Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 8/23
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Aug. 23, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
292 Comments
John Carmichael from Wichita was just appointed to the Kansas Human Rights Commission:
http://www.governor.ks.gov/news/NewsRelease/2007/nr-07-0820a.htm
Did his $4200 in contributions to Kathleen Sebelius, $3200 to Paul Morrison, $1070 to the Kansas Democratic Party, and $2000 or so to the ProKanDo PAC, have anything to do with this appointment? I guess those were “solid” credentials for the appointment.
I see our resident anti-choice conspiracy kook is the first post again. Does he ever tire from his posting of alleged misdeeds by the minority party in this state?
Thank God we have Meadomuffin to be eternally vigilant when it comes to political finance.
What I wonder is why being pro-life made people think Saddam was building a nuclear bomb in the desert, or driving around in a van with a chemical factory in the back?
It appears that FAlcon’s QB Michael Vick will have to serve at least 18 months in federal prison. While I don’t at all condone what Vick did- and yes I do think he is guilty as hell- the punishment does not fit the crime. Missing 2 NFL seasons will effectively end Vick’s NFL career. Never in my life do I recall a case in which fighting animals ended up in federal court. In fact I don’t recall the hordes of ghettoites and rednecks that love to pick on animals even going to jail. But Michael Vick is going to prison so we have to ask why. And the answer is simply “the OJ factor”. OJ Simpson got away with killing 2 white people. And yes, he too is guilty as hell. This greatly angered many white people who are still seething about it. So Vick is going to pay the price for it. It would be advisable for any black athlete to make sure he keeps as far away from trouble as possible because he too may end up paying for OJ’s crimes. I do not have any problem with Vick going to prison for picking on animals but when are they going to start putting rednecks in jail for animal abuse?
Hey Meadowlark
How many soldiers have died because Bush made political appointments to foreign policy positions instead of career professionals?
“Since assuming the helm at the State Department in 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has installed veteran foreign service officers with more than 200 years of collective diplomatic experience in seven critical posts from the Middle East to South Asia and the Far East.
By contrast, their immediate predecessors had just 72 years of combined experience and five of them were Republican political operatives with limited or no background in diplomacy, according to an Associated Press survey of senior agency appointees.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_diplomatic_push
Every day that President Bush is in office is another day of mourning in America.
Kev, I hope it ruins his career to the point of unrecovery. There are career consequences for actions in anything you do. Being in the NFL is a priviledge, one that comes with any other high profile responsibilty. Yes, we’re still furious about the OJ thing, but I’ll bet you that we’re not still talking about Vick 10 years later either. People who HURT animals for pleasure are truly sadists. And yes, people do go to prison for this or there wouldn’t be a law on the books that allow it. He just so happens to be the only person famous enough to draw this much attention for it. It alarms me that you find this to be perfectly acceptable enough to continue to support him as well.
Hee hee hee. Did you see the story on the news last night that people are donating their vick jerseys to humane societies to use them as “mop up” rags to clean up after the dogs, or as bedding in their little kennels?
heheheheheheheheheh……
Pretty much if you ever supported a candidate financially, you shouldn’t ever be elected or appointed according to meadowlark.
I’d like to know how many non-supporters get elected. Ya think phill Kline would elect or hire me into any position? I don’t think so!
…and btw, I’m gonna stand up for Meadowlark today. He rarely posts here anymore, and his post this morning was a statement of fact and a question, not an attack on anyone.
While he and I rarely agree, I am VERY glad that he posts info about campaign financing. The dems just need their own Meadowlark to post things about the cons in this state. But I think they’d have a hard time coming up with someone as knowledgable as Meadowlark.
Compared to SOME of the con posters here, Meadowlark is a real gentleman. How come we dont encourage that?
How many Repub. appointments has Meadowlark ever reported on?
I find two things interesting in Meadowlark’s post.
1. There is a Kansas Human Rights Commission.
2. Donating to groups that consider babies to be inconvenient tissue does not disqualify you from being on the Kansas Human Rights Commission.
More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war, study sayshttp://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/more_americans_killed_by_illeg.php
“estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S.”
Let’s do the math. ~3700 troops killed in Iraq over 4 years. 2158 * 4 = 86328632/~3700 = 2.33
So more than twice the amount. This doesn’t even include the DUI fatalities which, while I don’t have the stats, is amazingly high. Most of the illegals have multiple DUI offenses.
Now could someone please explain why we don’t have a “War on Illegal Immigrants” as they seem to be killing far more Americans that the Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, and al qeada.
Thats a great link to a religious based news site Solly. Can you please post a credible source for your statistics?
I find that number extrememly hard to believe.
“How many Repub. appointments has Meadowlark ever reported on?”
Uh, how many repub appointments have been MADE since 2002 when governor leadership ascended to the throne and declared all appointments to be for sale to the highest bidder?
Duh. When we have a repuke governor, I’m sure Meadowlark will report on them. Or at least feed the info to me :)
…and I’ll ask the question again?
Why dont the kansas dems fight fire with fire? Why dont they have their own Meadowlark to report on the nutso fundie repubs?
(crickets chirping)
TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) — New Jersey law enforcement was ordered Wednesday to notify federal immigration officials whenever someone arrested for an indictable offense or drunken driving is determined to be an illegal immigrant.http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/22/newark.immigration.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest
Mike,Looks like there aren’t many people looking at this. So the study I provided a link to may be one of very few. We don’t watch the statistics because some liberals and the ACLU would be up in arms that this racist.
Just like we don’t watch Muslims in our own country. Even as they have vowed to destroy America from within, we don’t keep track of them and what they are doing.
Isn’t PC a wonderful thing?
Heheheheh. Looks like the wingnuts are gonna have a GREAT time at this hate fest….
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1644966
Go farmie, go farmie, go farmie :->
Did the Weblog team solve the worlds problems while I was away?
Did Bush do anything right?
Nevermind, I suppose both are a big fat NO.
Oh it is good to be back. Hope I hit the Powerball tonight so I don’t have to go on any more business trips. But if I do, I’ll not get the full 300 million.
I’ll have to pay some taxes. Reminded me of the below email I received from someone.
At first I thought this was funny…then I realized the awful truth of it.Tax his land, Tax his bed,Tax the table at which he’s fed.Tax his tractor, Tax his mule,Teach him taxes are the rule.Tax his cow, Tax his goat,Tax his pants, Tax his coat.Tax his ties, Tax his shirt,Tax his work, Tax his dirt.Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink,Tax him if he tries to think.Tax his cigars, Tax his beers,If he cries, then Tax his tears.Tax his car, Tax his gas,Find other ways to tax his assTax all he has, then let him knowThat you won’t be done, ’till he has no dough.When he screams and hollers, then tax him some more,Tax him till he’s good and sore.Then tax his coffin , Tax his grave,Tax the sod in which he’s laid.Put these words upon his tomb:” Taxes drove me to my doom…”When he’s gone, don’t even relax,Its time to apply the Inheritance Tax.Accounts Receivable TaxBuilding Permit TaxCDL license TaxCigarette TaxCorporate Income TaxDog License TaxExcise TaxesFederal Income TaxFederal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)Fishing License TaxFood License TaxFuel Permit TaxGasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)Gross Receipts TaxHunting License TaxInheritance TaxInventory TaxIRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties ( tax on top of tax)Liquor TaxLuxury TaxesMarriage License TaxMedicare TaxPersonal Property TaxProperty TaxReal Estate TaxService Charge TaxSocial Security TaxRoad Usage TaxSales TaxRecreational Vehicle TaxSchool TaxState Income TaxState Unemployment Tax (SUTA)Telephone Federal Excise TaxTelephone Federal Universal Service Fee TaxTelephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge TaxesTelephone Minimum Usage Surcharge TaxTelephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges TaxTelephone State and Local TaxTelephone Usage Charge TaxUtility TaxesVehicle License Registration TaxVehicle Sales TaxWatercraft Registration TaxWell Permit TaxWorkers Compensation TaxSTILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago ,and our nation was the most prosperousin the world. We had absolutely NO national debt,had the largest middle class in the world,and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What the heck happened?
Solly, if you think your boy Ron has a hard time with the MSM, take a look at what ABC News is doing to MY boy Dennis!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1645691
Unelectable? Hardly. Only if we keep SAYING he’s unelectable. IMHO, he’s the only SANE candidate to vote for.
Bob Hooper? Are you there? hehehehehe. He was the Dennis guy in our caucus in 04. And guess what, Hooper has been a water advocate since before most of us had our first kiss….
GO DENNIS!!!!!!!!
Kev every year there is a raid on those Pit bull fighting and sponsoring the fights in Wichita. THEY all go to jail! Bond out and face court, Pit bull fighting is big here and in Oklahoma. When I was a jailor, there were as many as two hundred arrested every year.
LOL one of the funniest incidents I ever saw was the night of a raid and one of those arrested was setting in a holding cell shouting at the top of his lungs about how they could all Fook themselves and as soon as he bonded out he was running off to California! A bonds man was filling out the paper work to bond someone out and kept looking toward the shouting man. Finally he asked whom the guy was? I in turn asked whom he was bonding out? He told me and I busted out laughing and then told him that was the guy he was bonding out! Jimmy looked at me over his glasses then looked back to the shouting man, then back to me.He suddenly torn up the paper work and asked me to throw it away for him!
After a month, the shouting man started talking to me through the bars and said he could not understand it.His wife had the money to pay a bonds man, but none of them would bond him out! I said, “Matter, I hope you take this in the spirit it is offered. BUT YOU ARE ABOUT THE DUMBEST MOTHER FOOKER I HAVE EVER MET!”. I then told him about the night he was arrested and what happen with his bonds man.Matter stood staring at me for a few moments, then lowered his eyes and said “Yeah I am the DUMBEST mother fooker you have ever met!”. LOL
Farmie, if it came down to Ron v Dennis that would be America’s best election in decades. No matter who lost, America wins. If I HAD to vote democrat (if let’s say Romney or Giuliani win the nomination) I’d most likely vote Dennis if he were on the ticket.
SolI think you are walking a slippery slope. Throughout our history we have plotted against immigrant groups. Starting with the Native Americans, to the Irish, then the Germans, after that African Americans, then women, after Vietnam it was the Vietnamese and Cambodians, now its Mexicans. With each of these groups there were claims of rampant violence and we were told of our societies demise if nothing was done. But as time passed, these immigrant groups acclimated themselves and became productive parts of our society. I know what you are going to say, “they came here illegally”. I agree that they have broken the law in coming here. But now that they are here, what do you recommend we do? Alot of them have anchor babies and cannot just be deported. We need to secure our border. Thats first. Until we do that we cannot address those that are here.
Farmie, Dennis and Ron won’t get the nod because they are both independent leaders and thinkers. Read – can’t be bought by the party.
“Starting with the Native Americans, to the Irish, then the Germans, after that African Americans, then women, after Vietnam it was the Vietnamese and Cambodians,”
They were here legally.
Illegal = crime. Illegal immigrant = criminal. They ALREADY broke the law.
“Alot of them have anchor babies and cannot just be deported.”
Deport the parents. They are illegal. If they have someone to take care of the baby, so be it. If not, take the baby with you. The BABY is a citizen (which IMHO is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard) not the parents. Heartless? Nope, just obeying the law.
“A US-born child cannot in fact sponsor his/her parents for legal immigration to the United States until he/she becomes an adult, and illegal immigrant parents do not gain any additional legal rights based solely on the fact that they have had a child born in the US.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby
Like I said, I understand that the parents are here illegally. This issue has so many sharp edges its crazy. There needs to be punishment for those that employ illegals. The immigrants need to punished more severely as well. But how do you punish them without taxing Americans? So many edges, so little leadership. Who would pick the fruit and clean rich peoples houses for $2/hr? Where would we get authentic Mexican food?(Sarcasm). So many questions so little leadership.
