Currently in campaign mode, for both re-election to her Senate seat this fall and the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Hillary Clinton has found her signature issue (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/18/10117.shtml). And just what issue is that? The expansion of the 12 year-old Family and Medical Leave Act (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/whd/fmla.htm). You know the one pushed by her husband that gives people time off to care for a kid or a sick relative. Yeah, that one.

Only now, The Hildabeast wants to expand it. Get this...she wants to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to include time off from work for participation in parental activities. Need some time off to attend a school play or a PTA meeting? No problem! The federal government is going to require your employer to hold open your job so you can go. She also wants to include more personal time to care for aging parents. How nice.

Hillary says "there should be time available for teachers conferences and doctors appointments, to be involved in your children's lives and to increasingly care for your aging parents." Isn't that special. She didn't say how much all of this would cost employers...but that doesn't matter. All of this sounds good, though doesn't it? Who could be against the federal government requiring all of this free time off?

But that's the problem. All of this sounds good...but somebody has to pay. That somebody is the companies who would have to implement it, in the form of higher prices and lost productivity. What do you suppose people did for decades when they needed to raise their kids and care for a sick relative? They just did it...amazing how people found the time to get it done.

And here's another problem. Look at this from the employer's point of view. You have two different applicants for a position. One has children, the other does not. Whatchagonnado? Everything else being equal, you're going to hire the applicant without children. You want someone who will show up for work, not someone who will constantly be calling in to say that they have a PTA meeting, a conference, or that they need to change a diaper at the nursing home.

Sooner or later the federal government will have to institute even more regulations and anti-discrimination laws (with the accompanying bureaucracy) to make sure you don't discriminate against someone just because they have kids.

I've heard something alarming from several incredibly successful entrepreneurs lately. I'm talking about people like Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus. They tell me that they could not duplicate their incredible achievements today. Why not? The answer is one word. Government. Corporate governance laws like Sarbanes-Oxley, increased regulations, and rabid politicians pandering to the ignorance of voters have teamed together to create a business environment in this country that is not only unfriendly, but sometimes downright hostile to business formation and expansion. Hillary Clinton seems to want to lead the parade.

But leftists like Hillary Clinton don't see things that way. Government knows best.


Http://boortz.com (http://boortz.com/)

Are you Neal Boortz?

And here's another problem. Look at this from the employer's point of view. You have two different applicants for a position. One has children, the other does not. Whatchagonnado? Everything else being equal, you're going to hire the applicant without children. You want someone who will show up for work, not someone who will constantly be calling in to say that they have a PTA meeting, a conference, or that they need to change a diaper at the nursing home.

Uh... I am not up on the latest labor laws... but I thought that this was considered discrimination. The companies you talk about are going to be mostly large companies who are closer to the spotlight and if they start a trend of hiring only single people or folks with no children, I think someone is going to notice and make a stink about it.

In fact, I don't think you can even ASK about things like spouses, significant others, children, ailing parents or other such items on a job application.

Someone got the info on this?

So Hillary is running on a family values platform then?

[ quote ]

[ / quote ]

Is your friend Six.

But leftists like Hillary Clinton don't see things that way. Government knows best.
Yet another intellectually stimulating and provocative analysis by Sixee.

Do you have anything to say Sixee? Can your form and communicate your own ideas? Or are you just going to post articles and "pose" questions?

Your tiresome interjections offering little to no substance to the subjects on these forums has only served to aggravate some of its participants, me included!


Cheers,

Yet another intellectually stimulating and provocative analysis by Sixee.

Do you have anything to say Sixee? Can your form and communicate your own ideas? Or are you just going to post articles and "pose" questions?

Your tiresome interjections offering little to no substance to the subjects on these forums has only served to aggravate some of its participants, me included!


Cheers,

Well, life's tough all over isn't it?

Neal tends to tell things like it is for the most part. Unlike Sean Hannity whose unwavering support on issues like Terry Schiavo and blind support of G.W. are laughable.
So it would seem that she's trying to make herself into a family friendly candidate. Only problem is that corporations will have to foot the bill. And if they foot the bill, I'm sure they will pass the savings on to the customer.
And while they cannot ask about such issues on an application, they can certainly find out in an interview....

Of course the same people that say they won't support the push to allow these additions to FMLA will complain about the downfall of today's youth because parental involvement isn't what it once was. There's got to be sacrifices on both sides if the economical enviornment in this country now dictates that both parents need to work in most two parent households.

We want parents to attend PTA meetings, and then they can't get off work without fear of losing their jobs. BUT BUT BUT the parent doesn't care!

