

Have a great weekend everyone !!

OBGibby

06-20-2009, 08:00 AM

The $9.5 Billion Gay Marriage Windfall

If same-sex marriage were legalized nationwide, the lackluster wedding industry would perk up fast.

Howls of protest erupted last month when California's Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, stripping gay and lesbian couples of their right to marry. Adding to the din: all the disappointed planners, seamstresses, jewelers, travel agents and caterers who comprise the massive yet plodding American wedding industry.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/15/same-sex-marriage-entrepreneurs-finance-windfall.html

clester

06-20-2009, 02:03 PM

Buster

06-21-2009, 02:30 AM

Gays and Lesbians just want to be able to marry just because they can't. They want to be "normal" in the worst way. I say let them do it. Maybe they will do better than "normal" marriages" but I doubt it. I say divorce lawyers will also see a windfall.

I would, though, like to see it called something other than marriage because I see marriage as a religious term (although there are some religions that accept it). Call it civil unions or some such.

I'm tired of hearing all the arguments. Just do it and get it over with.

You can't "legislate morality" anyway.

You took the words right out out of my mouth..I've been trying to think of a way to say this without pissing off either side on this issue..I like the term "Civil Union"...It don't affect me, so I don't care either way..just do it and be done with it. and it will maybe take potential welfare people off the rolls as Lady sighted the calamity with her relative....

I don't care who ya are..I'd hate to see you suffering because you lost your significant other/bread winner and can't survive without them....Also I can hear the argument..."then they should of had a job of their own and...blah, blah"..I know, I thought the same thing myself..But I remember when The Working parent, "worked" and the Homemaker kept the house and tended to the kids...So I believe it should be the same for HOMOs and LESBOs.

XL-entLady

06-21-2009, 02:59 AM

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue, Buster, although I could have done without the pejorative nicknames, I think.

To clarify my story, my cousin was in no danger of ending up in a welfare situation. She has a college degree and a skill set and connections that took her back into the workforce rather quickly. I just thought it unfortunate that she had been with her partner as long as I've been with mine, but because my partner is of the 'proper' gender then the state guarantees that I have protections when it comes to probating my partner's estate. And my cousin wasn't even able to keep a remembrance, let alone her partner's pension.

I will admit that her partner should have made a will, but maybe in a more just world she wouldn't have had to. Whatever.

Lady

XL-entLady

06-21-2009, 03:37 AM

The HalfBreed

06-21-2009, 05:05 AM

I agree....with the flat tax...and no deductions for anything. If people want to have 10 kids...so be it....NO DEDUCTION....BIG $5 MILLION HOUSE....GREAT...NO DEDUCTION.

I agree. No deductions..then, watch it fail due to all the "Special Interests".

It would NEVER pass congress.

Viva La Migra

06-21-2009, 01:37 PM

Just a postscript to say that I am very pleasantly surprised that the comments on this thread have pretty much been polite and we've been able to have a civilized discussion about this subject.

Maybe there is hope for us yet. :cheesy:

Lady
Agreed. This also shows that many of those opposed to gay marriage are not opposed to gay couples having the same benefits of heterosexual couples.

Viva La Migra

06-21-2009, 02:48 PM

I agree. No deductions..then, watch it fail due to all the "Special Interests".

It would NEVER pass congress.
If they gave a very generous standard deduction that would allow the poor to continue to pay no income taxes, then it COULD work.

If I remember correctly, Steve Forbes' plan called for the first $13,200 per person ($26,400 per couple and $4,000 per child) to go untaxed, after which they would be taxed at 17%.

I would make this even simpler. For each taxpayer, the first $25,000 of income would not be taxed. Any income over $25,000 would be taxed at the 17% rate. The deduction would increase each year at the rate of inflation. For corporations, profits would be taxed at the same 17% rate. Profit in this case would be defined as total revenue minus NECESSARY expenses to run the business (No corporate CEO jets, yachts, RVs, etc.)

My tax rate would increase under a flat tax, because I would lose the deductions I receive now, but it might be worth it for the ease of filing.

CountryBoy

06-21-2009, 07:24 PM

If they gave a very generous standard deduction that would allow the poor to continue to pay no income taxes, then it COULD work.