“So many questions so little leadership.”
100% with you on that one brother.
I found some pretty scary numbers, trying to find a reliable sorce for them…
The one thing that you have to be careful of Sol is overstating. It gives credibility to those being attacked. And I am not saying just you. Its across the board paranoia. Those in the media throw large numbers around too and people begin to question what they are saying. When those numbers are disproved then the illegals get more credibility. Stick close to the facts and try to provide some realistic solution and the country will rally. Without real leadership and hard choices, this will never change.
Hold Mexico more accountable, it’s not enough to just send them back, The US AND Mexico need to address the reasons why they’re coming here in the first place.I think we should place all of our prisons in Mexico, that would create jobs for it’s citizens and give criminals a taste of what foriegn prisons are like…maybe it would go a long way to reducing recidivism. I had the opportunity to visit a prison while I was in Palau, and it was just like in the movie “Midnight Express”. Everyone has it pretty darn good in this country, that’s why so many are willing to risk everything to come here.
The illegal imiigraton problem is indeed serious, and difficult to solve. It many never be solved. I once put together a plan, but having no idea how to search this ewblog, and I didn;t saveit, I have no idea what all it said. But, I think we need to do some serious thinking, and action1) large fines, to the tune of at least 25% of gross recipts, for any company found to have hired illegal aliens2) Prison sentences for those in managment found to be complicit in the hiring of illegal aliens3) Two year moratorium on the above, while a national identificaiton/registration is set up, verifiable through a national data base.4) If an employer is found to have used the federal system, and the prospective employee cleared, items 1 and 2 do not come into play5) Those here illegally may apply to stay and work here, with a special guest worker id. Any criminal record, particularly violent crimininal record, and the id will not be granted. Any criminal record after status is given, and the special status will be reworked. I am thinking any class a misdemeanor, or any felony.6) special guest worker status will never result in citizenship. Period. Nor will it allow for any but emergency entitlements (for lack of a better word) Any childrenborn in this country will be citizens of the United States7) Any person here illegally, after the two year moratorium, without said special worker status, will be immediately deported.
Mary, you think the whole “Shawshank Redemption” will solve our problems? What about the people imprisoned falsely? Isn’t that cruel and unusual?
OK the stats I found, I can’t back up. Looks like they came from Mike Savage.
Mary I think you are on to something, the first part – hold Mexico accountable. How about this, start rounding up the illegal aliens. Fine whomever is employing them. Send them back to Mexico. Then send Mexico a bill for the TOTAL cost of gathering them up and deporting them. Every penny spent gets billed to Mexico.
Bring our boys home, from every foreign country, and redeploy to the borders.
I say that because there was one of the dateline/20-20 something show about an American man being held and found guilty for a murder it really seems he didn’t commit. He was a target for anti-american sentiment.
“Every penny spent gets billed to Mexico.”
NOW THERE IS AN IDEA!
“Any children born in this country will be citizens of the United States”
How about
Any children born in this country to legal parents will be citizens of the United States
Why should someone be able to cross the border illegally and give birth and have that child be a citizen? Makes absolutely NO sense.
Sol, with respect; to achieve your goal, the Constitution would need amending to alter the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, section 1, which begins: “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. * * *”
At the very least Sol, but don’t hold your breath waiting for Mexico to pay us anyhting.Punishment doesn’t have to be cruel and unusual, PMom…but you won’t see clean foreign prisons with TVs, gyms, air conditioning, free education, free counseling, free legal advice, or maintaining a better environment than most of the homes the inmates were raised in. Maybe when prison is a place no one wants to go back to, less people will choose go back.And I honestly believe that a person who is sitting in prison is most likely guilty of the reason he/she is there. It takes quite a few screw ups before a perp actually does time. Most people who deserve to be in prison are still out on the streets.
VT,
Modify the Constitution. It was a mistake. Sounded good at the time, but we can see now that it was a mistake.
People break the law to get here. They are not citizens. Why should their children be citizens? They were born during an illegal act.
Mary,“At the very least Sol, but don’t hold your breath waiting for Mexico to pay us anyhting.”
We have some tools. Raise tariffs until they comply. This would impact American business as well. When big companies with factories ‘over there’ start feeling the squeeze, betcha something shakes lose.
“VT,
Modify the Constitution. It was a mistake. Sounded good at the time, but we can see now that it was a mistake.
People break the law to get here. They are not citizens. Why should their children be citizens? They were born during an illegal act. ”
I am not in favor of revising the Constitution for such a matter. Fact is, I wouild allow such “anchor babies” to be citizens and give their IMMEDIAATE families (dad,mom,siblings) special worker status.
It’s called politics — you act as if it’s the first time it’s ever happened and other politicians have never thought of it — naive —- get over it
Ken-
???????
“Fact is, I wouild allow such “anchor babies” to be citizens and give their IMMEDIAATE families (dad,mom,siblings) special worker status.”
Why do they get special rights because they broke the law and had their baby here?
From the Washington Times; are the federal, state and local governments some of the largest employers of illegal aliens?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070823/NATION/108230096/1001
THe baby did not break the law. No sense in punishing the baby because of the actions of the mother. The rest of the family is needed for the nurturing of the child. Simple as that.
Vaughn Tolle-
I don’t know how long that program has been in existence, but it needs to end.
Back to the Michael Vick issue – the reason that it became a Federal case was that the perps were crossing state lines to participate in dog fighting and illegal gambling. The local prosecutor in Northern Virginia failed to proceed with the investigation ($?) so the Feds entered the investigation.
From my perspective, Michael Vick’s NFL career should be over, not because of the dog fighting necessarily, but because of the gambling charges.
Pete Rose was banned for life – so should Michael Vick.
The baby wouldn’t have been in the US if the parents didn’t break the law. Pretty simple. Why would you reward law breaking? This would entice people to break the law, come here and have a baby so that they can stay. Part of the problem, not the solution.
I have a problem with the parents crossing illegally and then getting the US Taxpayer to pay the medical cost, when the sole purpose is to make the baby a US Citizen.
“Michael Vick’s NFL career should be over”
Michael Vick’s NFL career IS over
The BEST he can hope for, if the NFL does not ban him, is back up QB for the Raiders. Then… mabey…
SolDevVB-
I understand your point. I really do. I just disagree with your solution.
WS, on Michael Vick; it is the gambling charges that should be of concern, and the basis for NFL action. There was a quarterback in the NFL from Ohio State several years back that was found to be involved in gambling, Art Schlichter (sp?), and it seems to me he was dealt with by the league in some fashion, the details of which I don’t recall.
What about what Hud stated?
I have a problem with it too. I just don;t have great answer. Life is sometime like that.
VT- If Vick was gambling across 5 state lines, would that not constitute an enterprise operation and fall under RICO statutes?
Art Schlichter was a little different in that he did bet on football and a lot of other things.
I have my doubts that the NFL will ban Vicks for life.
Yep, gster, and I fully believe that was the hammer the U.S. Attorney had to get the plea deal, namely the threat to present the evidence to the grand jury to get an indictment on alleged RICO violations.
“I have a problem with it too. I just don;t have great answer. Life is sometime like that.”
Cool. Just wondered if you had –???—to back up your stance. If that is how you feel then that is how you feel. No worries.
If I remember, VT, Art Schlichter (sp) gambled himself out of the NFL and into jail. He was suspended by the NFL in 1983 and reinstated in 1984. In was permanently banned in 1987
If memory serves, he failed in the NFL and the seriousness of his gambling did not come to light until after his playing career was over, even though he had been suspended.
He was a Ryan Leaf level bust in the NFL, perhaps due to his focus on gambling and not football playing.
VT,
The case seems like a slam dunk and had this gone to trial, the sentence would be more harsh.
Did he get –kid gloves- because he is famous or some other reason?
What upsets Meadowpuff is that a qualified attorney with years of experience gets appointed to a post where he’ll work to protect the civil rights of Kansans. That upsets him. What doesn’t upset Meadowwhine is that Bush is making it extremely difficult for children of low income households to receive medical insurance.
Civil rights bad, no healthcare for children good. Meadowlark must be one of them pro-life Christian types.
I have to wonder, now that a Federal Judge was ruled that merely being in the country after entering illegally is NOT a crime, how long will it be before Congress acts to close that loophole.
I also wonder how that ruling could affect the illegals in country now.
Sol, I was wondering the same thing. Sure looked like the Government was trying too hard to get a lesser plea.
“I have to wonder, now that a Federal Judge was ruled that merely being in the country after entering illegally is NOT a crime,”
HOW IS IT NOT A CRIME???
Holy crap how ignorant !!!
have to wonder, now that a Federal Judge was ruled that merely being in the country after entering illegally is NOT a crime, how long will it be before Congress acts to close that loophole.
I also wonder how that ruling could affect the illegals in country now.
Posted by: WSClark | August 23, 2007 at 10:57 AM
1)I thought it was a state judge. Oh well, guess I misunderstood.2) Congress can;t get together enough to do anything besides spend money on earmarks. I doubt that this gets fixed either
3) So, they came here illegally, but their prescence is not illegal.I guess there are no more illegal aliens to worry about. Problem solved.
WTF?!?!?!?
Insanity.
The Wiki on Schichter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Schlichter
Sol, I think anytime prosecution is commenced against someone who is a celebrity, it is a difficult case; while it may appear a “slam dunk”, I’m sure the U.S. Attorney involved was glad to deal it away for a guilty plea on the conspiracy, etc. charges. Mr. Vick’s celebrity might have made it difficult to seat an appropriate jury, and to me that’s the only place it (the celebrity) mattered in the consideration of this case. It is my understanding, BTW, that under the federal sentencing guidelines, that the max sentence Mr. Vick would face if convicted after a trial was five years.
WS, a correction to what you posted at 10:57 AM. It was not a federal judge who so held, rather a panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals in a case concerning probation vs. continued incarceration of a Mr. Martinez on a felony conviction, and a construction of the Kansas statutes concerning this issue in light of the federal statutes much discussed.
Yes, it was a State judge in Kansas. However, several other States have already had the same ruling.
The rule in question is a Federal Rule.
Sol, LJ; I posted a link to the Kansas Court of Appeals decision in State v. Martinez two days ago. Please take a look at it and at the court’s discussion, paying attention if you will to syllabus paragraphs 6-8 and the accompanying parts of the opinion. The federal statutory language is contained thereat, and, it appears to me that the Kansas Court of Appeals was correct in its construction. There are two other states, Minnesota and another, whose courts have similarly ruled.
Open Thread 8/21. Couldn’t find it. LJ, can you repost the link?
“THe baby did not break the law. No sense in punishing the baby because of the actions of the mother. The rest of the family is needed for the nurturing of the child. Simple as that.”
Although I agree with your first two sentences to some degree, I think I’ve stumbled upon a remedy for the last two.
I believe it was Nathan who bemoaned the number of adoptable children in the U.S. Sending the parents back to their own country, then putting up those new citizen babies for adoption might gladden the hearts of those looking for newborns and screaming about abortions.
Then again, maybe not.
In absence of the ruling (for now) can someone please explain how being here illegally is not illegal?
You HAD to break a law to be here. Can’t you AT LEAST be found guilty of that crime? Crossing illegally. This makes absolutely NO sense to me.
“Time to stir the Congregation of Wormers around here.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf ”
Posted by: Heckler | August 21, 2007 at 06:38 AMhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/open-thread-821.html#comment-80129661
The global warming deniers are so DESPERATE, they claim that a single, very flawed study refutes the consensus.
