moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
pseudogourmet98 wrote:One thing I see repeated in this thread implies that the benefit receiver is the one who initially paid for the unemployment "insurance" when in reality it was the former employer(s) who paid the tax, NOT the employees.


The cost of unemployment insurance payments is at least indirectly covered by the employee, for two reasons:

1. Payments into the unemployment insurance pool are made as a direct result of a person's employment. That the employer pays the premium is irrelevant when you consider that the employer wouldn't be doing so if the employee wasn't helping make the company profitable in some direct or indirect way.

2. Ultimately, the employee's earnings are going to be somewhat lower than they would be if the employer didn't have that expense, so the cost of unemployment insurance benefits (and other benefits, for that matter) are paid indirectly by the employee in the form of lower wages.

In the context of the previous discussion, unemployment benefits are not funded (or at least are only partially funded) by the taxes we pay, and so differ substantially from payments made through welfare, medicare and food stamps (which are 100% funded by tax revenues).

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

So, if you have Verizon (and likely an cell phone), Obama and his NSA administration is monitoring your usage, even if you're not a suspected terrorist. Go freedom!!!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
kylemittskus wrote:So, if you have Verizon (and likely an cell phone), Obama and his NSA administration is monitoring your usage, even if you're not a suspected terrorist. Go freedom!!!



As far as we know so far, it's just for business accounts. But that's really immaterial to the fact that this is a disgusting intrusion into privacy. The secrecy and invasiveness of our security state are truly out of control - key portions of the infamous Patriot Act, on which this is justified, must be repealed.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
coynedj wrote:As far as we know so far, it's just for business accounts. But that's really immaterial to the fact that this is a disgusting intrusion into privacy. The secrecy and invasiveness of our security state are truly out of control - key portions of the infamous Patriot Act, on which this is justified, must be repealed.



I have not read the Patriot Act (what a BS, marketing name) in its entirety, but I am fairly comfortable saying that the entire thing should be repealed.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Rupps.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:So, if you have Verizon (and likely an cell phone), Obama and his NSA administration is monitoring your usage, even if you're not a suspected terrorist. Go freedom!!!



Whyyyy?

joelsisk


quality posts: 8 Private Messages joelsisk
chemvictim wrote:Whyyyy?



for your safety.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
joelsisk wrote:for your safety.



Oh. Well okay then. I expect to be protected from spiders and evil kitty cats, otherwise it's not worth it.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:Oh. Well okay then. I expect to be protected from spiders and evil kitty cats, otherwise it's not worth it.



if it's spider's they're after, I'm on board.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

joelsisk


quality posts: 8 Private Messages joelsisk
chemvictim wrote:Oh. Well okay then. I expect to be protected from spiders and evil kitty cats, otherwise it's not worth it.



do spiders make/answer phone calls?

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
joelsisk wrote:do spiders make/answer phone calls?



If the spider is large enough to do that, I definitely want protection.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Have you been following along with this lung transplant situation? It should not be political I guess, but it has been. Obamacare, death panels, etc. My understanding is that we were mad that Sebelius was given this kind of authority in the first place because Obamacare, and then we were mad that she didn't use that authority to save our patient of choice. Is that about right?

I find the whole thing unsettling. The rules are there for a reason, it's not a popularity contest.

loveladyelectric


quality posts: 23 Private Messages loveladyelectric

Apparently there was a discussion of Prop 13 at the SoCal gathering, so I want to throw this out there:

Am I the only person that thinks proposition voting is stupid? What is the point of having a representative government if the constitution is largely amended on popular vote? In my opinion, we should trust the representatives that we vote into office to write legislation in line with their campaign platform.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:Have you been following along with this lung transplant situation? It should not be political I guess, but it has been. Obamacare, death panels, etc. My understanding is that we were mad that Sebelius was given this kind of authority in the first place because Obamacare, and then we were mad that she didn't use that authority to save our patient of choice. Is that about right?