I see both sides of this issue you post about Sixee, but if we want the children of tomorrow to have the parental intervention that is necessary to produce productive adults, something of this sort needs to be done. I fail to see a parent taking off at the most a few hours a month for PTA meetings or a child's play reducing production much at all. As far as the part about allowing more time for adults to take care of the ever aging babyboomers as they near old age, I think that's a great thing. If we ignore family values, then our society will slowly become even more a shadow of what it once was. That's not to say that someone should be able to expect to take off indefinate leaves of absence and have absolute job security. If it's regulated with the best needs of the employees AND the businesses in mind, then it's a great thing. If it becomes too one sided either way, then we will have problems.

Completely agree with you Taleren. Parents desire involvment but in a society where both parents must work two jobs it makes it difficult.

Family is important, just examples on the board, Fandros says he has 60 hours to juggle and a teenage child....10-1 says he wishes he could have more time with his kid. (not saying your a bad parent).

FMLA should be expanded further to allow for the endless rigors of family affairs.

Being a single parent and a dayshit guy I certainly would like more hours to spend with my son.

His mother, due to her job, cannot attend to his school/dr/dentist needs so I'm constantly burning my vacation/personal time to assure he's supported in all these aspects.

I haven't read her FMLA changes, but I will certainly give it a look. Truth is the American family's dynamics are damaged by our constant drive to work and improve ourselves. Tale and Grey are both right in supporting any such drive that would give more back to the family.

Fandros

You're absolutely right Tal too much one way for or against is where the problems come in. A balance is needed. I'm fortunate to work for an employer who allows liberal use of my time or it'd be hell getting my kid to all the dang appts. If I contrast this however with my gf's employer which is pretty much come to work unless your dead I feel even more fortunate. I see both sides.

As far as this being her #1 thing in her stump speeches I don't know how it's going to get her elected. It's going to be an interesting time for campaigns in the coming months.

I haven't read her FMLA changes, but I will certainly give it a look. Truth is the American family's dynamics are damaged by our constant drive to work and improve ourselves.Or simply the drive to survive. I don't have family concerns (and so might be "discriminated" against by FMLA expansion), but I see no problem with finding ways to involve parents more with their children. The days of bread-winning men and stay-home spouses are over for a significant segment of our population. More family time can ease a lot of burdens.

"dayshit guy"? :p

Only problem is that corporations will have to foot the bill. And if they foot the bill, I'm sure they will pass the savings on to the customer.
And while they cannot ask about such issues on an application, they can certainly find out in an interview....

The only difference is that employees would be able to schedule the time off for these conferences, appointments, etc. in advance, allowing the employer time to cover the absence, rather than becoming sick/calling in sick as they must do now in many cases, which actually has a larger affect on productivity.

People have been having to cope with these challenges for the last several decades during which we have seen both parents in the work force. Their employers have had to cope with lower morale problems, productivity problems, etc, that could be assuaged by having this amendment to the current law included. I am sure rules could be established that would dissuade most from attempting to use this suggested right as a means to escape work.

And, regarding employers preferring singles over prospective employees with children, I do not see that happening as a result of this. An employee with children is more inclined to protect his or her job by maintaining as good an attendance record as possible; that paycheck and accompanying benefit package is what keeps the family in some sense of security, and anything that could endanger it would be carefully scrutinized by most. The single with no dependents relying on him or her is more likely to have the "whatever" attitude, making the workforce more transitional and thus adding costs to the employer each time a new employee needs to be trained in to the job.

And finally, with the aging population, it was only a matter of time before the "parental care" issue was raised in a campaign. The 'baby boomers' are becoming senior citizens, and as a potentially enormous voting bloc, they will be courted by both parties in many ways.



Neal Boortz is a serious investigative journalist........
GW has set the standard for open government........
Fried Spam tastes better than a inch thick slab of rare prime rib.

(just kidding, my fingers were crossed:rolleyes:)

bahhhhh Dayshift!!! not dayshit


lol egads

Fandros

dayshit....damn...I was gonna point out that although we are on opposite sides of the political aisle, I also take most of my shits in the daytime. Almost thought we found a common ground.

I'm talking about people like Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus. They tell me that they could not duplicate their incredible achievements today

OH NOZ! WHAT EVER WILL WE DO WITHOUT MORE ALL CONSUMINING MEGA WARESTORES TO DRIVE THE EVIL LOCAL BUSINESSMAN INTO THE POOR HOUSE AND REPLACE HIM WITH MINIMUM WAGE JOBS.

There was a time, back in the day... okay.. a long time ago when I was a child...

Workers were given time off to attend PTA meetings, Little League games, and to take care of loved ones who were ill. Nothing was said about it, nobody worried about it because the boss knew that if you had to take off work, you would get caught up when you got back.

Look at why there is even a need for FMLA... business has pushed us to excel, to do better, do more, do it with less expense, and unfortunately... to do it at the exclusion of everything else.

Many companies will give you sick time or vacation time begrudingly.... I worked at a place where I had accumulated almost 12 weeks of vacation because I was made to feel like I was letting everyone down if I took time off. I got over that feeling eventually.