It’d be ROFL funny, if the deniers were not confusing and deceiving people on a very important issue.
‘Schwartz study leaves James Inhofe utterly breathless’http://www.desmogblog.com/schwartz-study-leaves-james-inhofe-utterly-breathless
Two links from above page,http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html“It’s surprising that Schwartz didn’t check his results with anyone working in the field, and disappointing that the editor in charge at JGR apparently couldn’t find any competent referees to look at it.”
http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/21/are-scientists-overestimating-or-underestimating-climate-change-part-i/“I have always considered it ironic that the Denyers — who don’t believe the consensus, which is based on hundreds of studies that they obviously reject out of hand — are so enamored of the very few studies that suggest the consensus overestimates climate change (while ignoring the great many studies that suggest an underestimate).”
Yes, Sol, the person could be found guilty of “that crime”. That, however, was not the issue before the Kansas Court of Appeals.
Being here illegally after violating the law by coming here is not a separate crime under the referenced federal statutes; a separate crime exists where, after deportation, the deportee returns and remains here. Hey, I didn’t write the federal statutes, just trying to relate what the same say.
cosmos
Preach on Evangelist. There is no consensus, and the number of disenting scientists is growning.
Vaughn Tolle-
I agree with your assessment. THere was no other ruling that the Appeals Court could have reasonably came to. THis is a place where the legislatue needs to fix the law, not the court.
The link I found:http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2007/20070817/96613.htm
“Hey, I didn’t write the federal statutes, just trying to relate what the same say.”
No worries. I think we all appreciate your insight. This is just so DAMN illogical.
Another topic of interest to me. I was reading the cover story of the August 27 issue of Time last night concerning the failure of the current system of education to adequately meet the needs of our truly “gifted” students, generally those whose IQs test at or over 145. Now, I’m not in that category, but after reading the article, I found much with which to agree. I commend it to the attention of all.
One statistic that sticks in my mind is the spending of $8 billion last year on “special ed” students, with only 10% of that amount on “gifted” education. This doesn’t seem right or balanced to me.
Sol-
Logic and Law are only distant cousins
“There is no consensus, and the number of disenting scientists is growning.”
Posted by: Heckler | August 23, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Prove it, by posting a list of the new “disenting scientists”. Is that the denier’s talking point of the day?
If you find any, they’re probably like these retired scientists, and non-scientists.
‘Who are the Sixty’http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
‘Climate MYTHS: Many leading scientists question climate change’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654
Sol-
Logic and Law are only distant cousins
Posted by: littlejohn | August 23, 2007 at 11:34 AM
LMAO.
True dat
Genesis is correct. It could have happened in seven days and nights.
This MUST be in our Kansas School books:
LONDON, England (Reuters) — Diamonds more than 4 billion years old — nearly as old as the Earth itself — have been discovered in Western Australia, giving scientists vital clues about the early history of our planet. Found trapped in zircon crystals in the Jack Hills region, the small gems are the oldest identified fragments of the Earth’s crust and their existence suggests the Earth may have cooled faster than previously thought, experts said on Wednesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/23/earth.diamonds.reut/index.html
“This MUST be in our Kansas School books:”
How about the other myths of the origins of the Earth – Hopi Indians, Hindu, other indigenous tribes?
I heard the strangest comment last nite on a talk show… The comment said roughly,
MANY say that the earth is somewhat older than 4.5 Billion years… SOME religious folks insist the earth is only a mere 6 -10,000 years old…
A few scientists are now saying that BOTH statements could be true!
It is a philosophical statement… but quite interesting, to say the least…
The philosophy behind this is something like: The beginnings of RECORDED history are roughly 6 -10,000 years old… Therefore, in a way, that is the beginning of TIME, since it is when human beings first began to be existentially aware, and ask who we are, and how did we come to be here…
The OTHER beginning — 4.5 Billion years — is the result of the existential questions…
Thus, BOTH become “true” statements…
Jeez, Chas., I hope no one got hurt trying to twist the evidence to make it fit that conclusion.
“Most of the illegals have multiple DUI offenses.”
This can’t be even close to true. We have some 12 million illegals in this country. Multiply that times “multiple DUI offenses.”
Doesn’t even make good nonsense.
*****
KSgrrl–Funny stuff. Right-wing fundies having a gay-bashing convention. You know what that means, don’t you?
Easy money for prostitutes both gay and straight. Hopefully this time, the president of the young Republicans won’t be going down on people while they sleep . . .
“Glenn Murphy, Jr., the recently elected chairman of the Young Republican National Federation (also the RNC Chair for Clark County, Indiana and formerly the YRNF Secretary) has been accused of sexually assaulting a sleeping man. Immediately following the accusation, he came up with an unrelated reason to resign, and the YRNF cleansed their website of his name.”
http://www.americablog.com/2007/08/young-republican-national-federation.html
Well, me too Clark… but, it does make a certain degree of sense… if you consider that the beginning of recorded history can be interpreted in a myopic way as a begining of “time” –
Please dont mis-understand me… I am not saying I AGREE with it… But it is interesting…
From a strict sense, time is an entirely human invention and only exists when it is cognitively measured. So I guess the point at which humans began recording things would be the beginning of Time.
An interesting philosophical quandry, but certainly nothing to make the young earthers and scientists hug:)
“Immediately following the accusation, he came up with an unrelated reason to resign, and the YRNF cleansed their website of his name.”
Last seen-South Broadway in the back of a WPD cruiser
nothing to make the young earthers and scientists hug — :)=============
You’re right, Brian… Mostly because the young earther’s ar SO sure they are RIGHT, they wont even look at anything other than their narrow view point… Please notice — I am not using the word Bible or God at all in either of those “beginning of time” situations…
And you are also right when you say TIME is strictly an invention of humans, to keep track of their own days…
The two “beginnings” are strictly existential… not ontological, or teleological…
Cap and farmie, I know this is what I found.
“The Summit Theme: INFORM Christians about issues that will affect our ability to live out our values; IGNITE the passion to get involved by explaining the consequences if we don’t; and train Summit attendees on how to make an IMPACT when they go home to their own communities.
Presented by Community Issues Council, Family Research Council, Florida Family Policy Council, and Salem Communications Tampa the purpose of the Summit is to enable those who have become the “next generation” of national and grassroots Family Values Leaders to pass on their know-how to people wanting to make a difference and needing some guidance in how to do it.”
Where from this did the democrat underground get their story. Then you and cap quote it like it is gospel. Is this how rumors get started?
Just wondering?
I’ve known John Carmichael for years and I hope he serves his new post well. Congrats John.
ksgrm,Here are some ideas from the schedule of events at http://www.familyimpactsummit.org/
Homosexual AgendaCommunity DecencyHomosexuality & MinistryRacial ReconciliationChristian CitizenshipBill Stephens, Christian Coalition of Florida – Using a voter guide and how to start an issues committeeBuddy Johnson – Voter registration laws and regulationsJW Pope – The Founding Fathers’ picture of Christians in government
All of this taken in context with the known views of the sponsoring organizations make it clear what will be discussed
I am still waiting for someone to fax me a copy of the Homosexual Agenda.
WSClark,The General information address in the contact information for the Summit is cic@integrity.com.
I am sure they would love to send you a copy.;)
WSClark-
These are from WIkipedia (not always a good source, but a handy one)
“James Dobson, describes the homosexual agenda as follows:
Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.[6]
“Alan Sears and Craig Osten, president and vice-president of the Alliance Defense Fund, an Amercian conservative Christian non-profit organization, offer another characterization of the homosexual agenda:
It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called ‘After the Ball,’ where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame…. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible… Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers… Give homosexual protectors a just cause… Make gays look good… Make the victimizers look bad… Get funds from corporate America.[1]”
Perhaps form here comes some of peoples nervousness about their agenda” The GLF’s statement of purpose explained:
“We are a revolutionary group of men and women formed with the realization that complete sexual liberation for all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished
Thanks littlejohn. My point was it is the right of the formers of this conference to set up an agenda of items to be covered. If what they perceive as their opposition has declared war on their values (cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished)then should they not as a private organization have the same privelige?
I felt that the democratunderground presented as very hate based and that isn’t the truth.
The truth of whether it is hate based can only be found in the minds of those making the agenda.You really could not know, ksgrm.
As much right that the Summit has to create and present anything it wants, the demo..under has to report what they want about that conference.
Sounds to me like the so-called “Homosexual Agenda” is nothing more than seeking to obtain equal rights for Gays and Lesbians.
(With the exception of the pedophilia issue, which I do not believe is true, since gays are not pedophiles and vice a versus.)
The “Agenda” sounds very much like the Civil Rights agenda of the Fifties and Sixties.
Those queer bastards!
I would tend to agree, with some differences. THe pedophilia issue is not an issue, as far as I am concerned. I don;t think one has anything to do with the other.I do think that a good majority of these issues could be resolved if each side would actually sit down and talk. And I think the rank and file of each side would, it is the activist leaders of each side who portray the other as enemies, and refuse to recognize the concerns of the other.
I am still waiting for someone to fax me a copy of the Homosexual Agenda.Posted by: WSClark | August 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM
WS,
What’s your fax number?
::grin::
“James Dobson, describes the homosexual agenda as follows:Posted by: Littlejohn | August 23, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Littlejohn,
Sometimes, I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. Please tell me you’re not buying Dobson’s characterization of the so-called “gay agenda”…
Link to article which was the subject of my 11:33 AM post. For your consideration.
http://tinyurl.com/2h6mkj
John Carmichael from Wichita was just appointed to the Kansas Human Rights CommissionPosted by: Kansas Meadowlark | August 23, 2007 at 01:13 AM
Congratulations, John!!
In all seriousness, LJ, why does the anti-gay group have a say about equal rights for gays?
Gays and lesbians are a vocal minority, but the point is, they are a very small minority – four or five percent of the population from most reports. Why does the actions and rights of such a small minority cause such an uproar with a majority of people?
What is the big deal if Ted and Mark across the street get married?
Live and let live.
But my marriage won’t be valid if Ted and Mark have a marriage too, will it?
Tom-
I was just reporting, or quoting, what I found in Wiki under the “homosexual agenda” . I have no relaitonship with Dobson, nor have I advocated his viewpoint of the agenda of the gay/lesbian movement. Some his points were seemingly correct, others way off base. I was actually agreeing with WSCLark, and brians post got in between.
In all seriousness, LJ, why does the anti-gay group have a say about equal rights for gays?
Gays and lesbians are a vocal minority, but the point is, they are a very small minority – four or five percent of the population from most reports. Why does the actions and rights of such a small minority cause such an uproar with a majority of people?
What is the big deal if Ted and Mark across the street get married?
Live and let live.
Posted by: WSClark | August 23, 2007 at 01:27 PM
I have openly advocated the sanctioning of gay/lesbian marriage by the state of Kansas.But, to answer your question, because of the republican nature of our society, tempered by the constitution, we all have a say about what behavior we will sanction. I do not know why it causes such an uproar.
“They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda.”
Tom, do gay folks have a secret handshake, too?
How about a decoder ring?
PS – LJ, I appreciate the facts that we are mostly in agreement on this topic.
“they will not say that publicly”
Let me say this publicly: Gay and lesbian Americans _do_ have an agenda. Fair treatment, due process, and equal protection of the laws. You know, the same Constitutional and human rights as anyone else.
Pretty basic, IMO.
Littlejohn,
I’ll echo WSClark’s appreciation ;) I think I know your views on this subject, and was just a little surprised to see Dobson’s statements over your nic. No harm.
