I would like to send my X-mas cards (bought a bunch at the dollar store) but with the price of stamps these days, it is a bit expensive.
I would like to send them all as COD for the stamp amount.
COD = Cash on delivery.. So basically the people that would receive the x-mas card would need to pay the 42 cents for the cost of the stamp in order to get the card. Plus, I'm not sure if I can request COD for 42 cents - especially for a stamp ... anyone know?
Would this be an acceptable way of sending out my Christmas cards? Honest opinion please?
Just do it and worry about details later. sounds like great idea.
Reply:In my opinion very poor taste - don't do it. Cut down list to appropriate number of stamps you can afford. I believe the post office no longer accepts anything without stamps - or COD as you put it. If you have a return address on them, they'll be returned to you.
Reply:Cheap. Tacky. Don't do it.
Reply:I'd send`em e-cards instead. I doubt you could ship christmas cards COD. I think it has to be something bigger and heavier since the postal service bills by weight.
Reply:No. If you cant afford to send the card,dont send them at all. It is supposed to be a gesture to let the person know you are thinking of them. You can get a roll of stamps (100 stamps) for $42 at the post office.
Reply:if you don't want to buy stamps then hand delivery them or don't send them.
It is wrong to send them COD and I hope you are joking.
It is rude to send something to someone and expect them to pay. (perhaps they also don't like the price of stamps)
Maybe you could just call them on the phone, or email them.
Reply:uh, that is pretty tacky.. if that is how you plan on doing it, then just don't send them.
Reply:don't do that if that is a problem send out over the internet to the ones who have email addresses and the ones that don't mail or take by their house if local
Reply:That is a terrible idea. Why should anyone pay for your postage? Instead of being an obviously cheap jerk, send out ecards. Just go to www.hallmark. com
Also, I doubt that the post office will deliver COD cards. You get the prize as Scrooge or Grinch of the year.
Reply:COD for cards is too cheapo. Might as well don't send them at all.
Reply:I would send the cards in a package so if a few people live beside each other then send the few to one person and ask them kindly to pass them on, the other way is very cheap and i would refuse to pay the delivery charge regardless of how much it would cost. In fact you would be more appreciated if you sent a community card for your friends in each area
Reply:how would you feel if you received a card from someone and then had to pay money for it? its cheap and if makes a nice gesture look bad. if you can't afford stamps then don't send the cards via mail. hand it to them in person or send them an e-card via the internet. having the people pay for their own postage stamp is low. sorry to be harsh but it is.
Reply:That is in terrible taste.
Send e-cards to everyone you have an email address for and a letter.
For the rest you should be able to afford stamps.
Reply:Personally I would think it tacky but that is just me. Why don't you send an email if the money is that tight?
You can send them without postage as long as there is no return address, and yes, the postal carrier will ask the person receiving the card for the 42 cents.
Reply:This is an excellent idea! if you post like this, next year no one will want anything from you! So you'll save even more cos you'll need no cards!
Reply:I'm assuming you're joking...right?
I don't mean to be rude if you're not, but this is like Santa leaving each child a bill.
Reply:I'm sorry, but this is tacky. If you can't afford to send Christmas cards, don't send them. Otherwise, buck up and spend the $.
Reply:That's a little bit cheap in my opinion.
Reply:VERY VERY VERY tacky
Reply:No, just don't send if you can't afford stamps.
Reply:I don't think that's a very good idea. How many times do you send Christmas cards a year? If you don't want to pay the money to send the cards, you shouldn't have got them in the first place. 42 cents a card isn't that bad, even if you send 20 cards, that's less than 10 bucks. Come on, cough it up, it is Christmas, after all.
Reply:Cheap cards sent without postage: A true Grinch.
Reply:my dear, happy christmas I wish you in advance, my dear why you waste your money If you ensist me then I gave you my address.....oh, no dear it's jocking I am not like that special that some one spend our important money on my . so I gave some fantush idea you just wake your painter who inside you and make some painting on that beautiful day and enjoy your festival with love and joy. my dear I am not gave more answers that's why I have attend only one question I think you understand me my dear......------deep heart lara
Reply:Dumb
Reply:Sorry, that is not acceptable.
Reply:I think COD would make people pissed...
Reply:No, that is not acceptable. Why would they need to pay for a stamp?
If you really can't afford to pay for postage, send the people who have email or communicate often via email with you and send them a Christmas e-card instead of mailing one to them.
These are my favorite e-card sites (with christmas greetings):
Virtual Florist: http://virtualflorist.com
123 Greetings: http://123greetings.com
And for the other people who you hardly communicate via email or don't have access to email, send them a snail mail christmas card with the postage. This should save you money.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Is the opinion of others of you more important that your own opinion of you?
Do you need other-directed-reaffirmation more than you need self-affirmation. For most of us, myself included, we need our life affirmed by those most important to us, including our bosses. My father was a supervisor in a lumber mill. He said that employees were more motivated by praise from their superiors than from any other means, including pay raises. Are you self-actualized, or do you need your life defined by others?
Is the opinion of others of you more important that your own opinion of you?
Good question. As confident as one may be, I believe that confidence, if not generated, is at least reinforced by the relationships with others.
We humans can not live alone. We require the stimulus and interaction with others. Your example of your father is excellent. I have found the same to be true with my company. However it goes one step further. As "the boss" I also enjoy the respect of my employees. I can't tell you how much it means to me to have one express their gratitude for my commitment to them and the customers. They understand that without that, there would be no job for them.
But back to you question. We all need affirmation from others. But the degree in which we need it varies. And the way we attain it varies also. I am not in a position to get it from my "boss". But I do seek it from my customers, vendors, and employees. That doesn't mean my life is defined by them. That's my responsibility.
So by extension, I would have to say I am self-actualized.
The most important point is, in the end, ones station in life doesn't really matter. We all need and want the same thing.
Reply:Great question! Life is full of ups and downs when we need affirmation by others...family, bosses, important people. It will also be filled with disappointments because one is always waiting...waiting to be appreciated, waiting to be thanked, waiting for affirmation, waiting for an apology. Eventually, you look within and if you and your conscience agree, "good enough".
Reply:Ah, you're talking about me now - lol.
I am more self-actualized than most I do not need my life defined by others.
It came from a mother who loved me unconditionally and a strong support system as a youngster and more importantly - genetics I think. My family for the most part is like me. Though, I am the most comfortable in self.
This is what others strive for their whole lives, but alas, it comes with a steep price. The people around you will resent you and do everything in their power to break you.
I switched jobs a lot to escape. Later on, I would meet past co-workers who admitted that they were jealous of me. A couple said they 'wanted' to be me.
Their actions hurt my career a lot finally I prematurely quit working all together and now I am the most content than I've ever been.
I am better off when not around others. I do not feel lonely nor do I miss 'life'. I find happiness within myself and my family circle.
Reply:I only disappoint myself when I do not live up to my own principles. I value your opinion only because it is an aspect of who you are. It is the outcome of your life experiences, and it reflects your purpose, which is something beautiful. I only give my opinion when I recognize something beautiful, or I see something which will enlighten you on your life's journey. I accept people's opinions in much the same way. The connection between the giver and receiver becomes all the more enchanting when the opinion given resonates with the receiver's own inner guidelines.
Reply:Not any more I don't. You see aging does have it's benefits and that is one of them.
I grew up my whole life trying to please my father or husband.
When they praised me, I was happy. I felt I had done good.
Certainly it's important to please your boss but that also has limits.
I know it isn't possible to just please ourselves all the time and depend on others for that pat on the head.
Some opinions of other matter and some don't. As long as you can distinguish which ones are important, then all should be well under your skin.
Reply:no
yes
no
yes?
NO!
Reply:We see ourselves in the others mirrors then the others opinion is important ... but the rate of importance depens on the persons and diffrent from one to one.
Reply:I don't try to let others define me. I live for myself, and as long as my opinion of myself is good, then that's all that matters to me.
Is the opinion of others of you more important that your own opinion of you?
Good question. As confident as one may be, I believe that confidence, if not generated, is at least reinforced by the relationships with others.
We humans can not live alone. We require the stimulus and interaction with others. Your example of your father is excellent. I have found the same to be true with my company. However it goes one step further. As "the boss" I also enjoy the respect of my employees. I can't tell you how much it means to me to have one express their gratitude for my commitment to them and the customers. They understand that without that, there would be no job for them.
But back to you question. We all need affirmation from others. But the degree in which we need it varies. And the way we attain it varies also. I am not in a position to get it from my "boss". But I do seek it from my customers, vendors, and employees. That doesn't mean my life is defined by them. That's my responsibility.
So by extension, I would have to say I am self-actualized.
The most important point is, in the end, ones station in life doesn't really matter. We all need and want the same thing.
Reply:Great question! Life is full of ups and downs when we need affirmation by others...family, bosses, important people. It will also be filled with disappointments because one is always waiting...waiting to be appreciated, waiting to be thanked, waiting for affirmation, waiting for an apology. Eventually, you look within and if you and your conscience agree, "good enough".
Reply:Ah, you're talking about me now - lol.
I am more self-actualized than most I do not need my life defined by others.
It came from a mother who loved me unconditionally and a strong support system as a youngster and more importantly - genetics I think. My family for the most part is like me. Though, I am the most comfortable in self.