If I remember correctly, Steve Forbes' plan called for the first $13,200 per person ($26,400 per couple and $4,000 per child) to go untaxed, after which they would be taxed at 17%.

I would make this even simpler. For each taxpayer, the first $25,000 of income would not be taxed. Any income over $25,000 would be taxed at the 17% rate. The deduction would increase each year at the rate of inflation. For corporations, profits would be taxed at the same 17% rate. Profit in this case would be defined as total revenue minus NECESSARY expenses to run the business (No corporate CEO jets, yachts, RVs, etc.)

My tax rate would increase under a flat tax, because I would lose the deductions I receive now, but it might be worth it for the ease of filing.

It works for me and probably if put to a vote it would pass easily if folks took the time to understand it and the special interests stay out of it.

I'm not sure which way I'd fall, because I don't have any deductions now, but I'd love the easy filing.:D

CB

alevin

06-22-2009, 06:36 AM

Now that opens up a whole other interesting problem. I would think you would have to have some kind of legal partnership agreement, whether it is a marriage or a civil union or whatever.

As a side note: Not many people know that there is a "common law marriage" law on the books in several states (and Utah is one of them) that says if you and another person enter into a legal agreement that represents you as husband and wife then you ARE. So if Mr. Stan Jones takes his sweetie of the moment to a hotel and checks in as "Mr. and Mrs. Stan Jones" then they really ARE man and wife! Lots of bigamy issues could result if this law was enforced across the board. :rolleyes:

Lady

LOL! During my years in NV, I lived across the street from a common law marital couple with 4 children-oldest kid 21. They'd been together that long. I learned from them that it takes 3 years of living together to qual as common-law marriage in NV-if the sheets get split, everything gets split equally-community property state. Imagine living w/someone 2 years 360 days and making the decision to bail before becoming obligated to pay alimony for staying 5 more days! :nuts:

Steadygain

06-22-2009, 01:10 PM

Just a postscript to say that I am very pleasantly surprised that the comments on this thread have pretty much been polite and we've been able to have a civilized discussion about this subject.

Maybe there is hope for us yet. :cheesy:

Lady

I am amazed that our discussion has continued as beautifully as it has. It shows the 'true depth' of understanding that many on this MB possess.

Incredibly - it is my LACK OF UNDERSTANDING - and my long held unbending beliefs that caused me to view (and treat) the gay population as I had throughout the years.

So although this Thread was started in a light of understanding, love, and acceptance - it is largely based on my lack of understanding concerning the gay community and finally coming to realize that they are everybit as wonderful and complete 'as me and the heteroasexual community'. By holding to 'Rigid Beliefs' it is easy to regard the Native Americans as Savages - Animals and undeserving because their cumtoms and beliefs and general lifestyle differs from our own; it is easy to regard the Blacks as Mindless Animals created for the purpose of Slavery; and I could go on and on.

The point is - once society at large has determined it is generally acceptable to treat the Native Americans ... the Blacks... the Gay Community ... in a way that totally denies them the ability to prove how fully human and wonderful and complete they are the more the general population will be seeped in ignorance, hostility, prejudicism, and the 'NEGATIVE CLIMATE' will prevail.

It results in the ultimate Lose/Lose situation. The General Population will LOSE from being trapped in 'NEGATIVE CONDITIONS' which prevents them from being open vessels of love, acceptance, and understanding. The Gay Community will lose as a result of this and any efforts which reveal 'frustration' or a demanding of understanding will only make the General Population take a stronger stand of 'Blocking God's Love' and making the divisions greater.

So all things considered - I believe this discussion has more fostered incredible INTELLIGENCE - and UNDERSTANDING.

Steadygain

06-22-2009, 02:35 PM

STEADYGAIN -

1.He is looking for ways to make the excessively RICH pay their fair share.

I hear this bandied about all the time. What exactly constitutes “excessively rich” and how much do they need to pay to equal “their fare share?”

2.We 'the good guys' have been actively engaged in torturing along with other things over the years... the Cuban Torture Camp.

I’m saddened you think of our country as active participants in administering torture “over the years.” Torture, in my opinion, is an extremely harsh term, and one that should not be thrown about loosely. Equating the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to a “torture camp” is reprehensible.