All, and I mean all of these stalinist “human rights commissions” should be abolished, forthwith!
180*
Gul wants to abolish institutions created by freely elected representatives in free and fair elections.
Who’s the Stalinist???
I guess I would need to ask “why” Dukat?
I hope that someday, gays can live as they want to without harassment, without fear of eviction, or fear of losing their jobs. To be able to get married, legally, to have the entire family experience without others batting an eye at them. I’m not gay, but this is my agenda- for I have friends and family who are gay and I love them and want to see them happy.
Well, well, it seems now that high standards are “racist”, who knew? I guess when minorities and liberals bitch about “equality” they actually mean special treatment and lower standards for the protected classes. A little honesty would be refreshing.
180*
More than half of minority teacher applicants fail testAugust 19, 2007
BOSTON –More than half of black and Hispanic applicants for teaching jobs in Massachusetts have failed a crucial state licensing test.
Article ToolsPrinter friendlyE-mail to a friendMass. RSS feedAvailable RSS feedsMost e-mailedShare on DiggShare on FacebookSave this articlepowered by Del.icio.usMore:Globe City/Region stories |Latest local news |Globe front page |Boston.comSign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Since the start of the test nearly a decade ago, 52 percent of Hispanics and 54 percent of blacks failed the writing portion of the test compared to a 23 percent failure rate among white applicants.
Blacks and Hispanics also fall behind white applicants in other test subjects like English, history and math.
Education officials say the gap is making it harder to bring more diversity to the state’s teaching ranks.
Chris Anderson, chairman of the state Board of Education, said he’s willing to consider other ways of assessing teachers, as long as standards remain high.
“There’s no reason to have any barriers to quality teachers if we don’t need them,” Anderson told The Boston Sunday Globe. “At the same time, we need to have accountability and assurance that there are basic abilities for any new teacher in Massachusetts.”
The problem is so persistent that a special state task force of teachers, state education officials and hiring directors has been set up to find out why minorities don’t do better on the tests.
Sally Diaz, a vice president at Emmanuel College in Boston and a member of the panel, said one test shouldn’t make or break a career.
“One of the fallouts which is particularly upsetting in our experience across the colleges is fewer and fewer students of color are even going into teaching because word has gotten out that these tests are very difficult for them,” she said.
Adding to the worries are stricter federal rules focused on improving teacher quality.
Under the 2001 federal law, states must prove their teachers have met a competency bar set by the state. Massachusetts school districts risk losing federal funding if they aren’t making progress toward licensing all their teachers.
Some deans of education schools are raising questions about whether the lower results among minority applicants shows the tests are culturally biased and whether the quality of education that minority applicants receive is good enough.
Some minority applicants say the tests includes questions that white applicants and those with liberal arts backgrounds can more readily identify with, such as questions about ancient literature or investing in the stock market.
A Cambridge lawyer said he’s planning to file a class action lawsuit against the state Department of Education and the testing company on behalf of three minority teachers who failed the test multiple times.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/08/19/more_than_half_of_minority_teacher_applicants_fail_test/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+–+Globe+West
OMG the sock puppet is out earlier than normal…. hide your peanuts troll feeders!!
Tom for the record I wasn’t advocating any type of discrimination against you or frmgrl. I did vote against the same sex marriage bill for totally other reasons. I have voiced those on this blog before. I have never gone to the summit we are talking about and certainly won’t be going to this one. I do feel that they have the right to set as their agenda those items which agree with their own values and moral systems.
In the last few days I have found a very disturbing trend on this blog. Anytime a person gives an opinion that is contrary to the opinion of the majority of posters they are harrassed endlessly. Called names. Chased from topic to topic.
For a group of people who espouse free speech so vocally there is a great deal of intolerance for someone who might not agree with the poster.
In other words free speech is only free speech is you agree with me. This blog has lost a lot of quality contributors because it just isn’t worth the effort it takes to argue just to insert a point.
If the posters on this blog want only those who agree with them they are quickly moving to that place. But if real dialogue is what is wanted then civility has to reign in MOHO.
OMG the sock puppet is out earlier than normal…. hide your peanuts troll feeders!!
Posted by: Chas. | August 23, 2007 at 01:57 PM
This is the type of post I am talking about. Contributes nothing but makes fun of some poster.
Ksgrm,
I have no idea why you’re being so defensive – my posts weren’t addressed to you, nor were they about you.
:::whistles a Carly Simon tune:::
Tom you have been very pleasant and please don’t think I was saying anything to the contrary. I guess I sent it to you because my original post was to you but was answered by others. You can ignore it if you like.
Cap and farmie, I know this is what I found.Posted by: ksgrm | August 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM
my original post was to youPosted by: ksgrm | August 23, 2007 at 02:20 PM
I’m not either one of those people. I spell my name T, O, M. I don’t post under any name other than my own. ;)
John Carmichael from Wichita was just appointed to the Kansas Human Rights CommissionPosted by: Kansas Meadowlark | August 23, 2007 at 01:13 AM
I know John Carmichael from business. He was one of the most rabid and outspoken of Pro-Choicers out on the front lines during the summer of mercy. I doubt anything has changed.
So if there is any question about Sebelius’s being a liberal, this appointment should fix it. A left wing appointment who will be no advocate for the “Human Rights” of the unborn child.
What exactly are your reasons for supporting discrimination against gays?
Outlander,
John Carmichael has RABIES????
QUICK!!! SOMEONE CALL THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT!!!
“So if there is any question about Sebelius’s being a liberal”
I don’t believe that Kathleen ever tried to hide her party affiliation or her liberal leanings, although most on the Left would consider her to be a moderate, not a liberal.
Chas Modus Operandi:
1) accuse posters of being trolls, nic switchers/stealers, soc puppets, etc.,2) become paranoid about a posters supposed desire to “track you down” outside of cyber space3) become ever more shrill and hysterical, and accuse posters of playing “sick twisted games”4) work self into a lather and post using all capital letters with excessive punctuation, for effect5) repeat cycle often
Seriously, Chas, modern psychiatry is doing amazing things, seek help.
180*
Outlander, Sebelius is pro-choice, she’s always been pro-choice. Believe it or not there are many republicans out there who are pro-choice and many dems who aren’t. I’m thrilled that she’s picked someone who is a champion of women’s rights.
Should we send him a get well card?
He had to have been ill to give all those thousands of dollars in exchange for a position that pays a “per diem” of $35 or so dollars whenever the Commission meets (which isn’t that often).
Yeah, send him a card. And flowers, too.
Sebelius could not have chosen a more polarizing person if she had chosen Randall Terry. Carmichael is that radical in his views.
Meadowlark, you should follow up in more depth beyond all the money he gave to Sebelius, Tiller etc…
Sorry about that Tom. I am working and blogging. Not a good combination. One will suffer.
What exactly are your reasons for supporting discrimination against gays?
Posted by: political_mom | August 23, 2007 at 02:27 PM
Pmom I’m not falling in that trap. You make an assumption with no basis. I support no discimination against gays.
I have economic reasons which I have spelled out several time at length on this blog. I would support a civil union.
Ksgrm, looks like Gul Dukat is the one making fun of posters… I wasnt making fun of anybody!!
I’ve been around long enough to know a sock puppet when I see one… And Gul sure fits that bill to a T… He makes up stuff about people that never happened… and gets self righteous over it as well…
“Sebelius could not have chosen a more polarizing person if she had chosen Randall Terry. Carmichael is that radical in his views.”Posted by: outlander | August 23, 2007 at 02:41 PM
Outlander,
I have to say that I do not accept your premise. First, a person has to be fairly well-known to be polarizing. Most people in Kansas couldn’t pick John Carmichael out of a crowd.Second, I’m not sure what you find so radical about his views. I know John personally and further more, I know some actual radicals. He ain’t one of them.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the real issue is that you disagree with him on a range of topics, therefore you disagree with his appointment.
Massachusetts has renewed its successful Baby Safe Haven law of 2004, which includes a Baby Safe Haven hotline. Since the law’s enactment, 6 babies were safely surrendered, and through the hotline’s information about the law, crisis intervention services, and referrals to teen pregnancy shelters, 35 mothers have developed a successful pregnancy plan with the staff, ensuring that those newborns were not abandoned.Imagine that, a little advertising, a hotline, some confidential counseling, some handouts and referrals for assistance – that’s all it takes to keep newborn babies out of garbage cans.
The linked blog post by a (former?) Army officer who served in Iraq in 2003 and helped train troops for combat in 2005 gave me a WTF moment. So, 20,000 armored vehicles, 3,000 of which were urgently requested by the USMC two years ago, along with an additional 17,000 for the Army cannot be completed until 2009? And, the approximately 1,000 which have been completed cannot be shipped NOW? Senator Biden is right on this one.
http://tinyurl.com/3y2qf7
Parkay,
So stop spending so much time having your followers crash church services, shoot doctors, vandalizing clinics, etc., and have them spend more time pushing for that kind of program in Kansas.
Here’s a clue: The interim joint Federal and State Affairs Committee is meeting over the next several weeks to take up the issue of abortion. Call the committee secretary and have your name added to the conferee list. Then you can make your case to the Committee.
Imagine that, a little advertising, a hotline, some confidential counseling, some handouts and referrals for assistance – that’s all it takes to keep newborn babies out of garbage cans.
Posted by: parkay | August 23, 2007 at 03:07 PM
=========================
And you know what??? NONE of it was done by FORCE… It was all done by C-H-O-I-C-E
Parkay, I wish that were all it took. We have to have laws that won’t prosecute mothers for their own behaviors (Alexa’s law). I love the plan for these shelters, yes, but does it address all of the problems? No. And I don’t ever want to see it ran by the antis.
Grm, What kind of economic issues would you have with people getting married vs civil union? That doesn’t even make sense.
Thats a good question, PMom… I was wondering that myself… Economic reasons to discriminate against gay marriage… that has to be a new one…
Chas Modus Operandi:
1) accuse posters of being trolls, nic switchers/stealers, soc puppets, etc.,2) become paranoid about a posters supposed desire to “track you down” outside of cyber space3) become ever more shrill and hysterical, and accuse posters of playing “sick twisted games”4) work self into a lather and post using all capital letters with excessive punctuation, for effect5) repeat cycle often
Seriously, Chas, modern psychiatry is doing amazing things, seek help.
180*
Posted by: Gul Dukat | August 23, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Gul, you forgot one:
6) At least once daily post: OMG the sock puppet is out earlier than normal…. hide your peanuts troll feeders!!
You’re right max… he did forget that one, didnt he… plus add a few lies while he was at it!!!
“He has completely disqualified himself from any leadership position in the Christian community through his unwillingness to be held accountable for his adultery, theft, lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, perjury, failing to provide for his first wife and children, and evasion of church discipline.”
Outlander,
That’s what Flip Benham, currently of Operation Rescue had to say about…
… wait for it…
RANDALL TERRY.
He’s such a saint.
IF modern psychiatry was doing such amazing things, Gul, you wouldnt find it necessary to post your useless drivel, and crap on this Blog day after day!!
Germie is afraid we will get the same social security survivor benefits that straight people do.
I already suggested we could wipe out survivor benefits for ALL people to REALLY save some money.
I dont think she likes that either. She wouldnt want to give up the special rights that straight people insist upon.
Equality = equal benefits for all.
I mean, I pay the SAME social security as straight folks, but my partner will never see a dime of what I pay in.
Unlike germie and what her hubby pays in. She gets a portion of that after her death.
Gay folks?
(crickets chirping)
On the other hand, Outlander, John Carmichael has obviously passed the KBI’s background investigation, _AND_ confirmation hearing conducted by the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED Kansas Senate.