I find the whole thing unsettling. The rules are there for a reason, it's not a popularity contest.



The point was, had she been on the adult list, she'd have been the number one listed recipient by, I believe, a large margin, based on their criteria. Luckily for her, she was moved to that list and got her lungs. She didn't necessarily take someone else's lungs though. The family was just upset that had she been slightly older then she'd have qualified from the get go for adult lungs. Even though her doctors all agreed she was capable of receiving them. Hence the stink. I never thought of it as favoritism, just common sense.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
loveladyelectric wrote:Apparently there was a discussion of Prop 13 at the SoCal gathering, so I want to throw this out there:

Am I the only person that thinks proposition voting is stupid? What is the point of having a representative government if the constitution is largely amended on popular vote? In my opinion, we should trust the representatives that we vote into office to write legislation in line with their campaign platform.



Look at who you elect there, you really want them making decisions?

On a more serious note, I think Sparky once posted the average annual salary of a State Rep and it was over 100k a year. They don't want to make ANY decision that would influence them losing that cushy salary, so they kick it over to you so they can say, well I didnt' support it but the people did so I went with it.

Blah Blah, nice place to visit...

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

rpm


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rpm
loveladyelectric wrote:Apparently there was a discussion of Prop 13 at the SoCal gathering, so I want to throw this out there:

Am I the only person that thinks proposition voting is stupid? What is the point of having a representative government if the constitution is largely amended on popular vote? In my opinion, we should trust the representatives that we vote into office to write legislation in line with their campaign platform.



I break my silence for a brief post.

Don't you know any effing California history? California government was highly corrupt, the bought and sold minions of (primarily) the Southern Pacific Railroad (then the largest landowner in the state, after the federal government). This encompassed the politicians of both parties. Scoundrels all.

Insurgent good government Republican types, headed by gubernatorial candidate Hiram Johnson, managed to wage a campaign in 1910 to clean up California politics. Among their reforms were the then fashionable progressive reforms: the initiative (e.g. Prop. 13 of happy memory, to do what the legislature refused to do), the referendum (to vote down a legislative act), and the recall (to get rid of elected officials doing so much damage the people did not want to wait until the next election, e.g. Gray Davis).

Basically, the good voters of California, back when it was pretty much a decent place to run a winery or raise children, were very clear: they didn't trust politicians, even the ones they elected, to do what they promised.

It worked pretty well in California for close to 100 years, though it hasn't stopped the state from going to h e l l in a handbasket in the past few decades.

Prop 13 - just in case you weren't around in those days - was the response of the voters and taxpayers to runaway increases in property taxes to finance ever larger government and the state takeover of public school finance after Serrano v. Priest. It was a blunt instrument, but lots of very well-intentioned people tried other ways of stopping the tax increases for quite a while before going the initiative route. Oh, yeah. Junior Brown was governor when this happened.

A good popular summary of the history of California politics up through 1966 is in Gladwin Hill's Dancing Bear - An Inside Look at California Politics (Cleveland 1968). The best (still) scholarly work on the 1910 election is George Mowry's The California Progressives (Berkeley 1951).

I return to silence.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

tytiger58


quality posts: 74 Private Messages tytiger58
loveladyelectric wrote:Apparently there was a discussion of Prop 13 at the SoCal gathering, so I want to throw this out there:

Am I the only person that thinks proposition voting is stupid? What is the point of having a representative government if the constitution is largely amended on popular vote? In my opinion, we should trust the representatives that we vote into office to write legislation in line with their campaign platform.



It has been a long time since I heard anyone say we should trust our elected representatives to do the right thing here in California, and for good reason.

What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch? ~ W. C. Fields

“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used” Hunter S Thompson




kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
tytiger58 wrote:It has been a long time since I heard anyone say we should trust our elected representatives to do the right thing here in California, and for good reason.



+1 and +1 to what RPM said.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

loveladyelectric


quality posts: 23 Private Messages loveladyelectric

I've lived in CA for about 2-1/2 years now. I guess I misunderstood total corruption for misguided dogoodedness.