This is what others strive for their whole lives, but alas, it comes with a steep price. The people around you will resent you and do everything in their power to break you.
I switched jobs a lot to escape. Later on, I would meet past co-workers who admitted that they were jealous of me. A couple said they 'wanted' to be me.
Their actions hurt my career a lot finally I prematurely quit working all together and now I am the most content than I've ever been.
I am better off when not around others. I do not feel lonely nor do I miss 'life'. I find happiness within myself and my family circle.
Reply:I only disappoint myself when I do not live up to my own principles. I value your opinion only because it is an aspect of who you are. It is the outcome of your life experiences, and it reflects your purpose, which is something beautiful. I only give my opinion when I recognize something beautiful, or I see something which will enlighten you on your life's journey. I accept people's opinions in much the same way. The connection between the giver and receiver becomes all the more enchanting when the opinion given resonates with the receiver's own inner guidelines.
Reply:Not any more I don't. You see aging does have it's benefits and that is one of them.
I grew up my whole life trying to please my father or husband.
When they praised me, I was happy. I felt I had done good.
Certainly it's important to please your boss but that also has limits.
I know it isn't possible to just please ourselves all the time and depend on others for that pat on the head.
Some opinions of other matter and some don't. As long as you can distinguish which ones are important, then all should be well under your skin.
Reply:no
yes
no
yes?
NO!
Reply:We see ourselves in the others mirrors then the others opinion is important ... but the rate of importance depens on the persons and diffrent from one to one.
Reply:I don't try to let others define me. I live for myself, and as long as my opinion of myself is good, then that's all that matters to me.
Is popular opinion important? I mean,is it valid or just useless opinions? Should people pay attention to it?
just because everyone is doing it, it doesn't make it right.
People do things which are convenient to them. And when it becomes convenient to many, it becomes popular. What makes something important is what people view as important. Everything we do is for our OWN benefit. People pay attention to things they think they would be good for them. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS NECESSARILY RIGHT.
we must have good disgression to distinguish which are valid or useless popular opinions.
If you were a dirty politician, you would be dying to be a popular choice, wouldn't you?
GO AGAINST THE WIND.
Is popular opinion important? I mean,is it valid or just useless opinions? Should people pay attention to it?
People should make their own opinions and then look at the popular, if they are able.
But yes, popular opinion does matter.
Reply:Popular opinion is the opinion of the majority of people, so yes I would say it is. It should be considered and its weight taken into account, but remember that just because kids take a vote not to obey a parent doesn't mean its the best or the wisest thing.
Reply:popular opinion is how we got our President. whatever i meant by that? its your call.
pulling teeth
People do things which are convenient to them. And when it becomes convenient to many, it becomes popular. What makes something important is what people view as important. Everything we do is for our OWN benefit. People pay attention to things they think they would be good for them. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS NECESSARILY RIGHT.
we must have good disgression to distinguish which are valid or useless popular opinions.
If you were a dirty politician, you would be dying to be a popular choice, wouldn't you?
GO AGAINST THE WIND.
Is popular opinion important? I mean,is it valid or just useless opinions? Should people pay attention to it?
People should make their own opinions and then look at the popular, if they are able.
But yes, popular opinion does matter.
Reply:Popular opinion is the opinion of the majority of people, so yes I would say it is. It should be considered and its weight taken into account, but remember that just because kids take a vote not to obey a parent doesn't mean its the best or the wisest thing.
Reply:popular opinion is how we got our President. whatever i meant by that? its your call.
pulling teeth
Do you want to work with an employer who didn't mention how much he paid for the work done?
I just talked to a guy today regarding a project needed to be done. It's kind of fair when he asked me whether I was interested and able to do that. He set a first appointment / a few hours for me to practice, in other words, to check my ability. (I would be like a amatuer jounalist - interview others and listen to their stories. I will think of a topic, prepare some questions, pick a interviewer, work with the team, or even by myself later on.)
However, he didn't say anything about money I would get even when I do it well or not. I totally d no idea about how I'd develop a healthy relationship...
Please share with me what you think. Your opinions are appreciated.
Do you want to work with an employer who didn't mention how much he paid for the work done?
My first response is: did you ask him?
It's very important to settle these matters, preferably in writing, before you commence work.
Have an agreed weekly, daily or monthly rate. Work out possible issues in advance: travel expenses? What if you need to work beyond reasonable hours? What are payment terms? When? How?
From experience: go with your gut.
You can get stung by unscrupulous people. Normally, if you ask them questions like those above, they will reply 'ah, we'll sort it out later', 'don't worry, I'll take care of it', etc.
If they are serious and honest, THEY will not let you start work unless both parties are very sure what the financial side is.
So ask. In detail.
Even better, if you know someone who can give you inside information about their experience.
Don't do it unless you get a good answer and you feel comfortable with it.
Reply:First off when you have an interview if the employer does not mention how much the position is paying, you do. There is no point in going to a trial and then finding out it has a really crap pay. This is what you go to work for, so it should be mentioned. Don't just try to make a good impression, because then they will think you are a push over.
Reply:Sleep with him and you should get a pretty penny.
Reply:i can do it
Reply:You may end up getting no pay at all. Other than the pay, you should go further into the details such as the expected project timeframe, etc.
Reply:hell no
Reply:I wouldn't want to.
Maybe you can just say, "Excuse me, but I don't believe we ever settled on a salary."
However, he didn't say anything about money I would get even when I do it well or not. I totally d no idea about how I'd develop a healthy relationship...
Please share with me what you think. Your opinions are appreciated.
Do you want to work with an employer who didn't mention how much he paid for the work done?
My first response is: did you ask him?
It's very important to settle these matters, preferably in writing, before you commence work.
Have an agreed weekly, daily or monthly rate. Work out possible issues in advance: travel expenses? What if you need to work beyond reasonable hours? What are payment terms? When? How?
From experience: go with your gut.
You can get stung by unscrupulous people. Normally, if you ask them questions like those above, they will reply 'ah, we'll sort it out later', 'don't worry, I'll take care of it', etc.
If they are serious and honest, THEY will not let you start work unless both parties are very sure what the financial side is.
So ask. In detail.
Even better, if you know someone who can give you inside information about their experience.
Don't do it unless you get a good answer and you feel comfortable with it.
Reply:First off when you have an interview if the employer does not mention how much the position is paying, you do. There is no point in going to a trial and then finding out it has a really crap pay. This is what you go to work for, so it should be mentioned. Don't just try to make a good impression, because then they will think you are a push over.
Reply:Sleep with him and you should get a pretty penny.
Reply:i can do it
Reply:You may end up getting no pay at all. Other than the pay, you should go further into the details such as the expected project timeframe, etc.
Reply:hell no
Reply:I wouldn't want to.
Maybe you can just say, "Excuse me, but I don't believe we ever settled on a salary."
Why don't you make today the day you find out how the war in Iraq is being paid for?
As with most topics here in the political section, I see a lot of uneducated opinions and misinformation as to how we're paying for this war. I will try to shed some light on this topic:
War funding for both Iraq and Afghanistan has come in the form of supplemental appropriations outside the normal federal budget process. Typically these "supplementals" are used to pay for unexpected emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina, and they receive much less scrutiny from Congress.
After four years the Iraq war is still being funded with supplementals. In December, congressional budget leaders from both parties sent a letter to President Bush asking him to start paying for Iraq through the traditional budget process. The administration has done that in its 2008 budget year request -- but not before asking for another $100 billion supplemental to keep the war going through the end of this year.
What that means is the funding for the war hasn't even STARTED to hit the budget yet.
Why don't you make today the day you find out how the war in Iraq is being paid for?
I was thinking along those same lines this morning. Our deficit increases are fairly close to the amount spent on the war. Those purchasing Treasury notes are helping to fund the war. The Chinese.
Reply:The same way Washington does everything. Pay a little down and "borrow" the rest, and hope be out of office when the economic buzzards finally come home to roost.
Reply:"I think it's hard to argue it's not affordable," said Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think tank in Washington, D.C.
Hogwash... if that is not expensive then why isn't that money being used for something better like education, healthcare or space travel? Why is it all right to spend 500 billion dollars on murdering 655 000 Iraqis? Imagine $500B, i think with that money the US could start a program to give hair to all bald people, puppies to all bored children and there'd be enough left over to give condoms to all the poor souls who think the only way to avoid AIDS is to wear a chastity belt.
Edit: Crushem, does Iraq deserve the US?
Maddog, do you know what a war of choice is? nobody forced the US to go into Iraq. in fact, as i remember it millions of people turned to the streets to prevent this catastrophe. The excuses that war kills innocents, or that war is unpredictable, really do not cut it. This is your responsibility. Everyday the US stays on Iraq is another day that WILL LIVE IN INFAMY. Mark my words, the US will be remember as little better than Nazi Germany. It is time to get out and pay reparations. Or be accustomed to the label: Outlaw Nation.
Reply:Its obvious you're a liberal, everyone knows that once Bush took office money started falling from the sky and the war hasn't cost us a thing!!
Long live Bush and the Congress!
Reply:=
Reply:Great, so Bush destroyed America. I feel really effing safe from terrorists now.
