Now with N. Pelosi and Charlie (I’ve got a deal for you) Rangel floating Value Added Tax, it means 100% of us will get a tax increase. But it’s only due to the fact that we misunderstood what Obuttheadama meant when he said 95% of us would receive a tax reduction.
What idiots believe that 5% of the population can finance 90% of gov’t? Oh, about 50-some-million idiots.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get (more like got) it.
Wait a minute. Doesn’t 5% of the population have 90% of the wealth?
I still don’t see what all this has to do with the article. I’m all for populist uprisings but you gotta be against government spending if you want to be against taxes. You can’t just rely on “fuzzy math” like the previous administration (who increased spending while decreasing taxes – hey Republicans! It’s not an inverse relationship!)
What this has to do with the article is that Democrats are obsessed with creating laws that just promote lawsuits and we are going to get rid of them next year!
The dems being in charge of everything are a nightmare to our country….unless you are dependent on the govt. They want more and more people dependent on the govt to keep themselves in power. Only fools fall for this!
It seems every other special interest group can sue for discrimination, but when a group such as older Americans want the same protection, the Dems want to make it harder for them. There is a lot of age discrimination going on out there. The problem is, the ones making the laws are exempt from them, or they are so rich it doen’t affect them.
Actually, the top 10% earn 50% of all income in America, but pay 75% of all taxes. The top 1% own 40% of all assets in America. But all of this is misleading, because many of these rich people, aren’t in fact, people. They’re corporations and most are owned by all all Americans, either by direct stock purchase, pension funds, or 401Ks. In fact, if you count debt held as a measure of wealth, then it’s mostly foreign countries that ‘own’ most of America’s wealth.
The greatest single asset of wealth in the US in human capital and the more education and training held by a person, then the numbers presume that such a person has wealth. In this case, it’s only fair that those who work hard to improve themselves should reap the rewards. What is the olbigation to those who spent their youth partying and drinking from those who has spent their youth studying off their butts? So, we should reward the grasshoppers?
Anyway, Youngin’, you’re clearly a liberal, so I doubt that facts will have any influence on your dogmatic approach to politics.
I’m with you Joe. Youngin (and where’s Rosie?) I pray will begin to see the light. We need Republicans back in the mix again, however a new breed of Republicans.
It is not a coincidence that the Great Oba
wants to limit Health care to the elderly by giving those “advanced in age” just a pain pill, and now his administration wants to limit the elderly in thier job possibilities as well.
If the Great Oba has his way, we’ll all be eating Solient Green (showing my age on that remark!)
So a company should be able to chose a qualified young white man over an equally qualified older black woman for no apparent reason than that young man would “fit in better?” I worked in an office where applications of african americans were thrown out in the trash as soon as the applicant left the interview. One young african american woman called back to see how she stood as a candidate. They couldn’t find her application and she called the EEOC. EEOC investigated and lo and be hold – turns out that young lady was indeed the best qualified for the job. She got the job and excelled.
I think you mis read the article. the Supreme Court was making it harder for senior citizens to prove age discrimantion. The Dems bill would erase that burden. It was the unltra conservative court that made the decision. From an older American…..
Told my friends to keep an eye and ear out for me for new job. One friend said, well one of my company underwriters told me they are looking for someone; “We want someone younger.” So how many older people did they interview just for show until the picked their person, that special someone younger.
If you are interviewing for a job and the HR person asks you, do you have any questions, ask: “Yes! When is the last time your company hired someone over 50?”
Whoa, wait a minute. I’m a liberal? Are you sure? I’ve been trying to figure out which for many years now, based on the following observations I’ve made in my adult lifetime:
Many liberal ideas are dumb.
Many conservative ideas are good.
Many liberals are good people.
Many conservatives are dumb people.
I am both a good person and not dumb, so I’m not sure which category is appropriate. The last election didn’t help, because I voted based on the merits and positions of the individuals and not based on party affiliations. I guess I’m kind of weird that way.
One thing I’m sure of: you’re a fool if you think that one party is less power hungry than another. It is not possible for powerful people to want less power. It even says so in the Bible.
I’m a gray hair, but any company should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. Why? Because they’ll fail to hire productive workers and lose to their competitors.
You’re right, Youngin’. I agree that both parties want power and the Republicans didn’t comport well themselve when they held the power.
All the more reason for term limits. The problem with term limits is that it gives to the bureacrats more power. So, all the more reason to get rid of many gov’t agencies, regulations, and rules and have term limits.
Military, fire, police, & roads and bridges should be the extent of gov’t action. Not even parks should be run by the gov’t.
I wouldn’t use the word discriminate, but I agree that companies need to be free to hire the most qualified individuals and fire the least qualified.
The idea is that every single employer/employee relationship in this country should be based on performance above all else. If you can do your job in a way that benefits my bottom line, I don’t care if you’re 22, 72, black, white, male, female, straight or gay. I want to hire & keep the best person for that job.
Thanks for your comment. I hope I interview soon with a person who shares your views!