Two things I think your hero Randall Terry can’t do.
Hotdog, your 8:23 post asked some very good questions. On this Socialist Blog though, the fact that America is taxed to death, and after death, seemed to be just a breath of good news! I’m surprised there was no applause.
You forgot to list the Tax on the Tax. Since, we do not deduct most of the taxes on your list from our income that is taxed, we are actually paying multiple taxes on the taxes that we pay.
Other then that, I think your tax list was complete.
OMG, and I am ROLLING that ANYONE thinks James Dobson has a clue about any “gay agenda”. Jesus WEPT! That would be like me explaining the “christian agenda” which, as far as I can see, is self explanatory.
Kill ‘em all, let god sort ‘em out.
Let the flaming begin! And remember, that’s what sane people think about dobson and his ilk.
Oh, and btw germie, of course you are free to disagree, but I am also free to point out what a fool you are!
And chas is right. Sock puppet city. Denial…it’s not just a river in Egypt.
Tom: It used to be you were a reasonable person. You have slowly deteriorated into someone who will post anything. For example:
Where do you get off saying that Randall Terry is a hero of mine? Did I say he was? Did I mention him other than to say he was polarizing person?
Vaughn, your 10:24 post is another outrageous example of how our Government fails to enforce the law.
Why we continue to pass new laws is beyond reason. The new laws only serve to pacify those who falsely believe the Government actually enforces the laws that it creates. And some politicians get re-elected by claiming to have solved some problem by passing another unenforced law.
Funny how we expect Government to solve all of our problems, when it’s clear the Government IS the problem in many cases, and the employment of illegal immigrants by the Government is but one example.
A discrimination against survivor benefits in Social Security IS a discrimination against Gay Marriage… just being open to Civil Union doesnt make it any less discriminatory!!
Equality = equal benefits for all.
I mean, I pay the SAME social security as straight folks, but my partner will never see a dime of what I pay in.
Unlike germie and what her hubby pays in. She gets a portion of that after her death.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | August 23, 2007 at 03:32 PM
And Farmgirl, those who die before age 62 also collect nothing? Is that equality? Is that fair?
And if I pay in 5 times as much as someone else, I get the same benefit? Is that equality? Is that fair?
Outlander,
I’m _still_ a reasonable person. I get _unreasonable_ when I see good people getting smeared by lies and innuendo about their character.
You’re the one that brought Randall Terry into this conversation, not me. And comparing someone who managed to get confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, and who passed the KBI’s background investigation, to Randall Terry is ridiculous. It’s beyond ridiculous – it’s character assassination based on smear.
Randall Terry has been in and out of prison for 20 years. Carmichael hasn’t. Randall Terry is condemned by his own _allies._ Carmichael has obviously earned the support of his friends.
You don’t like the insinuation that Randall Terry is your hero? Fine. Stop the character assassination on Carmichael and others whom you know little or nothing about.
Thanks.
And Farmgirl, those who die before age 62 also collect nothing? Is that equality? Is that fair?
And if I pay in 5 times as much as someone else, I get the same benefit? Is that equality? Is that fair?
Posted by: Max | August 23, 2007 at 03:43 PM=========================
Actually it IS fair, Max… Cause that same rule applies to ALL in the system no matter who they are!! And it would be the same system for Gay couples, if they were allowed to be MARRIED like straight folks are…
Tom: You are being intellectually dishonest and an excuse maker. You are taking my comparison far beyond it’s bounds and you know it.
If you object to the statement that John Carmichael is as polarizing as Randall Terry in his views, then argue the point. If you are able.
Outlander,
Tom didn’t need to argue the point, I already did. All I got was crickets.
Lynz? Your argument, in a nutshell was: “no he isn’t”.
Vaughn, your 11:33 post and 1:24 link were indeed very interesting.
I had no idea that our schools were shifting funding away from talented and gifted students. Very surprising since we are spending more on public education now then ever before.
This Socialist blog I would guess agrees with this approach – to shift money away from some of the brightest kids to prop up those at the bottom.
Not sure why, with such a wonderful public education system we would have a growing number of kids at the bottom.
It is sad indeed, that in a Socialist world, we penalize some of the brightest kids, and reward those who do not perform.
We may have already stifled the education of what would have been modern day Einsteins, who could have helped to cure major diseases, and made vast improvements to our technology.
The Socialist should be happy at least. Because at least we are being made EQUAL.
I don;t know who John Carmichael is, and I don;t care. Apparently, the Kansas Human Rights Commission is so activist that I didn;t even know they existed, at least on a conscious level. Therefore, they are either doing their job quietly and correctly, or they are not doing it at all. Either way, appointment by this particular individual is not likely to change that. The only individual I know of on the commsision is Jerome Williams. Hopefully, he is more adept here than while at Beech. just my opinion of his job peformance, not his integrity or personage.
Outlander,
If you read my 3:44 case, you’ll see that I _did_ just make my case. If Carmichael is as heinous as Randall Terry, how did he make it past the Senate? How did he make it past the KBI?
Comparing Carmichael to Terry is character assassination. Nothing more, nothing less. Carmichael has done _none_ of the things that Terry has done – not even close. If anyone is being intellectually dishonest, Outlander, it’s you, by making comparisons you know have no basis in fact.
Well, I’d say that is an unsually dumb characterization of my statement. Surely you have an answer, a little more backup for your previous statements.
I said quite a lot more than “no he isn’t”. I laid out why I disagree with you, you haven’t answered any of it. What about his views do you find radical? How is he polarizing if next to no one knows who he is? I’m sure that you have an opinion, I’d like to hear it.
Lynz,
Outlander has nothing. All he’s got is:
“prove Carmichael isn’t the things I allege he is. Of course, I don’t have any facts to back my case.”
Crickets…
My problem with the SS benefits is the same one I would have for bringing illegals into the system when they have not been paying into it for the years required.
Just to straighten out any misconceptions out there: I have worked on my own for over 30 years and will draw SS because of my salary and not because of my husbands. One of those conclusions the left on this blog jumped to.
SS is a broken system now and bringing in an entire segment of unfunded liabilities would totally fracture it. This said if SS benefits is the reason people want same sex unions then I guess I am against it.
I don’t think I discriminate because I know there are many ramifications from changing the definition of marriage. I am just being realistic. This is an argument I won’t win on this board and so I won’t even attempt to.
“A discrimination against survivor benefits in Social Security IS a discrimination against Gay Marriage… just being open to Civil Union doesnt make it any less discriminatory!!”
Posted by: Chas. | August 23, 2007 at 03:42 PM
Chas this sounds very judgemental to me. Isn’t that against the perception you present of yourself. Just wondering not accusing.
Tom: There you go again wiggling around with the dishonesty. I’m disappointed that you would stoop to it.
I said nothing derogatory about Mr. Carmichael. I said nothing about heinous or anything of the sort. I said POLARIZING.
In fact, I like John Carmichael personally from the times I have met him in a business setting. But this is a political blog and I want to get the word out of the viewpoints of those appointed to public office are.
So I’m doing it.
Okay, here I am Outlander, asking you tell me what you find to be so radical about Carmichael’s views..again. Once again, you’re responding to Tom instead of me. I’m asking the questions very clearly:Which of his views do you find radical and why?And how can you state that he is polarizing when a figure when most people don’t know who he is?
So…KSgrm, when it comes to social security, all marriage should be banned for survivor benefits….or…
Pretty lame really. Especially as most gays work, and don’t have children till they’re well established.
Aaaaaaand crickets…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/08/19/more_than_half_of_minority_teacher_applicants_fail_test/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+–+Globe+West
Posted by: Gul Dukat | August 23, 2007 at 01:57 PM
Gul,interesting post. While I do tend a little left of center, I found your post interesting.
“More than half of black and Hispanic applicants for teaching jobs in Massachusetts have failed a crucial state licensing test.”
What difference does race or color make? if they failed, they need to be rejected. There’s got to be a standard. Lowering that standard to accommodate someone because of race or color is truly racist.
Sometimes FACTS can seem judgmental, Ksgrm… if the shoe fits… :-)
Lynz a very simplistic answer to a very broad question. Obviously this is not the only consideration. Space and time limits me writing what I feel are the downsides to this.
Maybe it would be better to hear from the opposition to see what they would want from this legislation and then we could find a way to ‘fix’ what they preceive as broken. This is something many more people would support as has been shown in the numerous polls taken on the subject.
With all of the disparaging remarks I see on here about the institution of marriage what is it that is the main draw?
Well Chas it didn’t fit. Guess you aren’t Prince Charming.
The argument against Affirmative Action:
What difference does race or color make? if they failed, they need to be rejected. There’s got to be a standard. Lowering that standard to accommodate someone because of race or color is truly racist.
Posted by: XXX | August 23, 2007 at 04:31 PM
Grm — IF you suvive your husband, you will get benefits from HIM… provided he is over 62… A gay couple with merely civil union would not have such a benefit… I think you already know that…
Germie, you are insane. Period.
“My problem with the SS benefits is the same one I would have for bringing illegals into the system when they have not been paying into it for the years required.”
WTF? Comparing me to illegals? I PAY IN. I HAVE PAID IN. ALL MY WORKING LIFE!!!!
And if your hubby dies before you? You will get not only YOUR share of SS but part of HIS share too. But my partner wont get a DIME of what I paid in.
Are you really so stupid you dont know that? What happened to that fancy college education paid for by MY tax dollars? You dont even know that?
And of course you wont “argue”. You are wrong. AGAIN. Facts and germie are not EVEN distant cousins.
Face it germie. You are a bigot and have NO logical and non religious reason to be against gay marriage.
Just selfish I guess…
Lynz: Carmichael was (is?) an ardant pro-choice activist. He contributes heavily to Dr. Tiller’s pac.
That is enough for me.
Maybe polarizing isn’t the best choice. How about extreme, devicive, radical.
GMC, you’re going to love this.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/08/a-constitutiona.html
Sorry Grm, my 4:27 remark was directed at Outlander. Should’ve specified.
“With all of the disparaging remarks I see on here about the institution of marriage what is it that is the main draw?”
…And germie lies. Again.
Please repost disparaging remarks here made about marriage.
Then answer your own dumb question. What is the draw? Why did YOU get married?
Bigot.
Outie, so anyone who disagrees with you on abortion is “extreme, devicive, radical.” ?
Anyone who contributes to prochoice groups is “extreme, devicive, radical.”?
No wonder you love that right wing meme that the left cant tolerate disagreement.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Okay, thanks for the response, much appreciated. But here’s what I think: I would tend to believe that a view must be pretty far outside the mainstream in order to be considered radical/extreme. I’ll give you devisive because anything having anything to do with abortion is devisive. But lots of people are pro-choice. Lots of people donate money to political causes, including pro-choice PAC’s. I’m not sure how being pro-choice and donating to that cause makes a person radical. If he were advocating or personally participating in extreme behavior, I would concede your point, but as I said, I know him and I know that he doesn’t do those things.
It’s obvious that you do not agree with his stance on this particular issue, so I get the feeling that we’ll have to agree to disagree, no?
Farmgrl you have told us ad nauseum about your situation. Sorry you get so angry that I don’t agree with you.
You are not the norm. You say you have been in a long term relationship. Many who have not would bring these partners in and expect benefits.
The SS argument is really a small part of the problem as I see it but I can see we won’t logically discuss this because it is to close to you.
If an unmarried son lived at home with his mom his entire life and she outlived him, should she be entitled to his benefits? Why not?
I don’t believe in discrimination but I also don’t believe in creating new classes of citizens that qualify for governments benefits either. My opinion and I am entitled to it.