Reply:Sad to say, but our fellow Americans are pretty dumb. A recent survey found that half of college age Americans could not find New York state on a map, and only 37% could point at Iraq on a map.
What do you expect?
Our nation is made up of 10-15% of very smart people who control the remaining 85% at will. The herd will always follow.
Reply:and this is different than any other police action or war in America's history. No; what do you expect dude... war is pretty unexpected!
perfect teeth
War funding for both Iraq and Afghanistan has come in the form of supplemental appropriations outside the normal federal budget process. Typically these "supplementals" are used to pay for unexpected emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina, and they receive much less scrutiny from Congress.
After four years the Iraq war is still being funded with supplementals. In December, congressional budget leaders from both parties sent a letter to President Bush asking him to start paying for Iraq through the traditional budget process. The administration has done that in its 2008 budget year request -- but not before asking for another $100 billion supplemental to keep the war going through the end of this year.
What that means is the funding for the war hasn't even STARTED to hit the budget yet.
Why don't you make today the day you find out how the war in Iraq is being paid for?
I was thinking along those same lines this morning. Our deficit increases are fairly close to the amount spent on the war. Those purchasing Treasury notes are helping to fund the war. The Chinese.
Reply:The same way Washington does everything. Pay a little down and "borrow" the rest, and hope be out of office when the economic buzzards finally come home to roost.
Reply:"I think it's hard to argue it's not affordable," said Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think tank in Washington, D.C.
Hogwash... if that is not expensive then why isn't that money being used for something better like education, healthcare or space travel? Why is it all right to spend 500 billion dollars on murdering 655 000 Iraqis? Imagine $500B, i think with that money the US could start a program to give hair to all bald people, puppies to all bored children and there'd be enough left over to give condoms to all the poor souls who think the only way to avoid AIDS is to wear a chastity belt.
Edit: Crushem, does Iraq deserve the US?
Maddog, do you know what a war of choice is? nobody forced the US to go into Iraq. in fact, as i remember it millions of people turned to the streets to prevent this catastrophe. The excuses that war kills innocents, or that war is unpredictable, really do not cut it. This is your responsibility. Everyday the US stays on Iraq is another day that WILL LIVE IN INFAMY. Mark my words, the US will be remember as little better than Nazi Germany. It is time to get out and pay reparations. Or be accustomed to the label: Outlaw Nation.
Reply:Its obvious you're a liberal, everyone knows that once Bush took office money started falling from the sky and the war hasn't cost us a thing!!
Long live Bush and the Congress!
Reply:=
Reply:Great, so Bush destroyed America. I feel really effing safe from terrorists now.
Reply:Sad to say, but our fellow Americans are pretty dumb. A recent survey found that half of college age Americans could not find New York state on a map, and only 37% could point at Iraq on a map.
What do you expect?
Our nation is made up of 10-15% of very smart people who control the remaining 85% at will. The herd will always follow.
Reply:and this is different than any other police action or war in America's history. No; what do you expect dude... war is pretty unexpected!
perfect teeth
Opinions if I should pay off my mortgage or keep money invested?
Bought my home in 03. Owe around $209K on mortgage @ 5.25% 30 yr fixed interest rate..... I have the cash right now to pay it off entirely but wondering if that is a bad idea considering the interest rate is so low and I am making more on investments right now? Opinions?
Opinions if I should pay off my mortgage or keep money invested?
Math answer is that you should not pay it off because you can make more money on your investments.
Human answer is this would reduce stress a huge amount. Your home would be safe no matter what happens to our economy. If your boss lays you off next week or your spouse gets sick or whatever, your house payment is one worry you don't have.
Reply:if inflation keeps up the value of your 209K will will be about 190K with interest (est.). So you can pay 209K today and the value of those $$ tomorrow will be about 20K less. you can take the same $$ and invest it and produce even 4% would give you a better return. the key is to have loans during inflationary times as the value of the $$ to be paid back decreases more than the interest rate. if inflation is a 4% and your interest is 5.25% you have a 1.25% real rate of interest. which is really low, no need to pay that back fast. If the other money can produce greater returns in other investments outside of realestate, use the capital to diversify your investments and let the mortgage continue, also this will help with taxes as you get your full deductions then on the interest expense, if you paid off your loan you would have to take on more debt to balance the tax payments at year end.
Reply:wow, that is an excellent query!
U did not state what the other
return is. My suggestion is to
try a 2nd option--
pay down on the mortgage this way
[and keep your other money invested]
---a; get permission from the lender
to make 2 payments a mo., on the
first and 15th.
b; along with each payment, make
a 2nd payment equaling the first payment. State on that check that
it is to go to principle only.
in under 12 yrs, your home will be
paid for in full.
Reply:If you are making more on your investments you already know the answer. You obviously were smart enough not to refinance and pull all of the equity from your home, I would pay it off when you do not expect to be making more with your liquid assets.
Reply:the best way to find an answer for a question is trying to explore a approach among an abundant of resources.here is a good one.http://mortgage.bestips.info/bad-credit-...
Reply:If your investments are making more (or the same), I'd keep the loan in place. Your rate is low and your able to deduct the interest off your taxes as well.
Opinions if I should pay off my mortgage or keep money invested?
Math answer is that you should not pay it off because you can make more money on your investments.
Human answer is this would reduce stress a huge amount. Your home would be safe no matter what happens to our economy. If your boss lays you off next week or your spouse gets sick or whatever, your house payment is one worry you don't have.
Reply:if inflation keeps up the value of your 209K will will be about 190K with interest (est.). So you can pay 209K today and the value of those $$ tomorrow will be about 20K less. you can take the same $$ and invest it and produce even 4% would give you a better return. the key is to have loans during inflationary times as the value of the $$ to be paid back decreases more than the interest rate. if inflation is a 4% and your interest is 5.25% you have a 1.25% real rate of interest. which is really low, no need to pay that back fast. If the other money can produce greater returns in other investments outside of realestate, use the capital to diversify your investments and let the mortgage continue, also this will help with taxes as you get your full deductions then on the interest expense, if you paid off your loan you would have to take on more debt to balance the tax payments at year end.
Reply:wow, that is an excellent query!
U did not state what the other
return is. My suggestion is to
try a 2nd option--
pay down on the mortgage this way
[and keep your other money invested]
---a; get permission from the lender
to make 2 payments a mo., on the
first and 15th.
b; along with each payment, make
a 2nd payment equaling the first payment. State on that check that
it is to go to principle only.
in under 12 yrs, your home will be
paid for in full.
Reply:If you are making more on your investments you already know the answer. You obviously were smart enough not to refinance and pull all of the equity from your home, I would pay it off when you do not expect to be making more with your liquid assets.
Reply:the best way to find an answer for a question is trying to explore a approach among an abundant of resources.here is a good one.http://mortgage.bestips.info/bad-credit-...
Reply:If your investments are making more (or the same), I'd keep the loan in place. Your rate is low and your able to deduct the interest off your taxes as well.
Why do so many people care about the opinions of over paid, typically undereducated celebrities?
I guess they don't trust their own judgment. I am not influenced by the opinions of celebrities.
Why do so many people care about the opinions of over paid, typically undereducated celebrities?
Because most people are underpaid, typically undereducated average joes
Reply:because they don't have an opinion of their own.
Reply:Because their lives are far more important and valuble than mine.
Paris Hilton lost her doggie again?! WAAAAAAAAAH!
Reply:Society needs someone that looks pretty and can daydream about.
Reply:...because that's the way this pop culture works! We tend to look at them as role models....when in reality they're just as slob and mean like the rest of us. Attribute it to media...the same entity who is so far suceeding in eroding the moral values of man.
Reply:I honestly have no idea. Especially actors. Even if you like an actor's personality in a certain show, it does not mean that is who they are in real life. So why do they care about someone who they don't even know. Why do people think celebrities opinions matters. The majority of the time they are just trying to keep up their image.
Why do so many people care about the opinions of over paid, typically undereducated celebrities?
Because most people are underpaid, typically undereducated average joes
Reply:because they don't have an opinion of their own.
Reply:Because their lives are far more important and valuble than mine.
Paris Hilton lost her doggie again?! WAAAAAAAAAH!
Reply:Society needs someone that looks pretty and can daydream about.
Reply:...because that's the way this pop culture works! We tend to look at them as role models....when in reality they're just as slob and mean like the rest of us. Attribute it to media...the same entity who is so far suceeding in eroding the moral values of man.
Reply:I honestly have no idea. Especially actors. Even if you like an actor's personality in a certain show, it does not mean that is who they are in real life. So why do they care about someone who they don't even know. Why do people think celebrities opinions matters. The majority of the time they are just trying to keep up their image.
My husband needs you opinion, he is unhappy with current job, interested in finance and investing?
He is not fresh out of college. It would be like a second career working as a financial advisor, which is what he loves to do in his spare time, but has no real experience as a salesperson. Should he make this change not knowing how much they pay at the beginning and how much he could make finding customers? I think we could cope financially if I stay at my job but I only make 1/2 of what he does.
My husband needs you opinion, he is unhappy with current job, interested in finance and investing?
It's all about priorities, and if his family is the main priority then maybe he should keep his job.
My husband needs you opinion, he is unhappy with current job, interested in finance and investing?