I get three weeks of vacation a year now... and I take them! My parents are getting older and I am sure the time will come when I too will need to help take care of them. FMLA will be a good thing, but I am saddened that we have to "force" our employers to let us do the right thing.

Too many businesses it seems are more worried about the bottom line than they are their most valuable resource.... the people.

I think the idea is awesome. I don't have kids, and won't for many years, but I am sure I would love the opportunity to take a day off from work to chaperone a class trip or go into my son's school on career day or ...

... and I'm a lucky one who sets my own hours. Folks who have to work those 2 jobs or whatever deserve the time too. This would better the American way of life and family values and almost every aspect of our society.

I am gonna expand on Gandaar's post. My dad used to work for a company called Betz. They did industrial water treatment for cooling towers and cities and stuff, chemistry labs, but we can concider it like any industrial or scientific place. Every year Betz would have a family company picnic and all the families would come out. They had softball and bowling leagues for their employees and encouraged their employees to take all their vacation (but if they didn't, they'd get paid a nominal fee per day they didn't use). Then in 1990 they acquired a smaller company to become Betz Dearborne. The family picnics moved from renting out the Philadelphia Zoo for the day on a weekend to a park near the company. The budget got tight and eventually the bonus pay for those days off disappeared. My dad was encouraged to travel more to keep his job, having him away almost 1 weekend a month. He had trouble taking off a full week for Boy Scout camp during the summer, and had to start sharing a week (he'd go sun to wednesday, that kinda thing).

Today they are owned by GE. They don't have family picnics. He's constantly in fear of losing his job. He works overtime out the ass and weekends. He has lots of trouble even getting out of town to our shore house for the weekends. In just 15 years, its obvious the corporate world changed at Betz (now GE) and this is probably a similiar story accross the country. Family values no longer mirror the corporate world like they did in the 70s and 80s. Its really sad.

The hard part with giving these opportunities comes with jobs like mine or even the military(which unless deployed military is usually fairly lenient). I work 12 hour shifts on a rotating basis, 2 weeks days 2 weeks nights. I get alot of time off due to only working 3days one week and 4 the next. The problem comes with getting time off. There are 4 other people I work with when we are on shift we are the only ones there for 12 hours so if I take time off I am severely impacting others times off. Ya it is a judgement on my part to not impact them but getting time off is hard. We do try as hard as possible to switch and cover each others shift but when you work so much there is only so much you can do. Working 12 hour shifts is hard I com home off nights and sleep all day till I have to head to work again. When I am on my days off from nights I am useless since I am on a nights schedule and I have to keep it. Days isnt as bad for the 2 weeks I am on it. And calling in sick, what is that???

Ohh and I do not expect more but the problem with FMLA is that it is unpaid time off unless you have vacation to use. I sure as hell wo ill not use it for unpaid time off ever. The only plus is here in Cali for like time off for birth etc they incorporate it under unemployment too but that is a huge cut in pay which I would not take that either.

Also taking FMLA your company is allowed to pause your benifits while taking it since it is considered a leave of absence which could screw you if something happened while taking time off. Especially if you took California's unemployment compensation to cover you during FMLA.

Of course the same people that say they won't support the push to allow these additions to FMLA will complain about the downfall of today's youth because parental involvement isn't what it once was. There's got to be sacrifices on both sides if the economical enviornment in this country now dictates that both parents need to work in most two parent households.

The deeper irony is of course that the hidden failings of the American economy (which has been subsidized almost entirely by home equity loans for nearly the last decade) is what's forcing families to have both parents work, combined with huge pressures preventing younger people from ever getting anything beyond a McJob on their own.

I personally see nothing wrong with a little pushback against the intruson of business and corporate life into American public life, and I use intrusion in the most generous way since it's really more of a pillaging invasion. The rest of the Western world has FMLA-style laws that the most gushing bleeding heart here would only dream of after a dose of opium, and yet manage to do alright.

Clinton the 2nd is also in dreamland if she thinks that sort of real-world policy will win any elections, too, but I suppose we do need our idealists to periodically display just how crooked the American electoral system has become.

Ohh and I do not expect more but the problem with FMLA is that it is unpaid time off unless you have vacation to use. I sure as hell wo ill not use it for unpaid time off ever. The only plus is here in Cali for like time off for birth etc they incorporate it under unemployment too but that is a huge cut in pay which I would not take that either.

Also taking FMLA your company is allowed to pause your benifits while taking it since it is considered a leave of absence which could screw you if something happened while taking time off. Especially if you took California's unemployment compensation to cover you during FMLA.

FMLA must be administered differently by company policies. As a postal employee, when I use FMLA it goes against my sick leave.

I wish I had sick leave.

