pattygreen

NOONE needed to make those signs and noone needed to put them up. They were totally unnecessary and a waste of money!!! This article will explain to you why there are no jobs out there. By MICHAEL P. FLEISCHER With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why. Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay. Daniel Henninger discusses how Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan agree that Americans should send more of their paychecks to Washington. Also, Fannie and Freddie ask for more cash within weeks of an Obama pledge to end taxpayer rescues. Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher. Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally. Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security. When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year. Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too. Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare. Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%. To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences. And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment. A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price. Mr. Fleischer is president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J. </DIV>

I don't hope that people get aids. I hope people will learn from their sins and correct bad behavior from the consequences that they endure because of it.

I understand that liberals in general feel that the government should be the parent and fix all the peoples problems for them, but the fact is that the government should NOT. People need to endure the consequences for their actions so that they can mature and grow and change from their bad behavior. It wont happen if the government just "gives" the people the fix.

You constantly put your own swing upon what others say. In this world, people do things to bring about the 'problems' that they have in life. If only they would think about the results of their actions BEFORE they do what they do. Consequences for your own actions should be a part of life. It teaches us and helps us to grow and change so that we will be better. Without consequences, people will go on living as they have and never change, and therefore, always be having problems. People need to be responsible for their choices, and when the "parent", whoever plays that roll, continuously bails the child out and paves the way for them to continue to live in that way, it is a shame. The "parent" does the child a disservice. He hinders the child from growth and maturity. Shame on the parent who does that to their child! Shame on the government for doing that to the people they govern! No one wants to see anyone get AIDS or any other "consequence" from their wrong choices in life, but sometimes, enduring consequences is needed in order for the person, and especially for the other people viewing the consequences, to stop their behavior. He may have not worded what he was trying to point out to the people in an eloquent way, but what he was trying to say was clear. People must go through the consequences for their actions in order for those consequences to lesson for others. We learn from the mistakes and trials that we have gone thorough and those that we see going through them. "No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it." (Hebrews 12:11)

I suppose cleo's is okay with the government paying for all those signs to advertise how the stimulus has wasted our money. Just another way for government to spend our hard earned money frivilously.:thumbup:

{Cleo's quote} "Just when I thought I had heard all there was from hateful, mean-spirited republicans, I recently learned about the following."...{end quote} That's republicans with an "S". You are speaking of all republicans when you quote your rants about the few.

Whenever you speak of the right, you speak of them as a whole. You rarely differentiate between those few who do stupid crap, like holding a sign that says "I hate Obama" and the millions who don't do that kind of crap. You lump them all together and truly believe that they are all haters and racists. Cause if you didn't you wouldn't go on and on about how it has to do with Obama's skin color instead of the fact that we can't stand what he's doing to our country.

So, you admit you 'hate'? Anyways......I have ALWAYS pointed out that there will always be a few in every group who are idiots! BUT to classify the whole group for the idiotic actions of a few is wrong. And that's what YOU do.

This was okay though? Your libaral democrat friends carried signs tha actually read "KILL BUSH"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They weren't playing no game! I am in no way endosing the carnival game in any way. I believe it is wrong. I'm just here to point out your hypocrisy.

A few nice nuggets thrown in with the gravel at first doesn't fool anyone. We see it for what it will do to us LATER. When there is no money to support it and they will have to deny care to people due to not being able to cover the expense of it.

No. One month matters. Yours is Old news!

dramaqueen!

All I'm saying is : If God could create Adam and Eve 6000 years ago to live on this earth and to be our "first parents", why isn't it possible that he created other different beings 'made in his image' before them. This article tells of these "human neandrethals" as having a unique and differnt DNA than humans today, and that they became wiped out all at once like the dinosaurs were. A potter makes something on His platform out of His clay and then destroys it and starts over with something new all the time.

Is this a new species of human being? Scientists have extracted DNA from a bone discovered in Siberia that almost certainly belongs to a new kind of human – one that may have lived as recently as 30,000 years ago. Will this transform our views of human evolution? The discovery of X-woman marks a first in using genetics alone to identify what many palaeontologists believe must be a new human species. But this is also one of the earliest attempts to look at ancient DNA from human remains.

here is the source: Science and the Bible Most Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. I do not. But I didn't want to rock the boat on that one, mostly because the age of the earth does not make God any less real or what he says any less truthful.

It has been proven scientifically that the human remains found that you speak of do NOT have the same kind of Human DNA that humans have today. They are a different species altogether. Is it possible that at one time God created other beings to live on this earth before Adam and Eve? I believe it is. He created Dinosaurs at one time to roam this earth and then he wiped them all out in a day, why not other beings? All I know is that The earth and the Heavens were created in the beginning (whenever that was) just as God says in his word. Adam and Eve were created approx. 6000 years ago. What was on this earth before them, I do not know. (except for what science has uncovered. Dinosaurs, etc.) Also carbon dating is only accurate for up to a few thousand years. Read this article about it. Is carbon dating accurate? Is carbon dating accurate? Only to a certain extent. In order for carbon dating to be accurate, we must know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime. Unfortunately the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has yet to reach a state of equilibrium in our atmosphere; there is more carbon-14 in the air today than there was thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the ratio is known to fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time (e.g. during the industrial revolution more carbon-12 was being produced offsetting the ratio a bit). Carbon dating is somewhat accurate because we are able to determine what the ratio was in the unobservable past to a certain extent. By taking a carboniferous specimen of known age (that is, a specimen which we are able to date with reasonable certainty through some archaeological means), scientists are able to determine what the ratio was during a specimen's lifetime. They are then able to calibrate the carbon dating method to produce fairly accurate results. Carbon dating is thus accurate within the timeframe set by other archaeological dating techniques. Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years. Scientists have tried to extend confidence in the carbon dating method further back in time by calibrating the method using tree ring dating. Unfortunately, tree ring dating is itself not entirely reliable, especially the "long chronology" employed to calibrate the carbon dating method. The result is that carbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is questionable. This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the scientific literature. Many scientists will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories. But if the carbon dating results actually conflict with their ideas, they aren't too concerned. "This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether." (Peter James, et al. (I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish), Preface to Centuries of Darkness, 1991) So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.

That's old news! This report was in June. My report was just the other day.

Nice try. I know, and God knows, the truth and that's really all that matters. You have been calling the right haters and racists from day one. There is NO denying that. I called you it back when you kept insisting that you were justified in calling the tea partiers those names. Because you were so insistent that we were haters and racists, I put it back on you. I said it was YOU that was a racist and a hater, not them. Also, when I said that I never called anyone a hater or a racist before, I also said "anyone BUT Cleo'smom."

Jewish World Review Week of August 2, 2010

Why would anyone having a belief in a creator be disturbing to you? If there is a painting, there is an artist. Right? What is so hard to believe. Is it easier for you to believe that you just happened by chance? A big bang and all of a sudden you're here? And so perfectly made? So intricate? So wonderous?