It's all about priorities, and if his family is the main priority then maybe he should keep his job.
What is you opinion of overseas call centres?
At the weekend I spent oven an hour on the phone to my broadband suppliers helpdesk. I found it incredibly frustrating as the person on the other end of the line made me spell practically every word I said (and even then they still got things wrong) and twice I was hung up on. To rub salt into the wound the calls where being charged at 10p a minute so I lost £6 into the bargain. This has pretty much been my experience of all overseas call centres. I can understand companies wanting to save money but I would rather pay extra to speak to a UK/Irish call centre where I am understood than save a little cash spending hours on the phone to someone whose first language isn't English. And in case anyone is thinking that I have a strong accent etc I don't. In fact I work in a job where I have to talk to people in various countries (including India) and I am understood perfectly well. I have a funny feeling that some of these call centre staff on chargeable lines purposely stretch out the....
What is you opinion of overseas call centres?
I totally agree with you. having worked in callcentres for 13 years both as an operator and Manager, it can be hard enough understanding people from different parts of the UK, but for those people overseas it must be impossible to understand certain regional accents.
I have since moved abroad and I have had to call my Bank and other organisations several times, going trough to an overseas callcentre was such a frustrating experience, in the end I just gave up. It is so frustrating to be paying for the call and just getting nowhere because the person at the other end cannot understand simple questions. Saying that, and this is my no means meant to be insulting, one of the callcentres I went through to was in Bradford, I spoke to several people who I could just not understand. To work in a callcentre you must have a clear and concise accent.
It is by no means the operator who is at fault, it is the large companies who are trying to save a few quid. It's like expecting British operators to take calls from overseas, it wouldn't work would it?
Reply:Hey John...yeah, I've had the same experience and I'm gonna start complaining to the companies I deal with. Actually, I've just decided to quit Avon, which I've worked as a representative for over 23 years, because they've decided to "outsource" all their phone %26amp; e-mail service, and totally messed up their whole system. I'll be writing a lengthy letter to them this week, regarding the service (or lack of it) that I've been getting the past two months. My sister, who lives in Georgia ( I live in Wisconsin ), also quit for the same reason, so it's not just a regional thing. Yes, I'm extremely tired of trying to talk to these call centers that always seem to pair you with someone whom you can't understand, and can't understand you either. When I get a call from them, I hang up. No, I don't mean to be rude, but it would be a waste of time for both of us to try to break the language barrier. I live just north of a major midwest tourist attraction, and the business owners have taken to hiring people who come from various countries, barely speaking english, and working in jobs where they attempt to give local directions to tourists. This is a lesson in futility...for them and for the tourists. They say it's because no one wants to work for the wages that the foreigners accept, but that's just not true. Many people are turned down for employment around here, because they know that the foreigners will not file for unemployment when they go back home in the fall. Sounds like you have the same problems in the UK that we have in the states. I think the only thing we can do is to write lots of letters to the companies that employ people who are hard to understand, and let them know that you will not be frequenting their stores until they change their policies. If enough people do this, the loss of their profits will speak louder than our letters, making them sit up and take notice. Money always has the last word. %26lt;*)))%26gt;%26lt;
Reply:I find it very hard not to be frustrated but then on reflection, we mustn't be mad at the operators on the end of the phone and their inability to understand what is being said.
If UK companies didn't base their call centres there to save some money, we wouldn't be experiencing this problem. I'm with you I'd rather spend a few pence extra a minute and speak to someone who I don't have to repeat myself to.
Reply:Nothing more frustrating then trying to follow directions when you can't understand the person. Happens all the time.
Reply:I think its disgraceful and highly offends me that these companies expect you to pay premium rates, for a poor service, Having to repeat yourself, and spell words like you said, even then you dont know if they understand. Quite often I give up an have to start again, hoping I get someone who speaks my language
Reply:I spent 40Min's on phone to a call centre in India, they could not understand me.
I was trying to pay my gas and electric bill using my credit card.
I gave all the details, they did not charge my credit card and then I received a letter threatening to cut the services.
I always take full advantage of the maximum amount of days to pay on my credit card, so I did not receive my statement in time to notice that it had not been charged.
I rang the service provider again, (in India again) I was very frustrated. I insisted that I be put through to someone who could understand me.I WANTED TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE IN THE UK!!!!
They gave me a UK number and low and behold the UK call centre was in my home town. The problem was sorted in no time at all.
So next time you are dealing with anyone who can't understand be strong and insist that you are given a UK number.
It probably helped me because I want ed to pay them money, but it could be worth the effort if you insist like I did.
Reply:I get so frustrated ringing up and getting someone who doesn't talk english on the other line. What makes me madder is that the jobs should stay in the country of the company. Cheap labour is not better service.
Reply:Yes I have. i had a problem with my cell phone provider. When I called to get it fixed I spoke to someone that had no clue what he was doing. I could n;t understand anything he said. so i doubt he understood what i was saying. I called againg and spoke a girl she was a disaster as well. Ithink calls should be directed to a call center in your perspective country.
laser teeth cleaning
What is you opinion of overseas call centres?
I totally agree with you. having worked in callcentres for 13 years both as an operator and Manager, it can be hard enough understanding people from different parts of the UK, but for those people overseas it must be impossible to understand certain regional accents.
I have since moved abroad and I have had to call my Bank and other organisations several times, going trough to an overseas callcentre was such a frustrating experience, in the end I just gave up. It is so frustrating to be paying for the call and just getting nowhere because the person at the other end cannot understand simple questions. Saying that, and this is my no means meant to be insulting, one of the callcentres I went through to was in Bradford, I spoke to several people who I could just not understand. To work in a callcentre you must have a clear and concise accent.
It is by no means the operator who is at fault, it is the large companies who are trying to save a few quid. It's like expecting British operators to take calls from overseas, it wouldn't work would it?
Reply:Hey John...yeah, I've had the same experience and I'm gonna start complaining to the companies I deal with. Actually, I've just decided to quit Avon, which I've worked as a representative for over 23 years, because they've decided to "outsource" all their phone %26amp; e-mail service, and totally messed up their whole system. I'll be writing a lengthy letter to them this week, regarding the service (or lack of it) that I've been getting the past two months. My sister, who lives in Georgia ( I live in Wisconsin ), also quit for the same reason, so it's not just a regional thing. Yes, I'm extremely tired of trying to talk to these call centers that always seem to pair you with someone whom you can't understand, and can't understand you either. When I get a call from them, I hang up. No, I don't mean to be rude, but it would be a waste of time for both of us to try to break the language barrier. I live just north of a major midwest tourist attraction, and the business owners have taken to hiring people who come from various countries, barely speaking english, and working in jobs where they attempt to give local directions to tourists. This is a lesson in futility...for them and for the tourists. They say it's because no one wants to work for the wages that the foreigners accept, but that's just not true. Many people are turned down for employment around here, because they know that the foreigners will not file for unemployment when they go back home in the fall. Sounds like you have the same problems in the UK that we have in the states. I think the only thing we can do is to write lots of letters to the companies that employ people who are hard to understand, and let them know that you will not be frequenting their stores until they change their policies. If enough people do this, the loss of their profits will speak louder than our letters, making them sit up and take notice. Money always has the last word. %26lt;*)))%26gt;%26lt;
Reply:I find it very hard not to be frustrated but then on reflection, we mustn't be mad at the operators on the end of the phone and their inability to understand what is being said.
If UK companies didn't base their call centres there to save some money, we wouldn't be experiencing this problem. I'm with you I'd rather spend a few pence extra a minute and speak to someone who I don't have to repeat myself to.
Reply:Nothing more frustrating then trying to follow directions when you can't understand the person. Happens all the time.
Reply:I think its disgraceful and highly offends me that these companies expect you to pay premium rates, for a poor service, Having to repeat yourself, and spell words like you said, even then you dont know if they understand. Quite often I give up an have to start again, hoping I get someone who speaks my language
Reply:I spent 40Min's on phone to a call centre in India, they could not understand me.
I was trying to pay my gas and electric bill using my credit card.
I gave all the details, they did not charge my credit card and then I received a letter threatening to cut the services.
I always take full advantage of the maximum amount of days to pay on my credit card, so I did not receive my statement in time to notice that it had not been charged.
I rang the service provider again, (in India again) I was very frustrated. I insisted that I be put through to someone who could understand me.I WANTED TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE IN THE UK!!!!
They gave me a UK number and low and behold the UK call centre was in my home town. The problem was sorted in no time at all.
So next time you are dealing with anyone who can't understand be strong and insist that you are given a UK number.
It probably helped me because I want ed to pay them money, but it could be worth the effort if you insist like I did.
Reply:I get so frustrated ringing up and getting someone who doesn't talk english on the other line. What makes me madder is that the jobs should stay in the country of the company. Cheap labour is not better service.
Reply:Yes I have. i had a problem with my cell phone provider. When I called to get it fixed I spoke to someone that had no clue what he was doing. I could n;t understand anything he said. so i doubt he understood what i was saying. I called againg and spoke a girl she was a disaster as well. Ithink calls should be directed to a call center in your perspective country.
laser teeth cleaning
If I Paid Florida Voters $10 to vote for Ron Paul Somehow, Would He Win The Primary, Tuesday?
I know it would be illegal, but it's just to get some random opinions.