It's hurting us all. Why, the average CEO's salary rose (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/09/news/economy/ceo_pay/) only 16% in 2005, compared to 41% in 2004. That's a 25% downturn! Hopefully someone (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/business/10pay.html?ex=1145592000&en=2351f4d73818a19f&ei=5070) is looking out for these guys. At least they have tax cuts to look forward to.

I wish I had sick leave.

Me too. But such is life. I had to work a 14 hour day on a movie set with food poisoning -- was easily the most awful day of my life!

Me too. But such is life. I had to work a 14 hour day on a movie set with food poisoning -- was easily the most awful day of my life!
That's awful. There is absolutely nothing worse than a movie set with food poisoning!

Me too. But such is life. I had to work a 14 hour day on a movie set with food poisoning -- was easily the most awful day of my life!

Must have been eating the placenta with Tom Cruise...

Getting back to the original point here, I am not sure how I feel about companies being "required" to give time off for things of that nature. At least where I work, we get vacation time, and sick time with them being two seperate entities. But I have many friends that get just straight "leave" days, and if they are sick.. it digs into that time. That being said, I can use my Vacation/personal time for anything I want. If it means that I need to take leave for my family, then that is what I use. Do I like it? No, but I do not feel that my employer (the government) should be required to give me time off if my kid has a baseball game... (even if it is unpaid).

The key for me is the "required" part. This country has been and hopefully will always be based on the rights of people and corporations to do what they want and not be controlled by the government (outside of breaking the laws of the constitution). But slowly that is changing, and this is becoming no longer the land of the free.. but the land of the more successful you make your career, the more we will penalize you. If you are successfull in this country you get taxed up the ass, and criticized if you outsource to increase your profit margin. For the record, I am not a strong supporter of outsourcing, but I do believe it is the right of the company to do so.

For example, look at gas prices. While I will be first to say that I think $3.00 a gallon sucks ass, I also say that I was not bothered (too much) to see Exxon post record profits. It is called capitalism, and unless you want the government to control all oil and gas distribution, then understand that exxon, shell, citgo and whoever else are corporations out to make money. Unfortunately for us, there is not competition between the gas moguls like there is in the fast food arena. If McDonalds and Burgerking were in ca-hoots, then Double-cheese burgers would not cost a buck....

I am against the Government getting involved and "fixing" prices. I am against the Government telling companies how to hire people. I am against the Government telling companies how to run their business. One of the few things I do like though is controlling Monopolies, Fraud, and setting standards that products must meet.

Oh,.. and how exactly has the electorial process become crooked? And young people getting only McDonald jobs? http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/07/news/economy/jobs_collegegrads/index.htm

Come on.. ya can do better then that.... attack the 4.7% unemployment or something...wait...... OMG>... Haliburton just raped my horses and pillaged my wife....

Now Now, you are using logic and reasoned thinking to quell the hysteria.




Stop that.

If you are successfull in this country you get taxed up the ass

Thank you for proving there is an issue between perception and reality.

If you make an average income you are taxed up the ass. If you make $200,000.00 or more a year you are most certainly not taxed up the ass.

The key for me is the "required" part. This country has been and hopefully will always be based on the rights of people and corporations to do what they want and not be controlled by the government (outside of breaking the laws of the constitution). That's what this is about, though, allowing people to do more of what they want (specifically, allow people more time with their families) rather than break their backs in servitude to the corporation.
But slowly that is changing, and this is becoming no longer the land of the free.. but the land of the more successful you make your career, the more we will penalize you. If you are successfull in this country you get taxed up the ass, and criticized if you outsource to increase your profit margin. Have you been alive the last 5 years? The wealthiest among us pay fewer taxes as a percentage of their income, and more and more corporations (I've heard as many as 50%) don't pay any taxes at all. You seem ready to shed tears over the lost freedoms of the richest 1% while shrugging off the burdens of the lower and middle classes.
For example, look at gas prices. While I will be first to say that I think $3.00 a gallon sucks ass, I also say that I was not bothered (too much) to see Exxon post record profits.How about a CEO's 400 million dollar retirement bonus? On top of the massive increases in CEO pay over the last couple years, even when the companies they manage fare poorly?
It is called capitalism, and unless you want the government to control all oil and gas distribution, then understand that exxon, shell, citgo and whoever else are corporations out to make money. Unfortunately for us, there is not competition between the gas moguls like there is in the fast food arena. You admit to a problem while simultaneously speaking against any regulatory solution for that problem. If gas companies are colluding to inflate prices and profits, are we supposed to just take it up the arse? Granted, with people like Bush, Cheney and Ted Stevens in charge, gas companies can do whatever they want -- that's the current reality. But with the market broken, what do you propose (short of 15 year projects to lessen our hunger for gasoline)?