Actually, ksgrm, using your hypothetical, if you were dependent upon the unmarried son living at home who predeceased, you very well might be eligible for benefits under his account….
LOL thanks VT :-)
Grm — What new CLASS of citizen do you think would be created??? I think “spouse” is an already existing class, unless somebody changed things recently..
Gays and lesbians pay into the SS “fund” just like straight people do. Given that, why should they be denied the SAME benefits as straight people?
It makes no sense to tell gays and lesbians that they can pay in, but not receive the same benefits.
I seem to recall that the United States was founded upon the concept of “no taxation without representation.”
Isn’t paying into the SS “fund” without the same benefits pretty much the same?
Chas would you not be redefining spouse and when that door is opened who would be the definer.
Yes VT that might indeed be the case, but if she were independent until his demise couldn’t she then qualify for surviver benefits if the definition of ’spouse’ were changed.
Strictly hypothetical.
There has been a lot written about the ramifications of this change. Some interesting reading and an understanding that it isn’t as clear cut as many would think.
There’s no equality in Social Security whatsoever!
Who you kiddin?
Those who die young, get screwed and get nothing.
Those that live to 100, get the jackpot.
Those that make $150,000/year receive about the same benefit as someone who makes $25,000/year.
Why shouldn’t the inequality standard apply equally to gays?
Lynz: OK, I’m agree we have gone as far as we can on the subject. Thank you for your viewpoint.
“Why shouldn’t the inequality standard apply equally to gays?”
Why should the inequality standard apply to ANYONE?
Max, I agree that those who die young get nothing themselves; however, if there are minor children, there will be survivor’s benefits paid until the children are age 18; if married, there is a very small “death benefit” paid.
On the inequality issue based upon credited earnings, that exists as a matter of the law, without regard to any other factor.
VT there could be a very good argument made here for private savings accounts with your SS dollars. Regulated by a controlling agency to prevent abuse and then available to survivors when there is a death. Just a thought which many would never agree to but indeed would be a way for the system to be a little fairer.
Even with the proposed privatization of ss, one would have to buy an annuity ( I believe it was a lifetime annuity); so unless you were willing to take a considerable cut, you wouldn’t be leaving anything to you heirs.
NO I would not be re-defining spouse!~! How could you even imagine that?? Spouse is what it always has been… wouldnt matter if it was gay or straight… and dont even mess with the unmarried son thing… cause that would be a very RARE incident…
Hey, I will lay out something that is NOT equitable in SS as it stands now… If I die, my wife gets her benefit, plus part of mine… BUT… if she dies first, I get NONE of her benefit… MAYBE if gay couples could marry, we could solve that inequality at the same time…
of course, that assumes both are 62+ at time of death…
Actually Chas I believe you would get the greater of… If she made more that you that would be hers.
it sounds to me grm, that you were looking for a reason to object to gay marriage. Because it is a pathetic reason really. That’s my opinion and I”m entitled to it.
You sure are Pmom – we agree on that. You trying to assign intentions to my words is something else entirely. That would be like me saying that if you are in favor of abortion you are just looking for a reason to kill your baby.
That is why other shouldn’t decipher others actions.
That is why other shouldn’t decipher others actions.Posted by: ksgrm
I agree with this. You post and someone tell you what you really said.
Grm What country are you IN??? NO surviving husband gets ANY of his spouses SS benefit NOW… How can you say a husband would get a wife’s benefits??? Come on, ma’am pull your head out!!! That isnt even realistic on your part!! Nonsense… Do you need to be RIGHT that much in your mind, or what??? When my mother died, Dad did not get one penny of mother’s benefits, NOR was he even elgible!!!
When a worker dies, certain family members may be eligible for Survivor Benefits based on the deceased record if he/she had enough Social Security earnings credits. For many survivor cases, the number of required earnings credits is based on the worker’s age at the time of death. In general, younger workers need fewer earnings credits than older workers. However, no worker needs more than 40 earnings credits equivalent to 10 years of work to be fully insured for any Social Security benefit.
# A widow/widower – full benefits at full retirement age or reduced benefits as early as age 60. A disabled widow/widower may receive benefits as early as age 50.# A widow/widower at any age if he or she takes care of the deceased’s child under age 16 or disabled, who receives Social Security benefits.# Unmarried children under 18, or up to age 19 if they are attending elementary or secondary school (high school) full time. A child can receive benefits at any age if he or she was disabled before age 22 and remains disabled. Under certain circumstances, benefits can also be paid to stepchildren, grandchildren or adopted children.# Dependent parents at age 62 or older.
The amount of the Survivor Benefits is based on the earnings of the person who died. The more the person contributed to his or her Social Security earnings, the higher the benefits will be. The amount a survivor receives is a percentage of the deceased’s basic Social Security benefits. The following below are examples of the most typical situations:
* Widow or widower full retirement age or older = 100 percent* Widow or widower age 60 to 64 = about 71 to 94 percent* Widow or widower at any age with a child under age 16 = 75 percent* Children = 75 percent
OK poster… Suppose you tell me why my father got ZERO benefits when mother died??? He got NOTHING of her SS Benefits!! However, if HE would have pre-deceased her, she would have gotten HER benefit plus HALF of His….
And THAT is the way the SS system has always worked… I have NO idea what drivel you are talking about!!
You seem to be talking about some kind of disability benefit but not normal SS benefits!!
“Why shouldn’t the inequality standard apply equally to gays?”
Why should the inequality standard apply to ANYONE?
Posted by: WSClark | August 23, 2007 at 05:10 PM
Amazing! For once I agree with Clark.
Chas, maybe your Dad qualified and didn’t complete all the cumbersome bureacratic paperwork that our wonderful Government dictates to us to complete?
Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision
The Government Pension Offset (GPO) reduces an individual’s Social Security survivor benefits (available to a person whose deceased spouse had earned Social Security benefits) by an amount equal to two-thirds of his/her public pension.
E X A M P L E
A widowed retired educator has earned $600 per month from her state retirement plan after 25 years of service. Her deceased husband worked in the private sector and paid into Social Security his entire working life. She normally would be entitled to monthly Social Security survivor benefits of $850.
Because she works in a state where public employees do not participate in the Social Security system, the Government Pension Offset cuts her survivor benefits by two-thirds of her $600 monthly retirement payment or $400. Her survivor benefits instead equal $450 – nearly half of the $850 she would normally receive.source: National Education Association
T E R M S
Government Pension Offsethttp://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10007.html
Your Social Security benefits will be reduced by two-thirds of your government pension. In other words, if you get a monthly civil service pension of $600, two-thirds of that, or $400, must be deducted from your Social Security benefits. For example, if you are eligible for a $500 spouse’s, widow’s or widower’s benefit from Social Security, you will receive $100 per month from Social Security ($500 – $400 = $100).
If you take your government pension annuity in a lump sum, Social Security still will calculate the reduction as if you chose to get monthly benefit payments from your government work.
T E R M S
Windfall Elimation Provisionhttp://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html
Social Security benefits are based on the worker’s average monthly earnings adjusted for inflation. We separate your average earnings into three amounts and multiply the amounts using three factors. For example, for a worker who turns 62 in 2007, the first $680 of average monthly earnings is multiplied by 90 percent; the next $3,420 by 32 percent; and the remainder by 15 percent.
The 90 percent factor is reduced in the modified formula and phased in for workers who reached age 62 or became disabled between 1986 and 1989. For those who reach 62 or became disabled in 1990 or later, the 90 percent factor is reduced to 40 percent.
There are exceptions to this rule. For example, the 90 percent factor is not reduced if you have 30 or more years of “substantial” earnings in a job where you paid Social Security taxes. See the first table that lists the amount of substantial earnings for each year. If you have 21 to 29 years of substantial earnings, the 90 percent factor is reduced to between 45 and 85 percent. To see the maximum amount your benefit could be reduced, visit http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/wep-chart.htm.
The Windfall Elimination Provision does not apply to survivors benefits. It also does not apply if:
* You are a federal worker first hired after December 31, 1983;* You were employed on December 31, 1983, by a nonprofit organization that did not withhold Social Security taxes from your pay at first, but then began withholding Social Security taxes from your pay;* Your only pension is based on railroad employment;* The only work you did where you did not pay Social Security taxes was before 1957; or* You have 30 or more years of substantial earnings under Social Security.
f you get a relatively low pension, you are protected. The reduction in your Social Security benefit cannot be more than one-half of the amount of your pension based on your earnings after 1956 on which you did not pay Social Security taxes.
Contact your local Social Security office for more information. They’ll be glad to explain scenarios as it applies to you.
Max, husbands dont qualify for their wife’s soc. sec. benefit when the wife dies first… That is my point!!! That earlier post was related to SSDI benefits… I am sure of it!!
Max, husbands dont qualify for their wife’s soc. sec. benefit when the wife dies first… That is my point!!! That earlier post was related to SSDI benefits… I am sure of it!!
sorry bout the double post… something weird happened when i clicked the button…
NO surviving husband is eligible for his wife’s social security benefits… it has always been this way, and it is one of the inequalities of the system… I have NO IDEA what Dragnet is posting, but it is not about Survivor’s benefits of Social Security… Part seems to be what happens with SSDI, and the other seems to have something to do with people receiving civil service pensions…. It is totally off of point!!
Chas,
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html
Your widow or widower may be able to receive full benefits at age 65 if born before January 1, 1940. (The age to receive full benefits is gradually increasing to age 67 for widows and widowers born January 2, 1940, or later.) Reduced widow or widower benefits can be received as early as age 60. If your surviving spouse is disabled, benefits can begin as early as age 50. For more information on widows, widowers and other survivors, visit
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ww&os2.htm.
Social Security survivors benefits can be paid to:
A widow or widower — full benefits at full retirement age, or reduced benefits as early as age 60A disabled widow or widower — as early as age 50A widow or widower at any age if he or she takes care of the deceased’s child who is under age 16 or disabled, and receiving Social Security benefitsUnmarried children under 18, or up to age 19 if they are attending high school full time. Under certain circumstances, benefits can be paid to stepchildren, grandchildren, or adopted children.Children at any age who were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled.Dependent parents age 62 or older
Maybe Dragnet will post his link, but what was posted is my understanding of how SS works, or doesn’t work.
Nathan got it! I was just gonna look for it.
Thanks Nathan.
As a side note…
The Social Security Administration knows our age. The IRS knows our income.
Does the SSA not send out any paperwork say, when people reach age 61, to provide the SS options that are available to qualified recipients of SS?
Why should there be much paperwork to complete to get the benefits you worked your entire life to earn?
The paperwork isnt that much Max… I have NO clue what you are talking about with a husband being able to get ANY of his wife’s SS benefit, if she dies first… That just doesnt happen…
I have worked too many funerals, and sat with too many families who cant understand why Grandma gets benefits from Grandpa, but Grandpa gets NO benefit when Grandma dies… Just go check it out for yourselves!!
And the only Death Benefit anybody gets from SS is about $250 for burial expenses…
Chas,
Did you read the links? Did you go the the site?
What proof do you have?
All you are doing is repeating over and over that you must be right.
I don’t know much about this stuff, but I can read the government web page which says otherwise.
You read the link above Chas?
Is the Social Security website lying to the American people?
If so, we need to know that right now, before we pay another dime into this worthless system!
There are a LOT of slots in Social Security… So far all I havve seen here are references to what happens in SSDI cases, and what happens in RRTA and Civil Service Pension programs…
I am not talking about either one of those…. But, I am sure you already know that…
Let Germie defend her own opinion… if she can… I really dont think she needs any help…
Who is Germie?
That SS link described the Survivors Insurance program of SS.
It looks pretty clear to me, and it’s very similar language to what’s shown on my SS earnings statement they send every year.