Civil Answers only please.
If I Paid Florida Voters $10 to vote for Ron Paul Somehow, Would He Win The Primary, Tuesday?
The Ron Paul campaign is about raising the consciousness of the American people. The vote count shows how many have found out what his message is and agree with him enough to want to see him as President.
Reply:nope, never been there, i live in Montana Report Abuse
Reply:I seriously doubt that $10 is gonna cut the mustard. If you look at voting on an economic scale. many people might see that they come out far ahead voting against Ron Paul than by accepting the $10 and voting for him. If it were legal, one would have to be a millionaire or close to.
Reply:NO
Reply:Ron Who?????
Reply:Who doesn't wish ron paul would win!
Reply:I'd take the money and vote for someone else, personally.
Reply:you would need a lot of money.
Reply:I think, first of all, you are minimizing the respect that readers might have for Ron Paul.
Also, I don't think that people would go for that amount of cash. (if they actually would take money for a vote) I don't think there are enough people who would do that to change the liberal mindset that is being pushed on Americans every time they read a newspaper or turn on the TV.
Reply:no because even if no one told the republican party would find a way to dismiss the count..they are scared of him. if elected they along with the dems will all take pay cuts because ron will run the lobbyist out of washington and this country will once again be run by the people,for the people..right now in case anyone has'nt noticed its run by the puppet for the corporations.don't worry though i se an independent run a brewing
Reply:Ron paul is an old fool with a bunch of young fools following along!
Reply:NO, I do not believe anybody would sell there vote for $10.
Reply:no
florida voters don't know how to use a voting machine.
pay them to vote for hillary, they will end up voting for paul..
do florida people forget to breathe sometimes?
Reply:Ron Paul may fare well in Florida during the Florida primary
anyhow.
I advise you not to talk of bribery.The American people have
seen enough bribery on Capitol Hill.
Reply:Ron doesn't need to have people paid to vote for him. When intelligent people learn about his platform and truly understand it, they realize that he's the only logical choice.
Reply:You are implying that Florida voters would be willing to trade their birthright, to select the best qualified candidate, for any amount of money at all? Let alone $10 ! That would be as foolish as the president thinking he can solve the financial woes his war is causing by giving paltry tax rebates to everybody, or lowering taxes for the fat cats.
Reply:He would still lose
And you would be in jail.
Reply:Yes he would win. I love Ron!
Civil Answers only please.
If I Paid Florida Voters $10 to vote for Ron Paul Somehow, Would He Win The Primary, Tuesday?
The Ron Paul campaign is about raising the consciousness of the American people. The vote count shows how many have found out what his message is and agree with him enough to want to see him as President.
Reply:nope, never been there, i live in Montana Report Abuse
Reply:I seriously doubt that $10 is gonna cut the mustard. If you look at voting on an economic scale. many people might see that they come out far ahead voting against Ron Paul than by accepting the $10 and voting for him. If it were legal, one would have to be a millionaire or close to.
Reply:NO
Reply:Ron Who?????
Reply:Who doesn't wish ron paul would win!
Reply:I'd take the money and vote for someone else, personally.
Reply:you would need a lot of money.
Reply:I think, first of all, you are minimizing the respect that readers might have for Ron Paul.
Also, I don't think that people would go for that amount of cash. (if they actually would take money for a vote) I don't think there are enough people who would do that to change the liberal mindset that is being pushed on Americans every time they read a newspaper or turn on the TV.
Reply:no because even if no one told the republican party would find a way to dismiss the count..they are scared of him. if elected they along with the dems will all take pay cuts because ron will run the lobbyist out of washington and this country will once again be run by the people,for the people..right now in case anyone has'nt noticed its run by the puppet for the corporations.don't worry though i se an independent run a brewing
Reply:Ron paul is an old fool with a bunch of young fools following along!
Reply:NO, I do not believe anybody would sell there vote for $10.
Reply:no
florida voters don't know how to use a voting machine.
pay them to vote for hillary, they will end up voting for paul..
do florida people forget to breathe sometimes?
Reply:Ron Paul may fare well in Florida during the Florida primary
anyhow.
I advise you not to talk of bribery.The American people have
seen enough bribery on Capitol Hill.
Reply:Ron doesn't need to have people paid to vote for him. When intelligent people learn about his platform and truly understand it, they realize that he's the only logical choice.
Reply:You are implying that Florida voters would be willing to trade their birthright, to select the best qualified candidate, for any amount of money at all? Let alone $10 ! That would be as foolish as the president thinking he can solve the financial woes his war is causing by giving paltry tax rebates to everybody, or lowering taxes for the fat cats.
Reply:He would still lose
And you would be in jail.
Reply:Yes he would win. I love Ron!
Liberals, What amount of annual income constitutes being rich? and what percentage should be paid in taxes?
I am not being glib here. I am honestly curious about your opinion on this.
Liberals, What amount of annual income constitutes being rich? and what percentage should be paid in taxes?
I don't know if this could ever actually work, but I've been kicking around an idea for a while now, and here's what it's based on: I think in all fairness, everyone should pay tax if they are going to live in and enjoy the benifits of the USA.
In California, where we have a state sales tax, even the little old lady living between a couple buildings and pushing her worldly possesions around in a shopping cart pays some sales tax. So why not just a national sales tax? It's not a fair system. Investments are not sales, and most sales happen at the wholesale level, between businesses. It would be too easy for the wealthy to manipulate their tax liability in a downward direction.
Under the plan I'm thinking of, the government would have to find new ways to motivate businesses and individuals to do what they want because there would be no tax incentives and no tax credits. Accountants would still be needed but companies like H%26amp;R Block would go away.
Money hasn't always been paper. In England, it used to be long wood sticks with notches. In Rome, it was gold coin with the emperor's face on one side. In ancient Sumeria, it was baked clay with wedge markings. Money is whatever is most suitable for the day. I say that digital bits in today's world makes the most sense. Even my local drive-through dairy has an electronic, online cash register. It would be fairly easy to call in the cash and issue digital credits. Like when we called in "Silver Certificates" and issued "Federal Reserve Notes." This makes it very difficult for tax fraud and other illegal activities to take place since all money would be trackable. Nowhere for money to run, nowhere for it to hide. We would have credit/debit cards, checks, online transaction capabilities, but no cash.
If every transaction could be tracked, then it stands to reason that every transaction could be taxed. That's right, a transaction tax. It might only need to be 1 percent, or maybe even less, I'm not sure, but when you get your paycheck you pay it and so does your boss. When you deposit it into your bank, you pay again and so does the bank. When you buy stocks with it, you pay again and so does the stock broker. He in turn pays when he buys the mutual fund on your behalf, and so does the fund manager (or collective fund owners). The fund pays when it identifies a good stock and purchases it from the exchange, and again, both sides pay a transaction fee. When you buy a new television or groceries, you pay again and so does the retailer.
I like this plan, at least on the surface, because money never sits. It always changes hands whether it's sunk into personal goodies or invested for profit. In the end, the guy with the most money pays the most tax. The guy with the least pays the least, but everyone is treated fairly. Incidentally, this tax would apply on wholesale transactions too.
Obviously, if the goal is limmited to the government getting exactly what they receive from us now, aggregated from several sources (fees, income tax, exise taxes, etc.) there would be a gross redistribution of how that tax burden would fall, but wouldn't it be more fair, and easier than what we have?
I would have to write a book in order to carefully consider all the complex ramifications of a complete reworking of our tax system, and it's likely that I'll never get around to it. All I know is, some people pay too much tax because others pay too little. What percentage of people in America cheat in some way on their taxes? I bet it's pretty high! The effect I'm trying to achieve is a fair and equal tax system for all, regardless of wealth. One where the system is automated. One where tax is paid in tiny bits on a daily basis instead of a huge chunk on April 15th. One where we don't get tax refunds. One where we can't overpay tax. Those with more money certainly have more and bigger transactions, and will pay more tax. People with less money will have smaller and fewer transactions, and pay less tax.
This doesn't solve the welfare issue, but at least when those folks spend the money we give them, they will pay tax on it.
It does solve the HUGE under-the-table employment issue. We could set a 5 year moritorium on cash, after which it would be illegal to be caught with it or accept it as payment.
I've thrown this idea out before, here and there, and I don't get much feedback. It might simply be because it would be a major upheaval in the current system, and it's hard to feel like one has their head around it. I certainly don't. Also, if you are currently cheating on your taxes, or if you've managed to cut your tax liability to the bone under the current tax laws, you aren't likely to appreciate the finer points of this idea. lol
Reply:Thanks for reading my long-winded answer and double thanks for choosing it! Report Abuse
Reply:The medium income is around $36K so clearly anyone that earns over that is filthy RICH and should have nearly ALL their income confiscated.
This will improve the economy by giving incentive to those making less than $36K to NEVER strive for anything better (thus preserving the middle class)
The economy will be double benefited by forcing professionals to take menial jobs just to avoid high taxes.
Closing business that earn more than $36K for their owners; forcing Doctors, CPA's, Attorneys, and other professionals to earn less is wonderful beause all those high paying jobs can be replaced by welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, and other liberal programs.
Also think of all the money we will SAVE in education, when people realize there is no need for basic and higher education, because any dime over $36K that is earned will be confiscated.