Of course reality here is that Shanno doesn't have any kids or even a significant other for that matter. I'm sure this has some effect on his perception of this issue. If he were a family man, I'm sure he'd at least empathize with people that desire to spend time with their family when the economic model of this country doesn't allow much time for that.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Looks like you get taxed 35% if you make more than $200K a year and you are married, filing seperately.

That leaves you with $130k after taxes.
The lower you make, the lower the percentage.
How would you change it? make it up to 50% for those beyond $200K?

Well Taleran that fact remains no one held a gun to your head and made you procreate. Its a sacrifice all parents make..you want kids well its gonna hurt a little. What gives? I already receive 4 weeks vacation and now a law should be put in place for those with kids to have MORE time off? It does suck and its difficult but for America to stay competitive in the World market making laws that require companies to give people more time off for family...well its a bit over the top. Talk about companies heading to Mexico and even more outsourcing...thats whats going to happen.

Its a no win situation at the moment..yes I would like time off for taking care of, or even spending time with my aging parents. I can..I just have to take a vacation day or wait till Saturday.

That's what this is about, though, allowing people to do more of what they want (specifically, allow people more time with their families) rather than break their backs in servitude to the corporation.

I'm going to ignore the blue collar/retail/service sector workers for a moment, because their situation is a bit different from middle class, white collar america. I've no doubt that the legislation would benefit them. If you've ever worked in manufacturing, retail or the food service industry, you know how uptight working conditions can be there.

There are choices that middle class people can make now that will let them do those things. That is what this boils down to: should people be responsible for themselves, or do they need a babysitter? There are only so many hours in a day and only so many days in a life, and it is up to each and every one of us to decide how we are going to spend them.

Granted, work/life balance is a tricky issue, but nothing is stopping middle class workers from changing the way they live to tip the balance more in favor of family. The fastest way to do this would be by cutting expenses in their lives so they don't have to work so much. Leave one parent home to take care of the child.

If he were a family man, I'm sure he'd at least empathize with people that desire to spend time with their family when the economic model of this country doesn't allow much time for that

I'm a family man. I also happen to feel that in many cases, the economic model of this country enables ample time already to spend time with family and be a good parent. However, many people choose not to live a lifestyle that will enable them to do that.

The issue isn't the sacrifice needed to start a family, the issue is, at least as I read it, giving parents the means to be better parents by allowing them to attend things that help children grow into more productive adults. Whether it's a sacrifice or not, it's necessity. If people don't have children there is no future. If parents aren't capable of being effective in their role as parent, we will have future generations that are less productive (which we are already starting to see as the family unit takes a hit).

My point in what I said about Shanno is this: people without children DO have it easy. It's easy to plan a vacation with one's own desires only in mind. It's easy to rent an apartment and own a car when that's your only expenses(or relatively easy comparitively).

Should a parent be forced to choose between going to a PTA meeting and the ability to take the kid on some sort of meaningful vacation that can grow their mind and imagination? I'm not saying parents deserve more vacation time, I just fail to see how giving a parent 2 hours of time off to attend a PTA meeting be detrimental to our economy. What I DO see coming from it is the appearance that the parent cares about their child, and taking an active role in the child's life that wouldn't be afforded to that child by most companies now.

2 hours early for PTA meetings (besides thought they made those like later at night anyways) or other ...guess I could agree with that. Its not going to hurt, although if the parents at my work all wanted off for a 2 hr meeting in the middle of the day..guess what? Might as well shut the plant down because there are a lot of parents.

Do you think India and China implement things like this for their work force? Its sink or swim currently and its up to us how we go about it. We sink, mom and pop going to have a lot of time to spend at home because they are going to be out of work.

Maybe a better option would be for companies who offer this sort of benefit to employees to get some sort of tax break or maybe this would set this company apart from others because they offer it and others don't? I know at my work we pretty much have "flex" time. Take off if you need, no pay of course, but you at least get to do what you need to do.

Maybe a better option would be for companies who offer this sort of benefit to employees to get some sort of tax break or maybe this would set this company apart from others because they offer it and others don't?Tax breaks are a better option than mandating companies provide greater time off in some manner.

An added federal holiday or two might help as well (tangential to this, I do believe Election Day should be a federal holiday).

Should a parent be forced to choose between going to a PTA meeting and the ability to take the kid on some sort of meaningful vacation that can grow their mind and imagination?

Once again, ignoring the lower 20% of the tax bracket, there is nothing right now preventing anyone who is living within their means from doing both. Granted, it might take sacrifice in other areas (smaller house, using a vacation day, driving a used car, etc.) but it can be done.

I'm not saying parents deserve more vacation time, I just fail to see how giving a parent 2 hours of time off to attend a PTA meeting be detrimental to our economy.

