Comments Posted By Carol
Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments
Wow, if you have the figure for it. These are actually pretty cool.
» Posted By Carol On 01/April/2005 @ 7:55 pm
Well you certainly don’t seem to be very good at doing whatever I tell you. Next time I’ll carry a gun.
» Posted By Carol On 01/April/2005 @ 8:04 am
Social Security: something worse than no reform?
Actually Ashley I expect Avery’s outlook on this subject to be less influenced by personal factors than your own. To put it bluntly she doesn’t have a dog in this fight yet. I think by putting the issue in the very narrow perspective of the money you are being taxed for the current system versus the possibility that there will be nothing there for you to rap in return has caused you to ignore adjacent issues. If the system is undermined, Americans will still pay but in other forms of welfare. If we increase our national debt to finance personal accounts, that debt will hurt the market. Our country borrows from foreign investors to cover our debt. Already Korea and Japan have signaled that dollars aren’t looking like such a good investment. America isn’t lookin glike a good investment. If we take the money currntly collected under social security and pour it into the stock market, the money that the government has been using from social security to pay for government services (other than social security) will have to raised in another way or else government spending curbed. The shortfall cannot be addressed simply by curbing domestic nonmilitary spending. It will requrie the wholesale elimiantion of some government programs probably beginning with the dept. of Education. Ok, that was probably not the best example. Bottom line for every elimination at the federal level you will see an increase in taxes at the state level. Try looking at the big picture.
» Posted By Carol On 31/March/2005 @ 1:14 am
You failed to explain what we should be afraid of happening. Right now the Republicans or at least one from SC is floating a plan that will do the things mentioned in this article 1. raise the ceiling on the amount of income that can be taxed for social security 2. slightly raise the age at which a person becomes eligible to receive benefits 3. reduce benefit amounts and 4. the add on accounts starting at 4% as the president has proposed. The government does not wnat to invest social security in the stock market because it is too risky. That should tell you something. Even President Bush has given tacit acknowlegment of this by limiting the investment opportunites that social security, who would manage the funds, can make on your behalf in order to mimimize the risk. If you would like to know what the Dems are really thinking about, in response to the Republicans claim that social security is nothing more than welfare, the Dems are thinkin gof restructuring social security from its current state of “welfare” into the social insurance program that it was originaly envisioned as being. Insurance not welfare. What does this mean exactly? Well right now you buy insurance to hedge your bets against dying. You can buy insurance to hedge your bets against having to go into a nursing home -long term health insurance, oh yes and you can buy health insurance to hedge your bets in case you get sick. Social security woudl become insurance to hedge your bets against the inability to save enough money to see you through your old age when you can no longer work. I am talking about means testing. People like me would nto get much of anything upon retirement but if my retirement funds ran out before I ran out of life then I would qualify to receive some benefits. Right now regardless of how much money you make or have you can draw social security. This plan addresses the solvency of the program without totally dismantling it. The private accounts the president proposes do nto address the solvency problem and they would add a tremendous amount of debt to the national debt, which according to Alan Greenspan would suppress the market almost ensuring those investing in the private accounts would end up worse off. Private accounts aren’t going to catch on with the savy as a safety net until this country addresses corporate malfesance and overpaid CEOs who receive huge paycheck without regard to company performance and get huge golden parachutes if removed because of doing poorly. Add on accounts were first suggested by Dems nearly a decade ago to spur folks to invest. It would have also created a portable retirement system geared to todays job market in which peopel switch jobs frequently unlike 40 years agao where you retired at he company where youfirst started work.
» Posted By Carol On 30/March/2005 @ 10:20 am
You are lonely aren’t you.
» Posted By Carol On 30/March/2005 @ 10:23 am
Huhah!
» Posted By Carol On 29/March/2005 @ 10:59 am
Christian, Budhists or neo-pagan, that resonates. I must share this with Nolan.
» Posted By Carol On 29/March/2005 @ 10:58 am
By the time youbought everything you would need- I suspect your staples are soemwhat limited-you would do better to simply take them out to eat. Find some place interesting -doesn’t have to be expensive but the food should be good. Ask folks in you language class. By the way ho wis language class coming along?