I'm a little thrown off that it's so difficult to elect people that seem to displease both voters and corporations.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

California is special. Has anyone here actually lived there and then left because you disliked it? It seems that for most people it's worth it to stay. Nice weather, natural beauty, etc. I have met a few California refugees in Reno, but for them it was all about the cost of living. You don't move to NV to escape political corruption.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:California is special. Has anyone here actually lived there and then left because you disliked it? It seems that for most people it's worth it to stay. Nice weather, natural beauty, etc. I have met a few California refugees in Reno, but for them it was all about the cost of living. You don't move to NV to escape political corruption.



Cost of living is in many ways related to the political problems that exist in the state.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

From the pub...

ddeuddeg wrote:RED ALERT!!! I think Sparky's finally started drinking his wine!



First warning of the sky falling? Wonder if it's linked to the impending SCOTUS decisions... ;)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Wooooooooooooo!!!!!!! F*** DOMA!!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:Wooooooooooooo!!!!!!! F*** DOMA!!



compute DoMA indeed.

ddeuddeg


quality posts: 29 Private Messages ddeuddeg
mother wrote:compute DoMA indeed.


I have at least 2 questions:
1. What took them so long to come to what seems to me to be a most obvious conclusion?
2. Are the 4 dissenting justices really serious? EDIT: Mayhap when the sky fell, it hit them on the head.

"Always keep a bottle of Champagne in the fridge for special occasions. Sometimes the special occasion is that you've got a bottle of Champagne in the fridge". - Hester Browne


Ddeuddeg's Cheesecake Cookbook

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

I spent a few minutes browsing through the opinion. I was especially interested in the dissenting opinions, and I was disappointed. Our attorney wooters aren't around here any more to agree or disagree, but I thought Scalia's dissent particularly was rambling and pointless. In my line of work it's generally accepted that the more the attorney writes, the less substance will be found there. If he has a point to make, he'll make it and move on.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
ddeuddeg wrote:
2. Are the 4 dissenting justices really serious? EDIT: Mayhap when the sky fell, it hit them on the head.



I don't know. I was looking forward to learning their reasons for dissent, but there's nothing there. Sure, there's some complaining, some sarcasm, a laughable attempt to convince us that "Defense of Marriage Act" has no malice or intent to injure despite the fact that a child could discern the thought process behind naming it that, and a whole lot of "just because." Shouldn't the justices be better than this?

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
ddeuddeg wrote:I have at least 2 questions:
1. What took them so long to come to what seems to me to be a most obvious conclusion?
2. Are the 4 dissenting justices really serious? EDIT: Mayhap when the sky fell, it hit them on the head.



I couldn't agree more with you. The combination of decisions did not in any way infringe on states rights and yet corrected a multitude of obvious and stupid wrongs.

Seriously, could you imagine if you and Bahwm had to do 5 tax returns every year? (2 state as individual to do your federal as individuals, 1 state joint, and 2 federal individual) I highlight that one since it happened every year to every non opposite sex married couple. The original case was about a federal tax bill for inheriting your partner of 4 decades stuff, and could you imagine having your husband/wife deported because they had no standing to get a visa?

I don't see how any of that stuff is even controversial...

(Mind you I think controversial things need to be done beyond this, but this was just such a "no-brainer" outcome...)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:I spent a few minutes browsing through the opinion. I was especially interested in the dissenting opinions, and I was disappointed. Our attorney wooters aren't around here any more to agree or disagree, but I thought Scalia's dissent particularly was rambling and pointless. In my line of work it's generally accepted that the more the attorney writes, the less substance will be found there. If he has a point to make, he'll make it and move on.



First, I completely agree with mother's and d-dog's entire posts. Neither decision infringes upon states' rights and I found the Prop. 8 dismissal interesting in that SCOTUS basically made the same argument myself and many of us have been making this entire time: you (prop. 8 supporters) aren't being harmed by homosexual marriage so you can't have it changed. Their ruling was obviously based on legal technicalities, but it falls perfectly in line with the social commentary.