I'm going to generalize a bit here. Depending on the size and nature of the business, the impact of having someone absent for two hours varies. In a very large company, odds are good such an absence wouldn't be missed at all. In a very small mom and pop operation or a manufacturing job under a deadline to meet quota, the situation would be a bit different.

What I DO see coming from it is the appearance that the parent cares about their child, and taking an active role in the child's life that wouldn't be afforded to that child by most companies now.

There shouldn't be an appearance that parents care about their children, it should be a fact. This can't be legislated, and it isn't a problem with which business needs to concern itself. For middle and upper class america, it is an issue that they can address themselves. I concede that other members of society might have a much more difficult time finding a work/life balance, if it is even possible for them to find one at all.

The lower 20% of the tax bracket has, in addition to work/life balance, other very large issues, such as affordable housing, access to transportation, health care, etc.

Having worked in the Food service industry, and in retail, I can honestly say that anytime you take off, is frowned upon severly, unless you are in danger of bleeding out.
Another tactic that companies might use to get around this situation is to hire on more "Contractors".
Since "Contractors" aren't real employees, and don't have benefits as such, FMLA would not apply.
More unintended consequences....

First off...

Tal.. I am sorry I did not invite you. but I got married in Dec and I got instant family.. 3 kids. So I do know... even in the short 4 months since I tied the knot.


Now.. on to some rebuttals.


Thank you for proving there is an issue between perception and reality.

If you make an average income you are taxed up the ass. If you make $200,000.00 or more a year you are most certainly not taxed up the ass

the following is a link from 2004.. but it is still true today...
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

or http://www.factcheck.org/article103.html (2003) but still the same tax system

Social Security is also a Huge issue. Should the rich be forced to pay Social Security beyond the first $90k they earn? The following is a good article that raises interesting debate.. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-31-taxing-rich_x.htm

When I was single and making more then $70k I was STILL sending a check to the IRS after they took the Maximum out of my check. But when I made under 30k I got money back.

Have you been alive the last 5 years? The wealthiest among us pay fewer taxes as a percentage of their income, and more and more corporations (I've heard as many as 50%) don't pay any taxes at all. You seem ready to shed tears over the lost freedoms of the richest 1% while shrugging off the burdens of the lower and middle classes.


Ya.. I have been alive. But once again, when you make more then 136k you pay 35% in taxes... and I am guessing that they do not get a whole lot back in returns... Now, what we can argee on is that while the top 1% account for 34% of all the income taxes, they do get a break on Payroll taxes. I.E. social security, which I brought up before.

How about a CEO's 400 million dollar retirement bonus? On top of the massive increases in CEO pay over the last couple years, even when the companies they manage fare poorly?


I will agree here to a point. First of all, I do have a issue with the CEO of Northwest airlines getting a huge severance package after they declare bankrupcy, but as for the executive of Exxon (one of the most successful businesses ever while under his reign), getting $400 million in MOSTLY stock options and pension, then I have ZERO issues. You make it sound like they handed him $400 million in cash...



You admit to a problem while simultaneously speaking against any regulatory solution for that problem. If gas companies are colluding to inflate prices and profits, are we supposed to just take it up the arse? Granted, with people like Bush, Cheney and Ted Stevens in charge, gas companies can do whatever they want -- that's the current reality. But with the market broken, what do you propose (short of 15 year projects to lessen our hunger for gasoline)?


What I find funny is that you blame Bush and the Republicans. Do you know how much you pay in taxes per gallon? On average 68 cents per gallon. That is state/federal etc... So, maybe to eleviate the costs they should drop taxes.. WOAAHHH ! cannot cut taxes.. liberals will cry.. So, what should we do? I know.. lets ask our friends from Germany or Canada. How much do you all pay per Liter? Compute that to Gallons.. What is it in Canada right now? about $1.10 a liter? so that is 3.79 liters to the gallon.. so gas is $4.00 a gallon? Blame BUSH!!!

Here.. I know this is last year... but http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

Bush is EVIL!!!!!

Like I said.. I do not like paying $2.80 a gallon, but my eyes were open when I was in Germany last year.. we have it easy..

We need more people I can't give out any more reps!

What I find funny is that you blame Bush and the Republicans.
What's funny is that you quoted my post and then make this claim. The oil companies have, as you noted, a considerable lack of competition that allows them to keep prices high. I don't "blame Bush and the Republicans" for this state of affairs -- it's been the case for years -- but rather their lack of response and token examination of the issue in the face of massive price increases over a brief period of time.

1. How many major oil companies do you want (there are what, 5?)? How many foreign competitors should there be (there are 3 now, I believe)?

2. Oil is not as high as it has been in the past using real dollars in order to do an apples to apples comparision.

I don't "blame Bush and the Republicans" for this state of affairs -- it's been the case for years -- but rather their lack of response and token examination of the issue in the face of massive price increases over a brief period of time.