» Posted By Carol On 27/March/2005 @ 10:26 pm
More interesting than my Saturday that is for sure. By the way pretend those lanes are money and you’ll be commandeering the roads in no time flat 🙂
» Posted By Carol On 27/March/2005 @ 9:03 am
Iraqi thugs massacre 85 freedom fighters
Another story appeared in the Post today about this incident. This one did not make the front of the paper but it was reported. Seems now our guys (soldiers) are questioning whether 85 insurgents were killed. Our guys in choppers reported there were 80 to 100 insurgents in the camp. After the battle, which they describe as somewhat brief, they joined the Iraqis at the scene. No bodies. Specualtin is that the insurgents who escaped took their dead with them. However, 85 dead could not have been carried off by the 15 remaining insurgents . Also it appears 30 to 40 insurgents are back at the camp! They returned after the Iraqis left.
» Posted By Carol On 26/March/2005 @ 6:17 am
Yes but what in the coverage led you to believe it was biased? (That link doesn’t work.) And why would you assume the story received the same coverage in real newsapers and the major networks here at home? In the Post it was reported that 85 insurgents had been killed by the Iraqis with heavy support from multiple US troop battalions. The camp excaped detection becuase of its location on an island in a swamp and it appeared to be a temporary set up so they were unable to determine exactly how long the insurgents had been there. some of the insurgents appeared to be foreigners. Some Iraqi troops were killed but not many. And the insurgents actualy admitted to losses this time, a rather unusual move for them according to a US general, although they only claimed 11 dead and claimed to have inflicted much heavier casualties on the Iraqis than actually occured. It was the biggest insurgent kill since Fallujah. But most importantly, it represents quite the accomplishment by the Iraqi troops, even if they ahd substantial American help, in terms of intilling morale and a can do attitude. so what is biased about this? Where is the moral equivalence?
» Posted By Carol On 25/March/2005 @ 9:56 pm
I am at a loss. What are you saying here? The link doesn’t help shed any light on your thought process. Are you quoting someone else or did you write all of the above? You appear to be throwing stones at the media (as usual) but I dont’ know why.
» Posted By Carol On 25/March/2005 @ 11:11 am
Right.
» Posted By Carol On 24/March/2005 @ 11:33 pm
This case is no different than Hugh Finn remeber him? His wife wnated to disconnect his feedign tube here in VA and Gilmore intervened? You were totally against the governor’s interference and supported her right as his spouse to make the call. Have you switched sides on this position? Do I need to start a private account to keep myself from being improverished and starving to death in the event this should happen to you?
» Posted By Carol On 24/March/2005 @ 9:15 pm
Okay KO you got me there. Doesn’t change the fact though that Europeans excel in the sciences. That their kids tend to do better in school or rather test better, or that they aren’t lining up to leave to the old country. When John makes comments that Europe is irrelevant I have to wonder irrelevant in what respect? Certainly it isn’t irrelevant to the people who live there. They are irrelevant to American but then haven’t they always been? So what is really being said by declaring them irrelevant? I cannot help but interpret the statement as being a how dare you not support America and go along with our dictates. That does not sit well with me being from the land of free.
» Posted By Carol On 25/March/2005 @ 10:35 pm
Gosh honey I love America as much as you do but Europe is on the cutting edge of medicine, engineering and physics. Pay more attention to where the Nobel Prizes are awarded. America’s dominance is in computer technology. Muslims are on the rise in this country too as is the hispanic population. For all their crushing tax burdens Europeans still save more money than Americans and enjoy a nice standard of living. Germany is still reeling from the reunification of East Germany but they are recovering. Most European countries had to make some adjustments after the formation of the EU but the biggest indicator that they aren’t doing nearly as bad as you seem to think is the fact that they aren’t immigrating. Historically when things are bad in Europe immigration to America or Australia increases. Well it isn’t happening. Yes they have problems but they aren’t as bad as you seem to think. Europe irrelevant? I don’t think so.
» Posted By Carol On 24/March/2005 @ 11:56 am
And what exactly makes you think your audience would be interested in this, this…?
» Posted By Carol On 23/March/2005 @ 9:27 am
Let me add though, I think it is an awful mistake of Congress to pass legislation for one person. The legislation they passed does not apply to everyone only Terry Shiavo. So the state’s laws still apply to everyone but her.
» Posted By Carol On 22/March/2005 @ 8:44 pm
You need to go back and reread my comments. I did not use the word hypocrisy and moreover I was making precisely the point Althouse made. I just didn’t spell it out. However, anyone who has read previous comments of mine, there were a flurry of them recently on this subject, could have easily connected the dots.
» Posted By Carol On 22/March/2005 @ 8:41 pm
The world turned upside down (part 2)
The Christian Democrats are right wing?
» Posted By Carol On 22/March/2005 @ 10:06 am
Closer than it should have been
A phony what? Surely you meant 51% of the Americans who voted saw right through him.