Taxing prosperity is GREAT for the environment too, because in so doing everyone will be forced to live in Soviet style condos near mass transit, and we can all take light rail and buses to work. Cars are far too decadent, besides traffic accidents in cars strain our fragile health care.
The important thing is that life be fair. People with dead end jobs feel bad when they see others succeed - this is just unacceptable.
If we are all capped at $36K America will be a truly beautiful land of fairness. Opportunity and hard work are for the third world !
This is why we need to vote Obama 08!!!
Reply:I'm not a liberal but I, too, found this question interesting and was curious about how it would be answered. My day started with a good laugh when I read pibzz's tongue-in-cheek, yet, oh, so true (in terms of how most liberals think) answer! Thanks!! lol
Reply:COMPARE TO THE PEOPLE WHICH MAKE $$ 20.000 A YEAR IS NOT RICH AT ALL. EVEN 70.000 BEFORE TAXES IS NOT BUT EVERYBODY WITH A NET WORTH OF $ 1.000.000 IS RICH I AM FOR A FLAT TAX UP TO A CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL "THAN MORE "
Reply:I don't think someone is rich unless they make millions(not 1 million but millions) of dollars a year. People who make six figures(just my opinion) are upper middle class.
Reply:Pibzz: hilarious!
Liberals, What amount of annual income constitutes being rich? and what percentage should be paid in taxes?
I don't know if this could ever actually work, but I've been kicking around an idea for a while now, and here's what it's based on: I think in all fairness, everyone should pay tax if they are going to live in and enjoy the benifits of the USA.
In California, where we have a state sales tax, even the little old lady living between a couple buildings and pushing her worldly possesions around in a shopping cart pays some sales tax. So why not just a national sales tax? It's not a fair system. Investments are not sales, and most sales happen at the wholesale level, between businesses. It would be too easy for the wealthy to manipulate their tax liability in a downward direction.
Under the plan I'm thinking of, the government would have to find new ways to motivate businesses and individuals to do what they want because there would be no tax incentives and no tax credits. Accountants would still be needed but companies like H%26amp;R Block would go away.
Money hasn't always been paper. In England, it used to be long wood sticks with notches. In Rome, it was gold coin with the emperor's face on one side. In ancient Sumeria, it was baked clay with wedge markings. Money is whatever is most suitable for the day. I say that digital bits in today's world makes the most sense. Even my local drive-through dairy has an electronic, online cash register. It would be fairly easy to call in the cash and issue digital credits. Like when we called in "Silver Certificates" and issued "Federal Reserve Notes." This makes it very difficult for tax fraud and other illegal activities to take place since all money would be trackable. Nowhere for money to run, nowhere for it to hide. We would have credit/debit cards, checks, online transaction capabilities, but no cash.
If every transaction could be tracked, then it stands to reason that every transaction could be taxed. That's right, a transaction tax. It might only need to be 1 percent, or maybe even less, I'm not sure, but when you get your paycheck you pay it and so does your boss. When you deposit it into your bank, you pay again and so does the bank. When you buy stocks with it, you pay again and so does the stock broker. He in turn pays when he buys the mutual fund on your behalf, and so does the fund manager (or collective fund owners). The fund pays when it identifies a good stock and purchases it from the exchange, and again, both sides pay a transaction fee. When you buy a new television or groceries, you pay again and so does the retailer.
I like this plan, at least on the surface, because money never sits. It always changes hands whether it's sunk into personal goodies or invested for profit. In the end, the guy with the most money pays the most tax. The guy with the least pays the least, but everyone is treated fairly. Incidentally, this tax would apply on wholesale transactions too.
Obviously, if the goal is limmited to the government getting exactly what they receive from us now, aggregated from several sources (fees, income tax, exise taxes, etc.) there would be a gross redistribution of how that tax burden would fall, but wouldn't it be more fair, and easier than what we have?
I would have to write a book in order to carefully consider all the complex ramifications of a complete reworking of our tax system, and it's likely that I'll never get around to it. All I know is, some people pay too much tax because others pay too little. What percentage of people in America cheat in some way on their taxes? I bet it's pretty high! The effect I'm trying to achieve is a fair and equal tax system for all, regardless of wealth. One where the system is automated. One where tax is paid in tiny bits on a daily basis instead of a huge chunk on April 15th. One where we don't get tax refunds. One where we can't overpay tax. Those with more money certainly have more and bigger transactions, and will pay more tax. People with less money will have smaller and fewer transactions, and pay less tax.
This doesn't solve the welfare issue, but at least when those folks spend the money we give them, they will pay tax on it.
It does solve the HUGE under-the-table employment issue. We could set a 5 year moritorium on cash, after which it would be illegal to be caught with it or accept it as payment.
I've thrown this idea out before, here and there, and I don't get much feedback. It might simply be because it would be a major upheaval in the current system, and it's hard to feel like one has their head around it. I certainly don't. Also, if you are currently cheating on your taxes, or if you've managed to cut your tax liability to the bone under the current tax laws, you aren't likely to appreciate the finer points of this idea. lol
Reply:Thanks for reading my long-winded answer and double thanks for choosing it! Report Abuse
Reply:The medium income is around $36K so clearly anyone that earns over that is filthy RICH and should have nearly ALL their income confiscated.
This will improve the economy by giving incentive to those making less than $36K to NEVER strive for anything better (thus preserving the middle class)
The economy will be double benefited by forcing professionals to take menial jobs just to avoid high taxes.
Closing business that earn more than $36K for their owners; forcing Doctors, CPA's, Attorneys, and other professionals to earn less is wonderful beause all those high paying jobs can be replaced by welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, and other liberal programs.
Also think of all the money we will SAVE in education, when people realize there is no need for basic and higher education, because any dime over $36K that is earned will be confiscated.
Taxing prosperity is GREAT for the environment too, because in so doing everyone will be forced to live in Soviet style condos near mass transit, and we can all take light rail and buses to work. Cars are far too decadent, besides traffic accidents in cars strain our fragile health care.
The important thing is that life be fair. People with dead end jobs feel bad when they see others succeed - this is just unacceptable.
If we are all capped at $36K America will be a truly beautiful land of fairness. Opportunity and hard work are for the third world !
This is why we need to vote Obama 08!!!
Reply:I'm not a liberal but I, too, found this question interesting and was curious about how it would be answered. My day started with a good laugh when I read pibzz's tongue-in-cheek, yet, oh, so true (in terms of how most liberals think) answer! Thanks!! lol
Reply:COMPARE TO THE PEOPLE WHICH MAKE $$ 20.000 A YEAR IS NOT RICH AT ALL. EVEN 70.000 BEFORE TAXES IS NOT BUT EVERYBODY WITH A NET WORTH OF $ 1.000.000 IS RICH I AM FOR A FLAT TAX UP TO A CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL "THAN MORE "
Reply:I don't think someone is rich unless they make millions(not 1 million but millions) of dollars a year. People who make six figures(just my opinion) are upper middle class.
Reply:Pibzz: hilarious!
Do you think Nurses in Britain are paid enough, and would you do it.?
I have been cleaning the carpets of an old customer of mine today who is emigrating. She told me that although she is a qualified sister, it was better for her to revert back to a ward nurse to be able to be paid for overtime that she could do, but if she had stayed as a sister, she would not get paid for overtime because she would then be on a salary.
For working in a cancer hospital, her salary, and the salary of her husband is £17000 each. Emigrating to Australia would give her an eventual salary of around £45000, and the same for her husband.
They cannot strike as they have that clause in their contract of employment, so they are somewhat over a barrel, and nurses today in Britain take degrees to be become one. I think its scandolous, what about your opinion?
Do you think Nurses in Britain are paid enough, and would you do it.?
It's terrible that nurses are not valued as they should be. With house prices as high as they are, even with two wages coming in, they can't afford to buy their own house.
We pay for their training, then the take their skills abroad, not that I blame them, then the NHS has to graft in nurses from abroad, it's madness.
It's the nurses who make the NHS bearable with the care and dedication they give their patients.
Reply:The Nursing profession worldover is grossly underpaid
in my opinion.
For working in a cancer hospital, her salary, and the salary of her husband is £17000 each. Emigrating to Australia would give her an eventual salary of around £45000, and the same for her husband.
They cannot strike as they have that clause in their contract of employment, so they are somewhat over a barrel, and nurses today in Britain take degrees to be become one. I think its scandolous, what about your opinion?
Do you think Nurses in Britain are paid enough, and would you do it.?
It's terrible that nurses are not valued as they should be. With house prices as high as they are, even with two wages coming in, they can't afford to buy their own house.
We pay for their training, then the take their skills abroad, not that I blame them, then the NHS has to graft in nurses from abroad, it's madness.
It's the nurses who make the NHS bearable with the care and dedication they give their patients.
Reply:The Nursing profession worldover is grossly underpaid
in my opinion.
What is your opinion on Starbucks?
Do you get your coffee there, or are you like me and say, "**** that, there's no ******* way in hell, I'm paying that much for a ******* cup of coffee?"
What is your opinion on Starbucks?
Overpriced burnt coffee, stale pastries
If I want coffee I make it at home and get flavored creamers from the grocery.