I don’t see anyone lying or intentially lying on this topic. (for a change!)
Chas., the SSA website says a person, up on the death of their spouse, can get either their benefits or benefits based on the dead spouse’s record, whichever is greater.
Yea, Max, SS insurance… Now, back up… My ORIGINAL statement is that the SS System that we have NOW is not equitable for men and women… BECAUSE, when a MAN dies, his wife is eligible to get HER own benefit, plus I believe half of HIS benefit… BUT.. when a WOMAN dies, the husband is not eligible for ANY benefit from his deceased wife…
This has nothing to do with surviving children, or anything of that sort… That is under the category of the above link…
Go find the LINK that covers just Social Security Retirement benefits… NOT the insurance benefit, or death of a WORKER plans… which is what that link relates to…
And MAX why do you get that statement every year??? Because you are still WORKING… That LINK is relevant for people still WORKING, and the benefits for which they are eligible…
Chas,
If you were just there, why can’t you please post the link for us?
Okay, let’s try it this way.
When my wife applied for Social Security, they computed and informed her what she would get if I died.
Then when I applied for my Social Security, they computed what I would get if she died. The amount that I would receive would be $0 because my income was greater than hers. All of this was explained when I applied.
Because I was at the link posted above… which doesnt pertain to what I am talking about!!
Now there ya go Hud… But, the way the system is set up, the wife always gets half of the husband’s benefit… while the only way a husband can get any benefit is if the wife was getting more benefit at time of death… Thus, it is not an equitable system… And that is my point here…
Benefits for surviving divorced spousesIf you have been divorced, your former wife or husband who is age 60 or older (50-60 if disabled) can get benefits if your marriage lasted at least 10 years. Your former spouse, however, does not have to meet the age or length-of-marriage rule if he or she is caring for his/her child who is under age 16 or who is disabled and also entitled based on your work. The child must be your former spouse’s natural or legally adopted child.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html
Let me highlight this part:
“your former wife or husband who is age 60 or older (50-60 if disabled) can get benefits”
It clearly says that both the wife AND HUSBAND can get benifits.
Because Nathan, he would rather bitch about it without looking up the facts.
He may be right, but as usual, he hasn’t subtantiated anything.
Chas,
Then post the part which you read which supports what you are saying, please.
In fact, there are a lot of elderly couples who after losing a spouse, find somebody they want to share their life with…
But they live together, rather than getting married, because they cant afford for the woman to lose her former husband’s SS benefit…
Awww Nathan, dont start with your crap… go look it up yourself!! Hud just posted what I am talking about…
Nathan, I dont have to prove this one to you… I have been working with families on this kind of situation for probably more years than you are old… Just go look it up for yourself… Youre a big boy now… I know you can do it…
Chas,
It has to do with income, not being the husband.
You are claiming the husband doesn’t get benifits at all.
You refuse to post a link or the quote to the Social Security website which backs you up.
I can’t find it.
Instead you would rather keep going on and on about how you are right.
I have now posted two times links which clearly show you are wrong.
Now who is ( as you said earlier about ksgrm ):
“Do you need to be RIGHT that much in your mind, or what???”
“The loss of the family wage earner can be devastating, both emotionally and financially. Social Security helps by providing income for the families of workers who die.”
THIS quote is from the above link… It is the WRONG SECTION for the case I am making… Got it??? We all know that there are certain benefits for a family when the family wage earner dies… Or if a family member is receiving SSDI benefits(like my wife is now)…
I am talking about Grandma and Grandpa… When Grandpa dies, Grandma gets her benefit, plus half of Grandpa’s… When Grandma dies, Grandpa doesnt get the same thing… he only continues to get his OWN benefit…
Now, do you get what I am saying??? And why your link above is not related to what I am saying here???
“The loss of the family wage earner can be devastating, both emotionally and financially. Social Security helps by providing income for the families of workers who die.”
THIS quote is from the above link… It is the WRONG SECTION for the case I am making… Got it??? We all know that there are certain benefits for a family when the family wage earner dies… Or if a family member is receiving SSDI benefits(like my wife is now)…
I am talking about Grandma and Grandpa… When Grandpa dies, Grandma gets her benefit, plus half of Grandpa’s… When Grandma dies, Grandpa doesnt get the same thing… he only continues to get his OWN benefit…
Now, do you get what I am saying??? And why your link above is not related to what I am saying here???
Show me where I am talking about a WORKER who dies??? THAT is what you are quoting from… I am NOT talking about that… Would you at LEAST get on the right friggin page???
sorry about the double post… i am having some broadband connection problems here…
As a daily reader of the blog, i must say, very refreshing to see conversations actually civil. Not sure if i need to look outside (pigs are flying), but, i enjoyed reading the thread. Although my posts are few and far between, for whatever reason felt compelled to say thanks to all. Was beginning to lose faith and move on.
Thanks First-timer… it is nice for a change…
Chas,
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You refuse to prove what you are trying to say.
I have given you several links from the Social Security website which proved you wrong and now you are saying something completely different.
I ask for links, you refuse.
I ask for you to post what was said to back you up, you refuse.
Perhaps if you simply pointed all of us to what it is you are reading ( THE LINK ) it would alleviate the confusion you think I am suffering from.
I just received an email from a friend of mine. Her husband has been needing a hip replacement for so many years now- they can’t afford it as they have no insurance. Now his physician has said he can no longer work more than 20 hours a week standing (his job that he’s held for many years)…he’s not able to change jobs now.
So lack of healthcare- even if the wait would have been 6 months upon needing that hip replaced, could have saved him from disability. Now, he’s officially disabled.
Yet another life damaged and will cost taxpayers MORE because of lack of health insurance.
Nathan, you have not proven me wrong, because you’re not citing the same subject matter as I am talking about!! How much clearer can I say it??? YOU are NOT on the RIGHT PAGE!!
Nathan, I am not reading from a link… This is stuff that I actually know something about, that I dont need a link to find…
Chas: Perhaps Grandma didn’t qualify personally because of insufficient social security contributions. I would expect that would be the case in a lot of older couples where the wife worked little or not at all.
Chas,
I understand you are purposefully being difficult here.
Here is the link once again:
Survivors Benefitshttp://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html
Did you see the title? It says SURVIVORS BENEFITS.
The page makes no distinctions about being a grandpa, grandma, husband or wife.
It clearly says:
Who can get survivors benefits based on your work?Your widow or widower may be able to receive full benefits at age 65 if born before January 1, 1940. (The age to receive full benefits is gradually increasing to age 67 for widows and widowers born January 2, 1940, or later.) Reduced widow or widower benefits can be received as early as age 60. If your surviving spouse is disabled, benefits can begin as early as age 50. For more information on widows, widowers and other survivors, visit http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ww&os2.htm.Your widow or widower can receive benefits at any age if she or he takes care of your child who is entitled to a child’s benefit and is age 16 or younger or who is disabled.Your unmarried children who are under age 18 (or up to age 19 if they are attending elementary or secondary school full time) also can receive benefits. Your children can get benefits at any age if they were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled. Under certain circumstances, benefits also can be paid to your stepchildren, grandchildren or adopted children.Your dependent parents can receive benefits if they are age 62 or older. (For your parents to qualify as dependents, you would have had to provide at least one-half of their support.)
:o
The amount of the Survivor Benefits is based on the earnings of the person (widow or widower) who died.
The more the person contributed to his or her Social Security earnings, the higher the benefits will be.
The amount a survivor (widow or widower) receives is a percentage of the deceased’s basic Social Security benefits.
Survivor benefits may or may not be reduced.
()()()()()()()()()S C E N A R I O 1()()()()()()()()()
If the surviving spouse (widow or widower) had less income than the deceased spouse (husband or wife)the surviving spouse (widow or widower) will receive a percentage of the deceased’s basic Social Security income.
The amount of the Survivor Benefits is based on the earnings of the person (widow or widower) who died.
The more the person contributed to his or her Social Security earnings, the higher the benefits will be.
The amount a survivor (widow or widower) receives is a percentage of the deceased’s basic Social Security benefits.
Survivor benefits may or may not be reduced.
()()()()()()()()()S C E N A R I O 2()()()()()()()()()
If the surviving spouse (widow or widower) had MORE income than the deceased spouse (husband or wife)the surviving spouse (widow or widower) may not receive a percentage of the deceased’s basic Social Security income and most likely will receive zero income because the benefit is greater than that of the deceases.
Based on income – yesBased on spouse – no
***(Other variances depend on divorce, age of retirement, type of income, source of income, supplemental income and other factors too numerous to mention here.)
Contact your local Social Security Office to get direct answers to your direct questions.
Chas,
Now, show us where social security says they will not pay “Grandpa” when “Grandma” dies.
Nathan, I have NEVER YET seen a situation where Grandpa gets any of Grandma’s benefits, if Grandpa survives Grandma… and that includes my own parents…
You are reading about qualifications… I am talking about what happens when BOTH spouses are already RETIRED, and drawing their benefits…
Can you see that difference???
I dont have any more time for this right now… I might get a chance to come back later on… Got some things to get done here for now…
Bye all, and it has been a good thread all day today!! I dont see why we cant keep it like this on most days…
Blessings!!
I’ve been watching bits and pieces of this CNN God’s Warriors…it’s really good.
Anyone else?
()()()())()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()Privatizing Social Security – Not a good idea()()()())()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()Why Privatizing Social Security Would Hurt Women.(PDF FILE)http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/CATORIB.PDF
()()()())()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()Taking Care of our elderly, including Gays.()()()())()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()Why Elderly Gays won’t benefit from Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and 401K plans.
***A recent General Accounting Office report states that the word “marriage” appears more than 1,000 times in federal statutes governing inheritance rights, Social Security benefits, hospital visitation and tax law***
The surviving gay partner of a retiree receives no Social Security survivor benefits.
When a gay elder needs Medicaid-financed nursing home care, his or her partner can lose their jointly owned home because gay couples aren’t covered by federal rules protecting the assets of nursing home residents’ spouses.
Surviving Gay partners incur a 20 percent tax on inherited 401(k) money because Gay can not roll the entire amount into a tax-free individual retirement account.
In most pension retirement scenarios, worker’s legal spouse gets half the pension even after the worker’s death. Since Gays are not inclusives in with the legal definition of “spouse” they are excluded.
Social Security spousal benefits are out of reach for Gay couples because of the definition of “spouse” laws by States and Federal Government.
Sorry not a Gay Right’s advocate, just pointing out the possible harmful effects of not including the term “spouse” in a universal context.
Chas I see you have been a very busy boy tonight. Almost popped a cork a few times in fact. I said:
Actually Chas I believe you would get the greater of… If she made more that you that would be hers.
Posted by: ksgrm | August 23, 2007 at 06:09 PM
From everything I read upstream this is exactly right. If your wife were to leave this good earth before you the SS administration would do the math and if half of her benefit were more than 100% of yours – Say she worked hard, had a regular job and earned more – you could indeed draw off of her experience.
As I said … the greater of the two.
Sorry you are having a comprehension problem tonight. Take a couple of aspirin and get a good nights rest.
Dragnet that was probably the most informative post today. This could be a starting point to get legal protection for the surviving partner in a gay relationship. By the way they are many straight couples who have this same type of complication because they never tied the knot, one didn’t include the other in his/her will, etc…
Grm, I think YOU need to take a few hormones or something… You are still wrong on that one!! If you dont believe me, Call the SSA office… THEY will tell you… then you can tell them THEY are wrong!! Ha!!
The surviving male spouse of a retiree receives no Social Security survivor benefits.
THIS is factual… Ksgrm… Just go look it up!! And stop with your damned ad hominems!! I get SO tired of your crap sometimes!!