3.and now and over the recent past THEIR PEOPLE have been going after the real terrorists.

“Their people” have been going after the “real terrorists” (whatever that is supposed to mean), with the support and encouragement, and in some cases, as logical extensions of their own prerogatives, for several years, spanning several administrations. To think that the current president, by virtue of only his charisma, speech and ability to listen, has affected other countries’ stance and practice in the War on Terror (sorry, just can’t bring myself to calling it Overseas Contingency Operations, which is apparently favored by the current administration), is ridicules. While that notion plays well in the press, and the administration would love to lay sole claim to it, where the rubber meets the road, as they say, it doesn’t hold water.

4.Have you heard about another ship taken by the Pirates lately??

Piracy attacks continue to happen every day. An appearance of a decline in pirate attacks is most likely attributable to the absence of any U.S. flagged vessels being seized by pirates. Until the seizure of the Maersk Alabama a few months ago, a U.S. flagged vessel had not suffered seizure by pirates in 200 years. That fueled the reporting and attention on the issue of piracy. The problem has not gone away.

5.The Department of Justice was also dealth with - and not wisked under the carpet - now that is huge to me.

No idea what this refers to, but the apparent pejorative nature is intriguing.

6.To let the USA continue as 'the ultimate Terrorist Nation'

Please tell me you don’t really subscribe to this nonsense.

7.as long as 'the System' keeps the Minorities and Blacks towards the bottom.

How exactly does “the System keep minorities and blacks towards the bottom?”

8.I totally - completely agree with your assessment and what lies ahead but it is not bHo who is to blame - he's simply a politician that got thrown in the saddle.

I thought he was going to bring “change we can believe in?”

9.To the largest degree he is simply dealing with the 'EXPENSES of the past administration' - but this has been ongoing for decades.

I guess if you call spending$1 trillion in his first few months of office “dealing with the expenses of the past administration” it makes sense.

OBGibby,
I've thought about this over the weekend and I must admit it is rare I would ever make comments like the ones listed here without some very deep reflections.

I would very much enjoy a deeper discussion on the above and I'll elaborate the basis of my statements. First you need to understand that the comments were in relation to a discussion with CB. He and I have both been 'disappointed' with numerous events that have shaped (and are shaping) what our Country has become and various directions it appears to be heading.

CB's views largely reflect the State of our Country as it is TODAY and he is more highlighting the multitude of Decisions streaming out of the Political World - that appear to have the potiential to even further erode the general environment and inevitably will have a further NEGATIVE impact on the General Population. I understand where he's coming from and I deeply respect him for this.

My views are more based on the LONG STANDING CIRCUMSTANCES which has brought our Country - and the poplation and Politics to function as it has been functioning for many years - and to more stress that it is general environment of what we have become and how we have behaved both as a Country and in our relationships to other Countries that is the ROOT to OUR PROBLEMS.

But CB and I - both have the same message - and that message is: We are the United States of America and therefore we should be the GREATEST NATION on Earth. We are meant to represent the ultimate level of FREEDOM; JUSTICE; EQUALITY; A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE; A COUNTRY THAT WORKS IN HARMONY WITH OTHER COUNTRIES; A COUNTRY THAT LIVES INTELLIGENTLY AND DEMONSTATES A LIFESTYLE THAT EXEMPLIES PROSPERITY.

So - please be patient with me and I will stive to elaborate on the basis of my comments. I would very much enjoy your input but let's try to open with each other and maybe we can gain a better perspective (and possibly more realistic perspective) from one another.

Steadygain

06-22-2009, 03:06 PM

charmed855

06-22-2009, 06:01 PM

Obama made a statement recently reflecting that numerous 'Rich Individuals' pay taxes on less than "1/10th of 1% - of their TOTAL INCOME" - using Bill Gates as the example. As the News Report followed it elaborated that after a certain amount and here I will simply use $160,000 dollars as a hypothetical because I forget the actual amount. The News reflected that the RICH only have to pay taxes up to a certain amount - and if their income is say 98% over that amount then all of it is essentially tax free.

10% would be a very generous figure - as it is way more likely 3% at best. But to error on 'your side' - we could safely say that 10% of the Population have at least 80% of its wealth.