Reply:If i went to starbucks just for coffee, it would really have been just a waste of money. But starbucks for me had become more than just a store, I've a lot of memories there with my friends, and i rarely go now but whenever I would it would be more for reliving the experience than for the expensive drink.
Reply:hey it is a great cup of coffee it never tastes watered down and if you just get a regular cup of coffee from their then it is about the same price as if you go to a restaurant or gas station it is not to much more. and if you think about it everything is cheaper at home
Reply:Oh wow, Starbucks...eww
It's way to stereotyped. At our school everyone is into drinking it like MHM starbucks. Like it's icecream or something! I'm like uhh do you even know what you're drinking! But by all means all those girls can go right ahead and pay 5 bucks for a cup of crap
Reply:I buy my coffee from starbucks. Yes i agree it is expensive but the quality is excellent. I like the fact that you can customize your drink anyway you want it because they have a variety of stuff to choose from to add to your coffee.
Reply:I used to go there, but now I can't afford their high prices anymore. I'd rather go to a fast food joint and get a shake instead.
It's about time that the greedy corporate boobs at Starbucks come up with some better prices for normal working people!
Reply:I dont like Starbucks their coffe is way to strong. Its nasty. I know Everyone in New York drinks Starbucks and if you dont than your a nobody. But Im from CT and we go Dunkin Doghnuts all the way.
Reply:I havent been to a Starbucks in YEARS..and last time I ever went to a place with Starbucks I didnt buy any bc it was outrageous..I'd rather get my 79cent cappuccino at Circle K on Monday mornings...or not drink at all..
Reply:compared to other competitors like coffee bean, pete's, seattles best and diedrichs they are quite a bit cheaper... and their coffee is damn good!!!
Reply:I think that Starbucks is awesome because e of it's vanilla Bean shake try it it's less expensive .
Reply:i drink it once in a while but 5 bucks for a cup is retartded!... but it tastes so good! i'm a coffee addict... so hard to resist...
Reply:Once in a while I treat myself. Definitely not on a regular basis, that's just insane to spend that much money on coffee.
Reply:Overrated
Reply:i would pay that and even more for a really good cup of coffee, but there coffee sux
Reply:They are a little highly priced,but coffee is good
Reply:Way too much $$ for a freakin' coffee!!
Reply:well im not much for coffee so i only go there like every few months or less. but it is way over priced!
Reply:I love the mocha and caramel fraps.
Reply:I'M SO WITH U GIRL FRIEND!
medicine
What is your opinion on Starbucks?
Overpriced burnt coffee, stale pastries
If I want coffee I make it at home and get flavored creamers from the grocery.
Reply:If i went to starbucks just for coffee, it would really have been just a waste of money. But starbucks for me had become more than just a store, I've a lot of memories there with my friends, and i rarely go now but whenever I would it would be more for reliving the experience than for the expensive drink.
Reply:hey it is a great cup of coffee it never tastes watered down and if you just get a regular cup of coffee from their then it is about the same price as if you go to a restaurant or gas station it is not to much more. and if you think about it everything is cheaper at home
Reply:Oh wow, Starbucks...eww
It's way to stereotyped. At our school everyone is into drinking it like MHM starbucks. Like it's icecream or something! I'm like uhh do you even know what you're drinking! But by all means all those girls can go right ahead and pay 5 bucks for a cup of crap
Reply:I buy my coffee from starbucks. Yes i agree it is expensive but the quality is excellent. I like the fact that you can customize your drink anyway you want it because they have a variety of stuff to choose from to add to your coffee.
Reply:I used to go there, but now I can't afford their high prices anymore. I'd rather go to a fast food joint and get a shake instead.
It's about time that the greedy corporate boobs at Starbucks come up with some better prices for normal working people!
Reply:I dont like Starbucks their coffe is way to strong. Its nasty. I know Everyone in New York drinks Starbucks and if you dont than your a nobody. But Im from CT and we go Dunkin Doghnuts all the way.
Reply:I havent been to a Starbucks in YEARS..and last time I ever went to a place with Starbucks I didnt buy any bc it was outrageous..I'd rather get my 79cent cappuccino at Circle K on Monday mornings...or not drink at all..
Reply:compared to other competitors like coffee bean, pete's, seattles best and diedrichs they are quite a bit cheaper... and their coffee is damn good!!!
Reply:I think that Starbucks is awesome because e of it's vanilla Bean shake try it it's less expensive .
Reply:i drink it once in a while but 5 bucks for a cup is retartded!... but it tastes so good! i'm a coffee addict... so hard to resist...
Reply:Once in a while I treat myself. Definitely not on a regular basis, that's just insane to spend that much money on coffee.
Reply:Overrated
Reply:i would pay that and even more for a really good cup of coffee, but there coffee sux
Reply:They are a little highly priced,but coffee is good
Reply:Way too much $$ for a freakin' coffee!!
Reply:well im not much for coffee so i only go there like every few months or less. but it is way over priced!
Reply:I love the mocha and caramel fraps.
Reply:I'M SO WITH U GIRL FRIEND!
medicine
Being paid in gold bullion?
What is your opinion of being paid in circulated gold bullion coins? For example, I demand that I get paid in regularly circulated 1 oz $50 gold bullion coins. Should I get taxed on $50, the face value of the coin, or $960, the price of gold? Just curious.
Being paid in gold bullion?
The market value of the coins, which is probably near the value of the gold in the coins.
Whether the coins are US currency is completely irrelevant, as you could insist on payment in 19th century US gold coins, and the result would be the same.
Reading the fraudulent web site you referred to, one could also insist on being paid in currently circulated coins with errors. The face value is still irrelevant. In the absence of further information, the value of a $50 note is $50, while the value of the $50 coin is approximately $960.
Reply:it would be on the price of Gold. Gold is not the current currency of the US (it should be though!)...so that's why.
Reply:The value of the gold at the time it's given to you is the ONLY valuation that the IRS will accept. Face value of the coins is irrelevant as gold coins are no longer legal tender in the US.
Reply:This is a barter situation. You are taxed on the Fair Market Value of the consideration received.
Being paid in gold bullion?
The market value of the coins, which is probably near the value of the gold in the coins.
Whether the coins are US currency is completely irrelevant, as you could insist on payment in 19th century US gold coins, and the result would be the same.
Reading the fraudulent web site you referred to, one could also insist on being paid in currently circulated coins with errors. The face value is still irrelevant. In the absence of further information, the value of a $50 note is $50, while the value of the $50 coin is approximately $960.
Reply:it would be on the price of Gold. Gold is not the current currency of the US (it should be though!)...so that's why.
Reply:The value of the gold at the time it's given to you is the ONLY valuation that the IRS will accept. Face value of the coins is irrelevant as gold coins are no longer legal tender in the US.
Reply:This is a barter situation. You are taxed on the Fair Market Value of the consideration received.
What is the feminist opinion (in general) of FMLA?
If you are a feminist, I would like to get your take on FMLA as it relates to equality.
The FMLA policy is the only one in the world (that I know if) that treats everyone equally. (Equally, albeit not necessarily very well)
Everyone who qualifies can take 12 weeks off. Mother, father, adult child caregiver, whomever.
So, a new dad is no more or less motivated to take the time off than is the mom. Both have the same benefit.
Is this a good thing, from a feminists standpoint?
I am not herein asking about the paid or non-paid issue, just the concept of FMLA treating everyone equally.
What are your thoughts on this?
What is the feminist opinion (in general) of FMLA?
FMLA is a GREAT thing!! for many reasons...
it is good in that it does not single out women for special treatment, and i think it helps to elevate a man's position %26amp; status in the family realm without dinging them for it in the career realm (along with women). i hope men get more equality in regards to family, specifically.
it is also great because it broadens the reasons for taking the time off, it's not just for the arrrival of a new child (by birth or adoption) but it includes ANY medical reason in the family, such as caring for an ill or injured family member.
now if we can just get the FMLA 12 wks off with some sort of payment!
Reply:Yes, it is a good thing.
Thay have sucessfully had similar policies in European countries for more than 30 years.
Good luck
Reply:Absolutely. I was actually always under the impression that any parent - biological mom or dad, adoptive mom or dad - is able to take parental leave. The only difference is that bio moms get a little bit more time to recover physically from giving birth.
From a feminist perspective, ANY primary caregiver, regardless of gender, should be entitled to parental leave. To have it any other way would be saying that childcare is strictly a woman's job, which is very anti-feminist.
Reply:yes, this is a good thing.
Reply:Yes, I agree with it. There are men who would like to stay home and take care of the kids, this is happening more and more, and they should have that opportunity. And NOW is lobbying to have more paid time off for new PARENTS, male or female, and have it be equal.
EDIT--That logic doesn't gel to me. As I said, NOW itself is lobbying for EQUAL TIME OFF for women AND MEN for family leave...that sounds like equality to me. But they want MORE for both. Feminists are criticized for not being "family centered" and it's bunk. Feminists (as evidenced by NOW) want women AND men to have more time to spend with their newborns and family, and not be penalized by their employers for doing so. I understand that FMLA is good in that it is equal for both men and women, but the criticism is not that it is equal (NOW wants that, too) it's that the FMLA doesn't do ENOUGH, for either. NOW wants it to be equal, but also give more PTO.