Chem, I think -- and this is where I wish RPM or PS were still around as they have a far better grasp of SCOTUS than SWMBO does as she hated Con. Law -- that Scalia believes that the Constitution doesn't evolve with time, social changes, etc. His stance is, if I may over simplify to a large degree, that if it wasn't in there, it shouldn't be in there. Homosexuals were not protected under the equal protection clause and so they shouldn't be protected under it now. I do not know, then, how he felt or feels about the other additions to the equal protection clause (blacks, hispanics, etc.).

Reading through SWMBO's Con. Law text book, I found myself agreeing very strongly with some of Scalia's opinions and vehemently disagreeing with others. It would seem that I like him on "political" issues but not on "social" ones.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:
Chem, I think -- and this is where I wish RPM or PS were still around as they have a far better grasp of SCOTUS than SWMBO does as she hated Con. Law -- that Scalia believes that the Constitution doesn't evolve with time, social changes, etc. His stance is, if I may over simplify to a large degree, that if it wasn't in there, it shouldn't be in there. Homosexuals were not protected under the equal protection clause and so they shouldn't be protected under it now.



Heh...I thought all of us (born and naturalized, etc.) were protected under the equal protection clause.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



All persons...is there a "P.S. - except homosexuals" in there somewhere that I did not see?

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:All persons...is there a "P.S. - except homosexuals" in there somewhere that I did not see?



yes, but you have to use lemon juice to read it.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

ddeuddeg


quality posts: 29 Private Messages ddeuddeg
kylemittskus wrote:... I wish RPM or PS were still around ...

Rpm broke his silence briefly last week. I suspect he still looks in here, and may offer us thirsty souls some further enlightenment.

"Always keep a bottle of Champagne in the fridge for special occasions. Sometimes the special occasion is that you've got a bottle of Champagne in the fridge". - Hester Browne


Ddeuddeg's Cheesecake Cookbook

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

I find it interesting that Justice Thomas was in the minority opinion wrt to marriage decisions seeing as he is currently married to a white woman and such a marriage would not have been legal in (all too) recent history.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

So. Paula Deen. Racism. What does everyone think?

I hate this whole thing for a number of reasons, one of which is that it gives stupid people another excuse to bash Southern people. See! Look at the old racist white lady! compute the South and everyone in it!

I'm not a huge fan of Paula Deen, but I do believe the backlash is a little over the top. If a person used a racial slur in the past, is that person forever an irredeemable racist? There can be no forgiveness, ever? You'd think she'd murdered someone. I saw a lady on CNN going on about how people's hearts are broken over this. Really? Paula Deen admitted using the N-word in the past and your heart is broken?

The N-word is taboo, most of us know that is word you just DO NOT SAY. And that's good. But I think we're using this issue to feel good about our own non-racism while ignoring the fact that racism is still here. Thoughts?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

F political correctness. Everyone needs to calm the hell down. I also find it, still, funny (as I rarely, if ever, get offended) that other groups who have equally hurtful words used about them are largely ignored. You would never see this kind of backlash for antisemetism, for example.

In fact, when there was that really bizarre anti-circumcision thing in SF, the things that were getting published were, IMO (biased as it is being that I'm Jewish and not black), far more offensive than someone using a word (that is colloquially used rather often, by the way) years and years ago, there was no backlash at all. None. Zero. Zip.

And on-current topic, homosexuality. I would wager a large amount of money that more kids have experienced hate speak for being gay than for being black. And even if we were to make the number of occurrences the same, the damage caused to gay kids' seems to be worse than the damage causes to black kids when both are called their respective, offensive sobriquets.* I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

*I understand the issues on both sides are far more complicated than this, but I think my point still stands about the lack of reaction to other offensive words and actions.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

pseudogourmet98


quality posts: 16 Private Messages pseudogourmet98

Mostly a lurker here but cannot hold my comments:

1. I do not use/approve of/condone the use of the N word. That being said, if a white woman is being crucified for using it, why is it OK for people of color to use it? Rappers and other black celebrities refer to each other as N frequently and no one calls them out.