I would just like to point out that employers are indeed discriminating against older workers. Older being age 40 or older. It’s a fact. Career coaches are telling us to show 10 years experience on our resumes, even if we have 30.
Employers are sometimes reluctant to hire older people because they don’t want us on their group health care policy. We might drive up the cost, even though any one at any age can come down with a terminal or very serious illness and need extensive medical care. I worked in an office where a 20something took 40 personal/sick days topped off by a three month stint in rehab. Rest of us “older workers” just went to the doctor once in a while for preventative and minor sick care. So age need not be an indication of how much medical care a person will require.
Yes, a younger worker can get sick, just like an older worker can, but the older worker is MORE likely to get sick then the younger worker. Its just like auto insurance. Just because you are older, does’t mean you won’t get into an accident, but the younger drivers tend to have moer accidents, hence why the younger drivers are charged more on their insurance.
I don’t think that employers are thinking about the cost of their group health insurance when it comes to hiring. They are thinking “the younger workers will be more likly to take less pay” or “they might be less likly to call in sick (if the younge person is responsible)”. Heck, even marriage status is a factor. If they don’t have a spouse, they won’t have to call out if the spouse gets sick.
Yes, any private-sector employer should be able to discriminate against anybody for any reason, but this doesn’t mean that any employer may engage in harassment of any type. Private sector excludes gov’t. (local, state, and federal) employers.
While no gov’t. entity should be held to any type of quota system or affirmative action requirements, gov’t entities must establish objective criteria for hiring the most qualified employees w/o any discrimination whatsoever.
So, relative to private sector employers, do you think that prof sports teams will discriminate against blacks? Do you think interior design firms, fashion, and clothing companies will discriminate against gays?
What you’ll find is that employers who discriminate will lose out in the market place, because such employers won’t have the best qualified employees. The market is the best enforcer in the history of the world and, as we all know, it’s objective and impersonal.
There will be no competition if the Commucrats have their way, that’s the point of bills such as this
Lets vote all these idiots out of office. Just wait until you see what your tax rate is next year?
Remember we were promised 95% of us will get a tax break! Read Obama’s lips.
“Remember we were promised 95% of us will get a tax break! Read Obama’s lips.”
What has this comment to do with the article’s substance?
Now with N. Pelosi and Charlie (I’ve got a deal for you) Rangel floating Value Added Tax, it means 100% of us will get a tax increase. But it’s only due to the fact that we misunderstood what Obuttheadama meant when he said 95% of us would receive a tax reduction.
What idiots believe that 5% of the population can finance 90% of gov’t? Oh, about 50-some-million idiots.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get (more like got) it.
FROM A LITTLE ACORN, A LARGER NUT GREW!
Wait a minute. Doesn’t 5% of the population have 90% of the wealth?
I still don’t see what all this has to do with the article. I’m all for populist uprisings but you gotta be against government spending if you want to be against taxes. You can’t just rely on “fuzzy math” like the previous administration (who increased spending while decreasing taxes – hey Republicans! It’s not an inverse relationship!)
Youngin, The top 5% of earners in this country pay 70% of the taxes. bottom 25% pay nothing!
What this has to do with the article is that Democrats are obsessed with creating laws that just promote lawsuits and we are going to get rid of them next year!
Point taken, but are you really ready to put Republicans back in charge? We just got rid of them.
Close- the bottom 40% pay nothing taxes.
The dems being in charge of everything are a nightmare to our country….unless you are dependent on the govt. They want more and more people dependent on the govt to keep themselves in power. Only fools fall for this!
It seems every other special interest group can sue for discrimination, but when a group such as older Americans want the same protection, the Dems want to make it harder for them. There is a lot of age discrimination going on out there. The problem is, the ones making the laws are exempt from them, or they are so rich it doen’t affect them.
I say fire Senator Byrd from West Virginia first. OMG he is a fossil.
Yes I am ready for conservatives not the bunch of liberal democrats and spinless republicans we have now.
I would say start a new party if it wouldnt fragment the republican party and all crazy a$$ liberals run ram shot over all of us.
I think that we need legislation to protect white males between the ages of 25 and 65. We are the most descriminated class in society now!
Actually, the top 10% earn 50% of all income in America, but pay 75% of all taxes. The top 1% own 40% of all assets in America. But all of this is misleading, because many of these rich people, aren’t in fact, people. They’re corporations and most are owned by all all Americans, either by direct stock purchase, pension funds, or 401Ks. In fact, if you count debt held as a measure of wealth, then it’s mostly foreign countries that ‘own’ most of America’s wealth.
Try to site for more info: http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/05/the-secrets-of-intangible-weal.
The greatest single asset of wealth in the US in human capital and the more education and training held by a person, then the numbers presume that such a person has wealth. In this case, it’s only fair that those who work hard to improve themselves should reap the rewards. What is the olbigation to those who spent their youth partying and drinking from those who has spent their youth studying off their butts? So, we should reward the grasshoppers?