Ok, so what are you suggesting? That the government get involved in the Gas business and provide competition? There is a difference here then there was in Ma-Bell or even Microsoft for that matter. There are multiple oil/gas companies out there, but with the exception to a few cents here and there they all stay pretty close in what they charge per gallon. So you cannot accuse them of being a monopoly like Microsoft is.. hell, lets have the government break them all up.. I am sure many small companies can refine oil cheaper...oh.. nevermind, they would not be able to get permission to build any refineries.. gotta love environmentalists.. oh well.. we are screwed

So you cannot accuse them of being a monopoly like Microsoft is.. hell, lets have the government break them all up.. I am sure many small companies can refine oil cheaper...oh.. nevermind, they would not be able to get permission to build any refineries.. gotta love environmentalists.. oh well.. we are screwedIf collusion can be shown (say, by investigating the reasons for massigve gas price increase over the last couple years), then penalize them. Remove the tax breaks that support them, or base those tax breaks on developments that wean us from oil use (or, hell, on the very topic of this thread). Use taxes on corporate earnings to offset taxes on gas. If these aren't practical solutions, show why and come up with your own.

Do you seriously want the government to launch an investigation into the price of oil?

OPEC and such have held what amounts to, through collusion, an illegal monopoly for decades.

Such collusion was spoofed recently on an episode of Kings Hill using the propane dealerships.

It's not new, it's not even all that secretive and when/if it ever comes to light we'll see the uglier side of the Oil companies collective power.

Fandros

Do you seriously want the government to launch an investigation into the price of oil?I'd rather they take steps to make such an investigation unnecessary.

Like what? Shut down the futures market for oil? Tell OPEC what price to charge? Open up the Arctic national Wildlife refuge to drilling?

Back on the topic of FMLA, I have not seen any legislation written yet, so I do not know exactly what the proposed law would be.....

...BUT, I would be more inclined to expect something along the lines of allowing time off, to be charged against existing leave hours, for medical and or specified meetings regarding child and/or parental care that cannot be scheduled outside of normal working hours. Most parent/teacher conferences (at least in this area) can be scheduled in the evening, as are PTA meetings.

Many dental offices are open until 5-6 in the evening, so those appointments can be made outside of work hours in most cases.

However, there are some situations which are unforeseeable, or can only be addressed during work hours, and for those allowing time off will in the long run enhance the work environment and productivity; by charging against accumulated leave time (vacation or sick) the employee is given reason not to abuse this.

I had over 350 hours of sick leave built up until last week, and I used 32 hours charged as FMLA so that I could make arrangements with the morturary, meet with attorneys for related matters, see that my 73 year old mother was in stable condition and had everything she needed, and regulate the disposition of items "wanted" as memorials. This is the kind of situation the law was designed for, as well as when a child or family member is seriously ill requiring constant care.

The change being proposed as I take it will allow me to take time if needed to further tend to my mother's needs as they become apparent with her advanced age. If I have earned the leave time, it should be available for such use.

The key for me is the "required" part. This country has been and hopefully will always be based on the rights of people and corporations to do what they want and not be controlled by the government (outside of breaking the laws of the constitution). But slowly that is changing, and this is becoming no longer the land of the free.. but the land of the more successful you make your career, the more we will penalize you.


This is the mythology sponsored by the self-styled (and wealthy) elite in the modern neo-Conservative movement and has nothing to do with reality.

Your effective tax bracket DECREASES the more you make over about 275k annually from straight salary or wage income. If you are like most rich people and get the majority of your real income from investments or stock options and not salary, you are in the lowest effective tax bracket in the country. Tax laws are intentionally kept complicated to obscure this, among other reasons.

What is making this not the land of the free is that we no longer operate in capitalism, we operate in socialism not for the sake of the people but instead for the investment side of the economy -- corporate socialism of the worst kind, where everyone is taxed to maintain the fallacy of perpetual growth required by our debt-fueled capital system.

Republicans USED to be against this, until about 1984, when they silently and without protest switched to the same post-Keynesian spending models as the Democrats. It's quite likely you've never even heard of it. Politicans don't ever mention it. What's fun is that the think-tank crowd that was advising Reagan and Bush senior at the time now all have Vice Presidencies or cabinet-equivalent positions of their own.


I also say that I was not bothered (too much) to see Exxon post record profits. It is called capitalism, and unless you want the government to control all oil and gas distribution, then understand that exxon, shell, citgo and whoever else are corporations out to make money.

So it's capitalism when the puppets in our government make war on foreign peoples to secure gas rights for the corporations who will give them board positions worth millions of dollars once they leave office? Because that has been the state of the American (and European) oil industries since the 1890s. The dismantling of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I was entirely inspired by oil, and you should be quite familiar with the results of that since you fought in a war in former Ottoman territory at least once.




Oh,.. and how exactly has the electorial process become crooked?