Simply reflecting on just these bare facts and all the more the fact that the 90% of the General Population is having to pay Taxes on every dollar they earn

I would say that Dollar for Dollar - EVERY PERSON AND EVERY INDUSTRY Should have to pay Taxes exactly as the general population has paid over the years. A system that 'PROTECTS THE RICH' and 'PUNISHES THE POOR' is wrong.

So it sounds like you'd be in favor of a FLAT tax where everyone forks over an equal percentage of their gross income (no loopholes, deductions, etc.)?

Steadygain

06-22-2009, 06:53 PM

So it sounds like you'd be in favor of a FLAT tax where everyone forks over an equal percentage of their gross income (no loopholes, deductions, etc.)?

I believe that is the way it was meant to be from the very start. This way the 'RICH' will no longer pay only a fraction compared to the rest of us. 97% have already been paying taxes on their gross income throughout the years.

I am fully convinced the 'Loopholes' by and large DO NOT work in the best interests of the General Population.

I also DO NOT believe Ministers and 'Church Leaders' should be able to 'Hide' the amount they get paid so they only pay taxes on a fraction of their 'REAL INCOME' either.

So YES - I beleive a FLAX TAX on all income would be the FASTEST and Most guaranteed method of getting our country out of DEBT.

It's kind of funny you mention this - because I'd bet you anything that 97 to 98% of the entire Population would agree with this IF THEY KNEW THE FACTS. But even if 97 to 98% of the General Population said 'We want FLAT Tax' - would the Powers that be make any changes. Does that sound similar to 'our hearts' breaking for the people in Iran??

Oh well - Peace my friend.

And never forget that Song playing at Nags Head when you asked 'The Big Question' to that lovely wife so many years in the past. :)

OBGibby

06-23-2009, 06:41 PM

STEADYGAIN -

Saw your comments above. Will try to get back online tomorrow to continue the discussion.

Steadygain

06-23-2009, 06:49 PM

Thanks man !

I appreciate it and look forward to a good discussion. Figured it'd be a lot easier to just take them one by one.

OBGibby

06-25-2009, 05:41 AM

1. What exactly constitues 'excessive rich' and how much to they need to pay to equal 'their fair share'.

Obama made a statement recently reflecting that numerous 'Rich Individuals' pay taxes on less than "1/10th of 1% - of their TOTAL INCOME" - using Bill Gates as the example. As the News Report followed it elaborated that after a certain amount and here I will simply use $160,000 dollars as a hypothetical because I forget the actual amount. The News reflected that the RICH only have to pay taxes up to a certain amount - and if their income is say 98% over that amount then all of it is essentially tax free.........

I disagree that $160,000 per year equates to being ‘rich.’ While in some locales I would agree, but in many metropolitan areas, $160K – while a good living no doubt – doesn’t begin to enter the rich ranks.

My personal opinion would set the bar at least around $250K and up. I also disagree that the ‘rich’ pay less than their ‘fair share’ of the taxes (and nobody ever seems to come up with what ‘fair share’ would equal, other than the flat tax crowd).

The myth that the “rich” don’t pay their fair share of taxes is just that – myth.

A 2006 report from the Tax Foundation:

March 30, 2006
Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million
by Scott A. Hodge (http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/5.html)
Fiscal Fact No. 54

With the April 17th deadline for federal tax returns looming, Americans are sharply aware of their federal income tax liabilities. However, one aspect of federal income taxes they may not be aware of is the growing number of Americans who pay zero federal income tax after taking advantage of deductions and credits.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1410.html

A 2009 report from the Heritage Foundation:

May 4, 2009

The Rich Pay More Taxes: Top 20 Percent Pay Record Share of Income Taxes

by Curtis S. Dubay (http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/curtisdubay.cfm)
WebMemo #2420

Since the passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, critics have claimed incessantly that they disproportionately benefited the rich while burdening the poor. Now that the data is in, these claims have been shown to be unquestionably false.

Squeezing the Wealthy Even More

According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
…In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high. This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

· The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;

· The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;

· The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and

· The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

Each of these four quintiles' shares was an all-time low.

2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Removed Low-Income Earners from
Roles

…The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts removed millions of taxpayers from the federal income tax rolls…The combination of lower tax rates and an expanded Child Tax Credit meant many low-income taxpayers no longer paid any federal income taxes…

Was Greater Income the Cause?