» Posted By Carol On 22/March/2005 @ 10:10 am
Not sure what you are trying to say. You think men who chug beer are better leaders than men who drink coffee? Looking the part of an athlete counts for more than actual athletic ability? Men who wear bike shorts are sissy? Whoa there bud, my husband wears those strechy spandex shorts when he goes bike riding -so does Lance Armstrong and neither of them are sissies. Oh you’ve never kissed your wife on the face someplace other than her lips -say like on her forehead or beside her mouth? Never, had your wife back away from a kiss because your breath could kill a horse? Or perhpas you think a wife is merely a photo op who should play along in any situation?
» Posted By Carol On 21/March/2005 @ 8:48 pm
Yep it says I dont’ resort to name calling or meaningless rhetoric. It syas I don’t ahve to trash another person or country to feel good about myslef or my country. It says I am fair minded in that I will listen to your grievance even when I disagree. It also says I am willing to give you the chance to change my mind but that I am strong enough in my convictions that I am not particulary worried about that happening. It says I respect their right to disent and I admire their balls.
What does it say about you?
» Posted By Carol On 22/March/2005 @ 11:02 am
Won’t pull their weight. You mean won’t kowtow to American interest (as defined by the current administration) don’t you? Sounds kind of ballsy to me. American has the mightiest military and the will to go it alone when they want where they want, without provocation. Yep sounds ballsy all right. Not wimpy at all.
» Posted By Carol On 22/March/2005 @ 10:13 am
Our neighbors are Canadian not French and most of the people dipicted in these pictures appear to be of Middle East decent.
» Posted By Carol On 21/March/2005 @ 8:50 pm
Sweet darling, science does not say that starving is not painful. It says that pain is interpreted by the cerebral cortex and various factors inclding one’s emotional state will influence how that pain is interpreted. That is why some people like pain and on the other end of the spectrum some people feel pain very easily. I hate to bring it up but you know a fair amount of thirld world children are starving, many of them starve to death yet no ones ever talks about the agony, the unbearable pain that they suffer. Is it because a. they don’t care; b. they never thought about it; c. can’t do anything about it so don’t dwell on it; d. the amount of pain experienced has been greatly exagerated in Terry’s case as another argument why folks who woudl let her die are monsters; e.all of the above.
» Posted By Carol On 22/March/2005 @ 8:52 pm
Sweetie, it wouldn’t take you any longer to die in such a situation. You see she will not actually starve to death. Death will be caused by lack of hydration, a build up of toxins in her system that will shut down her kidneys, heart and brain long before she actually burns through the store of fat. Sounds gruesome but I did want to put your mind at ease in case you are ever in such a situation. As for needing morphine, it is unnecessary. Pain is something we feel as a defense mechanism to let us know that we are physically imperiled. For instance stick your hand in a flame and your brain tells you pain so you pull your hand back. Cancer in your back, your brain tells you pain to send you to a doctor. The pain you feel is an interpretation by your cerebral cortex. Terry Shiavo does not have a cerebral cortex so she or rather her brain is unable to interpret the pain. What is truely amazing about this case is the fact that death by starvation as a “medical end solution” is not unique to Terry Shiavo. What is unique in this case is that her parents opposed the decision by her husband to remove the tube and took their case to the public. No one has ever suggested before that these individuals experience pain as a result of this process. Then of course there are people who deliberately starve themselves to death rather than face slow death from a medical condition. These peple do not seem to experience undue pain as a result of their starvation even though they are fully cognitive; although, it is speculated that since pain is a function of cognitive ability that these people merely interpret the pain differently. Oh yes did I mention that the perception of pain is also modified by a person’s emotional state? For what it is worth let me go on record as stating that I would not wish to be kept alive for 15 years in a noncognitive state-no artificial menas for me past a year. Why a year? Because teh likelihood of recovery is very low after a year. Even if a comatose person (different from Terry) wakes up after a year their prognosis is nto good and they tend to relapse. So spare me, spare yourself and spare the kids.
» Posted By Carol On 21/March/2005 @ 1:06 pm
Where I live (politically that is)
Okay, Euroyank where did you fall? No fair not telling. I am really curious since your opinion on the Iraq situation closely mirrors my own.
» Posted By Carol On 23/March/2005 @ 9:41 am
Weird! I fell between you and George Bush. I’m a centrist.
» Posted By Carol On 21/March/2005 @ 1:16 pm
«« Back To Stats PageWould it help if I added that I sure do love those hands?
» Posted By Carol On 21/March/2005 @ 8:52 pm