2. I think the larger current event to set race relations back a decade (or 2or 3) is the SCOTUS ruling on the voting rights act. Why is that issue getting no play in the media when it has the potential to negatively affect significantly more black Americans than what Paula Dean may have said 20 years ago?

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Re Paula Deen, I agree with you both. The witch hunt atmosphere has gotten out of hand, as witch hunts have a tendency to do.

But - "more kids have experienced hate speak for being gay than for being black"? I have no idea how old you are, but as someone who went to public schools in the 60's and 70's in a fairly large city, I can attest that hate speech toward blacks was often blatant, virulent, and open. If what happened then happened now, whole schools would be shut down. I can't imagine what it was like in the 50's, during the desegregation era.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
coynedj wrote:Re Paula Deen, I agree with you both. The witch hunt atmosphere has gotten out of hand, as witch hunts have a tendency to do.

But - "more kids have experienced hate speak for being gay than for being black"? I have no idea how old you are, but as someone who went to public schools in the 60's and 70's in a fairly large city, I can attest that hate speech toward blacks was often blatant, virulent, and open. If what happened then happened now, whole schools would be shut down. I can't imagine what it was like in the 50's, during the desegregation era.



I'm young, Coy. I'll be turning 28 this September. Of course, racism was blatant and open in the 60s and 70s. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I meant, and did a poor job of explaining, that I meant right now. And indeed, homophobia and accompanying comments are pretty prolific in schools and on facebook and twitter and and and. And much like the racism issues that were so virulent in the past, the children and teens are merely following what they hear their parents and other adults say. Look at the debates that occurred 5 years ago in CA and again, recently.

There are some (I seem to remember RPM making this comment) that don't see homosexual's rights as a civil rights issue. I can see it no differently and from what I have read, history repeated itself with a different targeted group. Hopefully it will continue to repeat itself and we recognize homosexuals as just people who watch a different kind of schematics than most of us and allow them to share equal and connected rights and not this separate but equal BS that some states are still trying or worse.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
pseudogourmet98 wrote:
2. I think the larger current event to set race relations back a decade (or 2or 3) is the SCOTUS ruling on the voting rights act. Why is that issue getting no play in the media when it has the potential to negatively affect significantly more black Americans than what Paula Dean may have said 20 years ago?



Maybe we're being optimistic. I don't know what other choice we have. I do believe that the voting rights problems are more widespread and diverse than perhaps they were before. To certain people, "Democrat" has become synonymous with "taker." The same person who links the two will often go on to mention the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics which vote Democrat. We're not racists, you see, we just don't like takers. That particular problem goes beyond the southern states which were affected by this ruling.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

No prob, Kyle. Given the "current day" perspective you were taking, I would guess that you might well be correct - at the very least, the viciousness of the hate speech is certainly greater toward gays.

I talked with a lawyer of my acquaintance yesterday about the DOMA decision, and he pointed out that this is just part of the battle against that ill-considered law. This decision only says that the government can't discriminate against people in same-sex marriages in such things as benefits and rights.

The next step, which I'm sure is working its way through the system already, is the part of DOMA that says that states aren't required to recognize marriages legally entered into in other states. The Constitution says "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state", but DOMA essentially says "unless it's a same-sex marriage - in that case, never mind". That always seemed to me to be blatantly unconstitutional, and I would venture to guess that when a case finally reaches the Supreme Court it will decide it as it did yesterday's case. Congress should just repeal DOMA and let us move on.

And by the way - I've had people call me Coy, Coyn, and Ed, and none of them are correct. The last name is Coyne, followed by my initials. Doug to friends, Esteemed Mr. Coyne to all others.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?