…Critics counter that the increase in tax shares for high-earners was due to income increases at the top…

…top 20 percent of earners saw their share of pre-tax income rise from 54.8 percent to 55.7 percent, from 2000 to 2006...same period, their share of federal income taxes increased from 81.2 percent to 86.3 percent.

…modest increase in incomes is not large enough to explain the large increase in the share of income taxes paid by the top 20 percent...removal of substantial numbers of low-income taxpayers from the federal income tax rolls is the real culprit…

Refundable Credits Redistribute Income

…bottom 40 percent of income earners actually paid a negative share of federal income taxes in 2006…these taxpayers are actually paid money through the tax code..."refunds" when they are greater than the taxpayer's total income tax liability…

…not only do the bottom 40 percent of all taxpayers pay no taxes, but they actually receive additional income from the IRS…

The Congressional Budget Office report can be found at:
"Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2006" April 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/all_tables.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/all_tables.pdf) (April 23, 2009).

I also find your comment about "90% getting by" to be a gross exaggeration.

Steadygain

06-25-2009, 02:37 PM

I disagree that $160,000 per year equates to being ‘rich.’ While in some locales I would agree, but in many metropolitan areas, $160K – while a good living no doubt – doesn’t begin to enter the rich ranks.

My friend - let's first begin with the knowledge and understanding that 'We are more than likely fundamentally on the same page' and I think we'll find a lot more common ground.

I did not say $160 K would be considered 'rich' - I stressed that only as a 'hypothetical'. My point - which is actually a reflection of what Obama (and the News Report I heard) - stressed that Individuals such as Bill Gates

'only pay a small portion of Taxes based on their overall income' and in fact THAT IS TOTALLY LEGAL; it is the way things have been in place for years. You pay Taxes up to a certain amount '$160 M - for instance' and the rest is tax free.

So I would ask that we not skirt the issue - but deal specifically with the points I am making. Here I am simply stating the 'message' as I heard it.

I believe a system designed to tax the overwhelming majority at a full rate (because they are not excessively RICH) - and that taxes the excessively RICH on only a BARE FRACTION of their gross income and let the bulk be tax free is wrong.

So my Primary Point all along is - Whatever anyone makes, no matter how much it is - should be taxed just like me and you and the overwhelming majority.

My personal opinion would set the bar at least around $250K and up. I also disagree that the ‘rich’ pay less than their ‘fair share’ of the taxes (and nobody ever seems to come up with what ‘fair share’ would equal, other than the flat tax crowd).

What could be more fair than paying TAX dollar for dollar on every dollar you earn regardless of the amount??

My personal opinion is that $250 K - is largely insignificant in comparison to Blackrock Execs; Gates and all the others.

If you are looking for a defination of 'Rich' - which now I'm finally beginning to realize seems to be at the ROOT to our debate - Then YES I will totally agree with you - and we can say anyone making $250K or better is 'RICH'.

The confussion You and I - are having is not 'who is RICH' and what defines the RICH. The confussion is wholly based on:

How much money do you have to pay taxes on - regardless of how much you make. If that amount is $250K - then I believe that is in essense PUNISHING all those making under $250K - while REWARDING all those who make more by allowing all income over that amount to be TAX FREE.

So it's very important to understand the REAL POINT - I am making - only then can you respond in a proper manner.

The myth that the “rich” don’t pay their fair share of taxes is just that – myth.

If it is a Myth - then I have been misled and what Obama has openly been telling everyone as he ran for President and what the actual News Reports Confirmed is true has all been a lie and I and many others have been deceived.

On a personal note however I will tell you when my father saw how much President Nixon paid in taxes - especially in comparison to what he paid and the difference in their incomes - My Father felt very cheated. He could not possibly understand how Nixon was able to LEGALLY do it. So he did his homework - and began buying other houses and doing the exact same things Nixon and others were doing and soon learned to pay 'a fraction' instead of the whole portion.

BUT - whenever the general public starts doing the same thing 'the Big Boys' have done in Private - those 'Tax Shelters' soon disappear.

I also find your comment about "90% getting by" to be a gross exaggeration.