Our current President never held a real job, and has lived his life entirely on money from the oil investments of his famiy, and our Vice President is a former defense contractor and CEO of a defense contracting omnicorporation, and both of them were planning to invade Iraq and Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11 to secure oil pipelines and fund contracting jobs, for instance the KGB/Halliburton cashcows like Camp Bondsteel in Afghanistan.

This is the sort of thing we used to satirize in movies about Communist regimes.


And young people getting only McDonald jobs?


College graduates aren't the people I was refering to, although the $45k annual salary listed there is actually less effectively that what comparable graduates were making ten and twenty years ago. I was specifically refering to pre-collegiate people who are largely prevented from making meaningful monetary contributions to their family. This is not unique to the United States, but is particularly bad here since we've had a economic recovery without job recovery and no real salary growth in a decade.

Incidently student loans are often the only reason most people can afford to send their children through college, but debt is the only way people are able to get relatively ahead these days .. unless they're lucky enough to be part of the investment set.



If you want to talk solutions, the real one would probably increase the price of gas at the pump, but on the bright side you'd only be paying half the taxes. Of course, given that over 70% of the American public, when polled with unbiased questions, is in favor of less empire and more domestic investment, the American political establishment happily labels the idea "politically impossible."

The change being proposed as I take it will allow me to take time if needed to further tend to my mother's needs as they become apparent with her advanced age. If I have earned the leave time, it should be available for such use.

I always thought your leave time was your own, that you can take it whenever you want. What FMLA says is an employer must give you time off, with no pay, for these circumstances, and must guarantee to hold your position open for a certain amount of time, or give you a job of equal value when you are ready to return to work.
The Hildabeast is suggesting that employers be mandated to include PTA meetings, et al.

Do you think India and China implement things like this for their work force? Its sink or swim currently and its up to us how we go about it. We sink, mom and pop going to have a lot of time to spend at home because they are going to be out of work.

I have little knowledge about holidays and days off system of USA, but there is one thing I know:
If we (as occidental economy) swim in the same direction as India or China, we wil sink out of exhaution.
We need to relay on quality over quantity, because there is nothing we can do to have the same production.
We need to focus on the best products, the best workers, the most advanced techno, etc.
And to get this quality, we need quality for our people.
Very simply put, if you don't have to worry because you'll be able to attend to that parents' meeting, won't you work "better" and more focused?


Wasn't one Microsoft tagline saying "to work better, work less"? :)

Bah!

My solution was to change jobs ;) I used to work for private contractors all over the SE. The pay was great, but the hours were horrid. Drove 75k miles a year getting to and from job sites. I missed too much of my son growing up. I didn't blame the company. I knew what it was like when I started.

Now I work for a state agency, at about 55% of what I used to get paid, but I can pretty much come and go as I please. I remarried and now have 5 kids instead of 1 so rarely a week goes by that I don't have some conference to attend or a little one that needs to go to the doc or something.

I don't think it is the govenrments problem to pass legislation. It's where the parents put their priorities.

Wasn't one Microsoft tagline saying "to work better, work less"? :)

Yea tell that to Microsoft employees who put in 80 hour weeks. That quality and quantity go hand in hand. You cannot work any less an achieve quality. Personally my work allows any flex time (UN PAID) you need..plenty of happy parents with great kids. So it depends who you work for...

We learn today that the "very rich" in our country are getting very richer (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12393877/). Now .. how do you get classified as "very rich?" You have to have $5 million in investable assets .. and that can't include the family home. There are about 930,000 such people in this country as of the end of 2005. That's up by 26%. As for plain old ordinary millionaires, there are now 8.3 million of them walking around, and that's up 11% over the past year. Now .. how about affluent households? Those would be households with over $500,000 in net worth. The numbers there are up about 7% over last year to 14 million households. Now ... just how did these people increase their net worth? They invested. The stock market has been performing wonderfully .. and they invested. They didn't buy bling. They took their money and put it to work for them. In other words .. the rich kept getting richer because they kept doing the things that made them rich. Evil bastards, don't you think?

Http://boortz.com (http://boortz.com/)

At this point, it looks like your posts have turned into commercials.

The Hildabeast is suggesting that employers be mandated to include PTA meetings, et al.

Wrong!

Neal Boortz says that Hillary wants that. Hillary has said she wants to see the FMLA legislation expanded on, but it is Neal Boortz who has defined what Hillary intends. Guess his crystal ball must be pretty good.

Anyway, I do agree that child care and caring for aging parents are valid concerns in this day and age, and were not as large of an issue twenty years ago. If you suddenly have to take a week or several weeks off to care for a mother or father or child who has been in an accident, or become seriously ill, you should not have to worry about losing your job because of it.

Can we just get Neal to make a login and post his thoughts instead of going through the middleman