Anyway, Youngin’, you’re clearly a liberal, so I doubt that facts will have any influence on your dogmatic approach to politics.
I’m with you Joe. Youngin (and where’s Rosie?) I pray will begin to see the light. We need Republicans back in the mix again, however a new breed of Republicans.
It is not a coincidence that the Great Oba
wants to limit Health care to the elderly by giving those “advanced in age” just a pain pill, and now his administration wants to limit the elderly in thier job possibilities as well.
If the Great Oba has his way, we’ll all be eating Solient Green (showing my age on that remark!)
So a company should be able to chose a qualified young white man over an equally qualified older black woman for no apparent reason than that young man would “fit in better?” I worked in an office where applications of african americans were thrown out in the trash as soon as the applicant left the interview. One young african american woman called back to see how she stood as a candidate. They couldn’t find her application and she called the EEOC. EEOC investigated and lo and be hold – turns out that young lady was indeed the best qualified for the job. She got the job and excelled.
I think you mis read the article. the Supreme Court was making it harder for senior citizens to prove age discrimantion. The Dems bill would erase that burden. It was the unltra conservative court that made the decision. From an older American…..
Told my friends to keep an eye and ear out for me for new job. One friend said, well one of my company underwriters told me they are looking for someone; “We want someone younger.” So how many older people did they interview just for show until the picked their person, that special someone younger.
If you are interviewing for a job and the HR person asks you, do you have any questions, ask: “Yes! When is the last time your company hired someone over 50?”
Whoa, wait a minute. I’m a liberal? Are you sure? I’ve been trying to figure out which for many years now, based on the following observations I’ve made in my adult lifetime:
Many liberal ideas are dumb.
Many conservative ideas are good.
Many liberals are good people.
Many conservatives are dumb people.
I am both a good person and not dumb, so I’m not sure which category is appropriate. The last election didn’t help, because I voted based on the merits and positions of the individuals and not based on party affiliations. I guess I’m kind of weird that way.
One thing I’m sure of: you’re a fool if you think that one party is less power hungry than another. It is not possible for powerful people to want less power. It even says so in the Bible.
I’m a gray hair, but any company should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. Why? Because they’ll fail to hire productive workers and lose to their competitors.
Doesn’t MORE experience make you a BETTER underwriter (in this case, I’m assuming age—>experience)?
You’re right, Youngin’. I agree that both parties want power and the Republicans didn’t comport well themselve when they held the power.
All the more reason for term limits. The problem with term limits is that it gives to the bureacrats more power. So, all the more reason to get rid of many gov’t agencies, regulations, and rules and have term limits.
Military, fire, police, & roads and bridges should be the extent of gov’t action. Not even parks should be run by the gov’t.
I wouldn’t use the word discriminate, but I agree that companies need to be free to hire the most qualified individuals and fire the least qualified.
The idea is that every single employer/employee relationship in this country should be based on performance above all else. If you can do your job in a way that benefits my bottom line, I don’t care if you’re 22, 72, black, white, male, female, straight or gay. I want to hire & keep the best person for that job.
Thanks for your comment. I hope I interview soon with a person who shares your views!
I would just like to point out that employers are indeed discriminating against older workers. Older being age 40 or older. It’s a fact. Career coaches are telling us to show 10 years experience on our resumes, even if we have 30.
Employers are sometimes reluctant to hire older people because they don’t want us on their group health care policy. We might drive up the cost, even though any one at any age can come down with a terminal or very serious illness and need extensive medical care. I worked in an office where a 20something took 40 personal/sick days topped off by a three month stint in rehab. Rest of us “older workers” just went to the doctor once in a while for preventative and minor sick care. So age need not be an indication of how much medical care a person will require.
Yes, a younger worker can get sick, just like an older worker can, but the older worker is MORE likely to get sick then the younger worker. Its just like auto insurance. Just because you are older, does’t mean you won’t get into an accident, but the younger drivers tend to have moer accidents, hence why the younger drivers are charged more on their insurance.
I don’t think that employers are thinking about the cost of their group health insurance when it comes to hiring. They are thinking “the younger workers will be more likly to take less pay” or “they might be less likly to call in sick (if the younge person is responsible)”. Heck, even marriage status is a factor. If they don’t have a spouse, they won’t have to call out if the spouse gets sick.
Yes, any private-sector employer should be able to discriminate against anybody for any reason, but this doesn’t mean that any employer may engage in harassment of any type. Private sector excludes gov’t. (local, state, and federal) employers.
While no gov’t. entity should be held to any type of quota system or affirmative action requirements, gov’t entities must establish objective criteria for hiring the most qualified employees w/o any discrimination whatsoever.
So, relative to private sector employers, do you think that prof sports teams will discriminate against blacks? Do you think interior design firms, fashion, and clothing companies will discriminate against gays?
What you’ll find is that employers who discriminate will lose out in the market place, because such employers won’t have the best qualified employees. The market is the best enforcer in the history of the world and, as we all know, it’s objective and impersonal.