PMom… Yes, I am watching the CNN Special… most interesting… somewhat scary!!
They want to control how people DRESS… what they read, what they listen to, what they watch… Sounds just like the radical Islamic Taliban factions we are supposedly fighting against in the Middle East!! Mercy sakes!
Wouldn’t it be great if we canceled the government-mandated retirement plan, so that each person would be free to make whatever retirement arrangements fit their life situation?
Or not make any, if that is what they want?
Chas,
Once again, SOCIAL SECURITY SURVIVOR BENEFITS:
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html
Who can get survivors benefits based on your work?
-Your widow or widower may be able to receive full benefits at age 65 if born before January 1, 1940. (The age to receive full benefits is gradually increasing to age 67 for widows and widowers born January 2, 1940, or later.) Reduced widow or widower benefits can be received as early as age 60. If your surviving spouse is disabled, benefits can begin as early as age 50. For more information on widows, widowers and other survivors, visit http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ww&os2.htm.-Your widow or widower can receive benefits at any age if she or he takes care of your child who is entitled to a child’s benefit and is age 16 or younger or who is disabled.
-Your unmarried children who are under age 18 (or up to age 19 if they are attending elementary or secondary school full time) also can receive benefits. Your children can get benefits at any age if they were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled. Under certain circumstances, benefits also can be paid to your stepchildren, grandchildren or adopted children.
-Your dependent parents can receive benefits if they are age 62 or older. (For your parents to qualify as dependents, you would have had to provide at least one-half of their support.)
Chas you can be such a pain at times. If you are in the business of advising others you really should be informed.
“If you are getting benefits based on your own work, call or visit us, and we will check to see if you can get more money as a widow or widower. You will receive the higher benefit, not a combination of the two types of benefits. You will need to complete an application to switch to survivors benefits, and we will need to see your spouse’s death certificate.
Gotta go Chas. You have a good night. The aspirins really will help that headache.
Chas,
Why are you being so stubborn?
You refuse to post any links to support your claims…
You refuse to even quote anything from Social Security to support your claim…
You try to change around what you are claiming in an attempt to try and say I don’t understand what you are talking about, and then:
You refuse to post any links to support your claims…
You refuse to even quote anything from Social Security to support your claim…
Once again, you are back to saying:
“The surviving male spouse of a retiree receives no Social Security survivor benefits.”
So this time there is no confusion. My links DO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT what you are saying.
Let me guess:
I don’t know what I am talking about, I am confused as to what you are talking about, and you are refusing to post any evidence to back up your claims?
Wouldn’t it be great if we canceled the government-mandated retirement plan, so that each person would be free to make whatever retirement arrangements fit their life situation?
Or not make any, if that is what they want?
Posted by: anonymous | August 23, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Yes, well, that’s exactly what we had BEFORE FDR started Social Security.
And I believe it was before income taxes had started if I recall correctly (IIRC).
How’d that work out?
40 percent of people above retirement age lived below the poverty line.
Yeah, that’d be great, dude.
Ok well Grm, since you think that people shouldn’t benefit financially from their spouses. How about you give up the rights you want to deny to gays, by getting a divorce yourself?
We wouldn’t want to be hypocritical now would we?
Not a good solution Cap because there are many who would make no provision for their old age. We have raised a nation with many people who expect the gov to take care of them as I believe Rush says – cradle to grave. I know so please don’t remind me that some people aren’t able to take care of themselves. That is a reality that makes a case for SS. Expanding it to take in other classes of people is just wrong in MOHO.
Actually pmom I will draw on my own experience and not that of my spouse not that is any of your business. A typical lib solution. Disolve your marriage to make it right for someone else. That is very logical.
You have choosen to turn a deaf ear to everything I have said today so obviously there isn’t any reason to continue this dialogue.
No I haven’t turned a deaf ear, I heard you loud and clear. You want the security to be married for yourself, you want the benefits allowed to you by the nation to remain in place. But you don’t want gays to have those same rights (nevermind the million other more important reasons gay couples may want to marry that would be financially beneficial to society).
“This Socialist blog I would guess agrees with this approach – to shift money away from some of the brightest kids to prop up those at the bottom.”
There’s no point in arguing with Max. He tells the opposition what it believes, even when we don’t believe it, then he argues with himself.
He’s surrounded himself with so many straw men, he’s going strangle himself they way he’s flailing around . . .
“socialist THERE!” “and OVER HERE!” and “BEHIND that BUSH” and “UP there in the TREE!”
We’re under your bed too, Max . . .
Ksgrm–
So . . . you’re saying that people in the 1920’s and 30’s my grandparents were “raised a nation who expected the gov to take care of them as I believe Rush says – cradle to grave.”
Those damn dependent wussies–the Great Depression, WW2, the Cold War–who knew they just lay down and demanded the gov’t to wipe their butts!
Man . . . I’m so disappointed in my grandparents now . . .
CpanAmerica,
It is funny that you of all people would be making fun of someone else for being worried when many of your posts come right out of conspiracy theory type publications….
The top 20 percent (richest) people in the world are more than twice as rich relative to the bottom 20 percent (poorest) people in the world from 1960 to 1995.
According to Nathan, that’s just natural and inevitable. Nobody is making it happen or anything . . .
How far off is Kansas ‘underwear ordinance’?Atlanta considers banning baggy pants Thu Aug 23, 5:59 PM ET
ATLANTA – Baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs would be illegal under a proposed amendment to Atlanta’s indecency laws. The amendment, sponsored by city councilman C.T. Martin, states that sagging pants are an “epidemic” that is becoming a “major concern” around the country.
ADVERTISEMENT”Little children see it and want to adopt it, thinking it’s the in thing,” Martin said Wednesday. “I don’t want young people thinking that half-dressing is the way to go. I want them to think about their future.”
The proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap, said Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.
The proposed ordinance states that “the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments” would be unlawful in a public place. It would go in the same portion of the city code that outlaws sex in public and the exposure or fondling of genitals.
The penalty would be a fine in an amount to be determined, Martin said.
But Seagraves said any legislation that creates a dress code would not survive a court challenge. She said the law could not be enforced in a nondiscriminatory way because it targets something that came out of the black youth culture.
“This is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling,” Seagraves said.
Martin, who is black, said he plans to hold public hearings and vet the proposal through churches, civil rights groups and neighborhood organizations. The proposal will get its first public airing next Tuesday in the City Council’s Public Safety Committee.
“The purpose of the paper is to generate some conversation to see if we can find a solution,” Martin said. “It will be like all the discussions we’ve had around the value of the hip-hop culture. We know there are First Amendment issues … and some will say I’m just trying to put young black men in jail, but it’s going to be fines.”
Makeda Johnson, an Atlanta mother of a 14-year-old girl, said she is glad Martin introduced the proposal. She does not want to see a law against clothing, but said she thinks teenagers are sending a message with a way of dressing that is based in jailhouse behavior.
Atlanta would not be the first city to take on sagging pants.
Earlier this year, the town council in Delcambre, La., passed an ordinance that carries a fine of up to $500 or six months in jail for exposing underwear in public. Several other municipalities and parish governments in Louisiana have enacted similar laws in recent months.
Pmom it actually isn’t just me. Others see the same drawbacks in redefining marriage.
CNN had this story after the last election on this issue.
“Red state or blue, north or south, voters around the country found at least one thing they could agree on yesterday as proposals banning same-sex marriage were winning in all 11 states where the issue appeared on the ballot.
Tallies from Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Utah showed constitutional amendments restricting marriage to a man and woman would pass by substantial margins. A similar measure in Oregon enjoyed a solid lead with nearly three-quarters of the votes counted.”
I guess all of the people in these states are just meanies taking the rights of others – or they are smart enough to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of changing the existing structure and don’t want it to change.
Cap you can still be proud of your grandparents. I was just jesting you a little. Actually it would be the baby boomers and down who fall in this category.
Yes and those people just flat out admit they’re against gays getting married for their religious beliefs. They’re honest that they’re anti-gay.
It is interesting to see where the dropped drawer style came from. Television ads were written about the Maytag repairmans crack and it was funny. No one wanted to be called a plumber – now all of a sudden when teens want to show us their underwear lawmakers are racist for trying to tell them to pull them up.
Actually I think this generation of young men are asking for a lot of hip and leg problems. They have to walk funny to keep them from falling off completely. That can’t be good for your back.
Political Mom,
You are putting words in a group of peoples mouths unjustly.
The Majority of Christians are not “anti-gay.”
Pmom where did you get that information. Eleven states that are filled with anti-gay people. Wow!!
I guess if you want to keep insisting that I am against gays I can’t stop you – but just for the record I’m not.
Actually, I was kidding YOU, kgrm.
You conservatives seem to have this feeling that things were so much better years ago. People were more independent and hard-working. Nobody took charity back then.
40 percent of retired people living below the poverty line is not better. We’ve seen how well “private savings” work.
That’s why we invented the most successful and popular gov’t program ever: Social Security.
Bring back the extended families, all living under one roof! May not be that far off.
Cap I want to see SS succeed but it is just like other social programs, with the wrong management it will go down. Oh it won’t go away. NO politician would ever vote to take it away. That would be political suicide – but if they just keep raising the age that you qualify then in essence they are taking it away.
Many physical jobs cannot be done by a man over a certain age. The new age limits don’t take that into account.
I know many here think I am a hard hearted rich witch. Nothing could be further from the truth. My husband and I started from scratch when he was 45 and I was 40. The United Rubbers Workers Union cost him his job. Long story.
Short story – he could never have done that job past the age of 60. Very hot (over 120 in the summer time) and lifting hundreds of pounds daily. He was lucky enough to lose his job 20 years ago and learn a new profession. Many others we knew weren’t so lucky. They moved in the same industry and many have died from related illnesses. The ones who haven’t died are very crippled up from the stress to their bodies.
SS isn’t a perfect system but it the only system some people have. We need to do all we can to make sure it succeeds.
The surest way to destroy it is to funnel money away from SS and into private accounts.
Also, I doubt that the Union cost your husband his job. Gov’t policies that pay companies to go over-seas are a much bigger culprit. Companies like Wal-Mart that force price concessions on suppliers (or break them by taking away volume sales) are a much bigger reason for job loss.
Look at what WalMart did to RubberMaid and Worchester, Mass when the price of plastic resin went up. It bankrupted them.
Blame the Union if you want. But it is the reason that more rubber workers aren’t DEAD from the work they did.
He worked for BF Goodrich. The company made the decision that the plant needed to be a 24/7 operation. The union didn’t even acknowledge them. The company closed the plant so after 23 years his job went to Mexico. We had to leave a town we had lived in our entire life. The unemployment was over 25% for several years. We had to sell two homes at less than 50% of their before plant closing value. In effect we had less than we did when we got married. The difference was we had 3 children, 1 in high school and 2 in college.
We refused to roll overand play dead. So when people on here tell me how easy I have it I always laugh. If they only knew.
Gotta go.
Nathan, maybe most Christians dont HATE gays… But they sure dont think they are living in God’s grace like the rest of the “born agin” crowd… If they DID believe that, they wouldnt be leading the fight AGAINST Gay Marriage…. They would be FOR it, and the laws against it would FAIL!!! Now, lets see you argue your way out of THAT one!!
Chas laid out the obvious some time back (and he’s not the first):
Legal marriage is a civil union. No religion is required. You can married by a judge. . .or “Elvis.”
No church is required to perform or recognized any marriage. Period.
Being against gay marriage is being against religious freedom. Period. It’s self-evident.
Chas,
Did you ever dig up that proof for your claims about Social Security yet?