If 90% are paying taxes on every dollar they earn because they can not afford Tax Shelters - or all the more if Billionaires are paying Taxes on only a small portion of their income because beyond a Million (or whatever is TAX FREE) - then in comparison they are indeed 'just getting by'

Steadygain

06-25-2009, 02:53 PM

Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Removed Low-Income Earners from
Roles

…bottom 40 percent of income earners actually paid a negative share of federal income taxes in 2006…these taxpayers are actually paid money through the tax code..."refunds" when they are greater than the taxpayer's total income tax liability…

…not only do the bottom 40 percent of all taxpayers pay no taxes, but they actually receive additional income from the IRS…

I would rather deal with the General Disability Mindset and Growing Free Handouts later on - as that is a wholly seperate problem.

Have NO DOUBT - my previous point is in no way, shape, or form meant in any manner whatsoever to take from the 'deserving' and give to the 'undeserving'

Trust me - you and I are more than likely equally outraged about the other extreme.

OBGibby

06-25-2009, 06:17 PM

Steadygain

06-25-2009, 07:21 PM

STEADYGAIN -

Quite frankly, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You insist that the "rich" are not paying taxes on their income (over whatever arbitrary bar we set), yet you have not defined what income you speak of. I seem to be talking about oranges while you extol the virtues of apples.

Well you can't win them all. :cheesy:

Perhaps we simply have a different frame of mind; or more specifically perhaps you 'Thought I was saying this'... when actually I was saying something completely different.

The truth is - all of this is totally meaningless to me and I'm very grateful that I decided to go over them one by one. The only thing that remotely bothered me was that some 'friction appeared to exist' and so I thought it would be worth the effort to resolve it.

If you can not understand what I am saying then there is no point dragging this out. I'd say 'Live your life' and 'I'll live mine'

Whatever you think of me - is likely because you've already got in mind 'I'm this or that' and apparently said something to rub you the wrong way. But that's cool - so we'll leave it where it is.

Take care,
Steady

BTW - I do appreciate your time and effort. Thank You !
I'd say 'I'm a hopeless case'

Steadygain

06-25-2009, 08:48 PM

STEADYGAIN -

Quite frankly, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Actually the more I think about it the more I realize how wrong I was to have even made the comments that 'rightfully' got your attention and were offensive.

I was WRONG - to have vented 'negative comments' and especially wrong to imply the 'wrong doings' or 'inequality' of our own country when 'we' are so much better off than the rest of the world.

So what you witnessed was merely a reflection of my frustrations at that moment. But all these things are 'way beyond me and I have no control over any of these things'. The last thing I need is to dwell on something 'of a negative nature' and all the more to persuade you or anyone else to dwell upon them. So I'm sorry; it was a mistake.

The truth is - we can always find something to criticize about any country, about any Television station, about any government, or any other system that affects millions of people. Now that I've had a little more time to reflect on these things I realize that there is probably not a person alive that some would not criticize - especially in relation to Politics, Religion, or Money.

BUT MY MAIN POINT - all along - was to acknowledge that I have come to a far greater understanding regarding the gay community and any other group that is wired differently - believes differently - or behaves differently from me. ALL THE MORE I REALIZE THIS DIFFERENCE DOES NOT MAKE ME A BETTER PERSON; OR MORE CAPABLE OF BEING A BEAUTIFUL PERSON OR BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE LOVE, KINDNESS AND ALL THE OTHER 'PRICELESS VIRTUES' ANY BETTER THAN THEM.

So I guess my Greatest Point - is to show the more 'Rigid' we are in our beliefs the less likely we will ever be able to appreciate the real value and worth that is there - because our Rigidity prevents it.

Someone tried to show me this truth - and I missed it by holding to what I believed was right. BUT I WAS WRONG - and in holding too strongly to what 'seemed right' - 'what I was grounded into believing was the Truth' - I missed the real truth and 'Ultra Rich level of Love and Acceptance' the other had already achieved.

So that is the most central message I sought to share and it is only in my researching the Customs and Life of a Native American Tribe that I came to this truth.

So I began by 'airing feelings' and it was wonderful to be able to express things I could never have expressed before - to love and accept others in a way I had never done before - and be RICHER in my Faith and richer in Life because of it.