Reply:Steve, you are taking NOW's quote out of context.
Yes, it is a good thing that FMLA applies to both men and women. However, many Western nations also allow paternity leave; your question is a bit disingenious.
Where it "lags behind" is that it only gives 12 weeks after the birth of a child, whereas most developed countries allow more than 1 year at some level of income. In that regard, it's actually pathetic. "Better than nothing" is pretty high praise for it.
The FMLA policy is the only one in the world (that I know if) that treats everyone equally. (Equally, albeit not necessarily very well)
Everyone who qualifies can take 12 weeks off. Mother, father, adult child caregiver, whomever.
So, a new dad is no more or less motivated to take the time off than is the mom. Both have the same benefit.
Is this a good thing, from a feminists standpoint?
I am not herein asking about the paid or non-paid issue, just the concept of FMLA treating everyone equally.
What are your thoughts on this?
What is the feminist opinion (in general) of FMLA?
FMLA is a GREAT thing!! for many reasons...
it is good in that it does not single out women for special treatment, and i think it helps to elevate a man's position %26amp; status in the family realm without dinging them for it in the career realm (along with women). i hope men get more equality in regards to family, specifically.
it is also great because it broadens the reasons for taking the time off, it's not just for the arrrival of a new child (by birth or adoption) but it includes ANY medical reason in the family, such as caring for an ill or injured family member.
now if we can just get the FMLA 12 wks off with some sort of payment!
Reply:Yes, it is a good thing.
Thay have sucessfully had similar policies in European countries for more than 30 years.
Good luck
Reply:Absolutely. I was actually always under the impression that any parent - biological mom or dad, adoptive mom or dad - is able to take parental leave. The only difference is that bio moms get a little bit more time to recover physically from giving birth.
From a feminist perspective, ANY primary caregiver, regardless of gender, should be entitled to parental leave. To have it any other way would be saying that childcare is strictly a woman's job, which is very anti-feminist.
Reply:yes, this is a good thing.
Reply:Yes, I agree with it. There are men who would like to stay home and take care of the kids, this is happening more and more, and they should have that opportunity. And NOW is lobbying to have more paid time off for new PARENTS, male or female, and have it be equal.
EDIT--That logic doesn't gel to me. As I said, NOW itself is lobbying for EQUAL TIME OFF for women AND MEN for family leave...that sounds like equality to me. But they want MORE for both. Feminists are criticized for not being "family centered" and it's bunk. Feminists (as evidenced by NOW) want women AND men to have more time to spend with their newborns and family, and not be penalized by their employers for doing so. I understand that FMLA is good in that it is equal for both men and women, but the criticism is not that it is equal (NOW wants that, too) it's that the FMLA doesn't do ENOUGH, for either. NOW wants it to be equal, but also give more PTO.
Reply:Steve, you are taking NOW's quote out of context.
Yes, it is a good thing that FMLA applies to both men and women. However, many Western nations also allow paternity leave; your question is a bit disingenious.
Where it "lags behind" is that it only gives 12 weeks after the birth of a child, whereas most developed countries allow more than 1 year at some level of income. In that regard, it's actually pathetic. "Better than nothing" is pretty high praise for it.
Opinion? Pay or fight?
Someone comes to you asking to advertise their business idea on an invitation only forum that you host. Later on you find out that person teamed up, then parted and then copied that idea from another person within the same community/forum. Many complaints arise about the copycat program. As owner of the forum wanting to right a wrong, you then publish a post that in essence states the program is a copycat and that the person acted unethically by not being truthful and forthcoming about the origin of their program. You also ban them from your forum.
They get a lawyer who says they will go to court making a case for Libel based on defamatory statements (your use of the word unethical in the forum post) unless you make concessions (forum access %26amp; public apology) and you also must pay lawyer fees. Fight or pay - $600? Easier to pay and get it over with?
I realize there are always two sides of a story and this question is a condensed version. This of course is from my viewpoint.
Opinion? Pay or fight?
Libel is a publicly written statement that is not qualified by fact.
A reputation is how people in the community view you. If your unfounded claim makes a reasonable person believe the statement, that is grounds for a libel lawsuit.
If you have facts to support your claim that it was unethical, then you can win a case.
But before you decide to go to court, decide if it's worth the time and money.
Also if the offended party wins, do you have the money to pay him or her ?
Or if you win, does he or she have the money to pay you?
Now the lawyer made an offer in a letter. If you don't follow their conditions within a prescribed time period, they may send a statement of claim.
A statement of claim is a more serious intention on the part of the offended party to sue.
It lists the claim that a public statement was made which hurt the person's reputation in the community and wish to find a civil remedy.
I can't tell you what to do, but do consult a lawyer. One who can give a free consultation, or you can research the libel and slander legislation where you live.
Good luck.
They get a lawyer who says they will go to court making a case for Libel based on defamatory statements (your use of the word unethical in the forum post) unless you make concessions (forum access %26amp; public apology) and you also must pay lawyer fees. Fight or pay - $600? Easier to pay and get it over with?
I realize there are always two sides of a story and this question is a condensed version. This of course is from my viewpoint.
Opinion? Pay or fight?
Libel is a publicly written statement that is not qualified by fact.
A reputation is how people in the community view you. If your unfounded claim makes a reasonable person believe the statement, that is grounds for a libel lawsuit.
If you have facts to support your claim that it was unethical, then you can win a case.
But before you decide to go to court, decide if it's worth the time and money.
Also if the offended party wins, do you have the money to pay him or her ?
Or if you win, does he or she have the money to pay you?
Now the lawyer made an offer in a letter. If you don't follow their conditions within a prescribed time period, they may send a statement of claim.
A statement of claim is a more serious intention on the part of the offended party to sue.
It lists the claim that a public statement was made which hurt the person's reputation in the community and wish to find a civil remedy.
I can't tell you what to do, but do consult a lawyer. One who can give a free consultation, or you can research the libel and slander legislation where you live.
Good luck.
What is your opinion of the Service industry.?
Do you think most people look down on those proffesions? Although these jobs pay more then alot of office jobs or managerial jobs, it seems that people look down on blue colar work. It seems that most people would rather be a bartender or waiter and make 30K then be a AC tech or mechanic and make 50K.
What is your opinion of the Service industry.?
I'm not entirely sure of that on the global scale. Most high-rise crane operators make as much as the team of engineers do invididualy who are involved in the construction of an integrated skyscraper.
Americans, however, are acclimatized to the shopping mall and the houses in suburbia, so they would rather have indoor jobs that pay at least 10k per year less just to avoid the strain.
Americans are born and bred to be consumers, not workers... and DEFINITELY not thinkers with a hard work ethic.
Reply:I do think people look down on those professions.. It is irritating to me since I work in the food industry. Without us supporting those above, there would be no functioning society. I think the service industry deserves alot more respect than it gets. The ungrateful, rude, picky and downright belligerant people I encounter day to day who treat me and my co-workers like slaves need a slap in the face. Either that or they can go home and stop being so lazy and make their own food.
Reply:Every industry is the 'service' industry. People look down on different people, I think in order to make themselves feel more valuable. Who do the people in the "Service" industry that you are specifying look down upon?
If any industry does not 'serve' someone, it has no demand, therefore it should not exist.
Reply:world is made up illusion
people do what they like.
i have learned that you cant teach ambition and hard work,
if someone is lazy that is how it is ???
Snoby people look down at it ???
Reply:Note there is only two letters difference between service and survive.We would not survive without the service industry.
Reply:I look up to the heat/AC guy especially when the unit is on the roof.
false teeth fail
What is your opinion of the Service industry.?
I'm not entirely sure of that on the global scale. Most high-rise crane operators make as much as the team of engineers do invididualy who are involved in the construction of an integrated skyscraper.
Americans, however, are acclimatized to the shopping mall and the houses in suburbia, so they would rather have indoor jobs that pay at least 10k per year less just to avoid the strain.
Americans are born and bred to be consumers, not workers... and DEFINITELY not thinkers with a hard work ethic.
Reply:I do think people look down on those professions.. It is irritating to me since I work in the food industry. Without us supporting those above, there would be no functioning society. I think the service industry deserves alot more respect than it gets. The ungrateful, rude, picky and downright belligerant people I encounter day to day who treat me and my co-workers like slaves need a slap in the face. Either that or they can go home and stop being so lazy and make their own food.
Reply:Every industry is the 'service' industry. People look down on different people, I think in order to make themselves feel more valuable. Who do the people in the "Service" industry that you are specifying look down upon?
If any industry does not 'serve' someone, it has no demand, therefore it should not exist.
Reply:world is made up illusion
people do what they like.
i have learned that you cant teach ambition and hard work,
if someone is lazy that is how it is ???
Snoby people look down at it ???
Reply:Note there is only two letters difference between service and survive.We would not survive without the service industry.
Reply:I look up to the heat/AC guy especially when the unit is on the roof.
false teeth fail
What is your opinion on free clinics?
I wont recieve insurance for another 6 months. I hurt my ankle badly and I need to see a doctor, I think. I cant go to my doctor because I have to pay up front and I cant aford the E.R. I read something about free clinics but will it help me? I have to go to work somehow tomorrow and I dont know what to do cause I can hardly walk and it is my second day and I dont want to get fired. I heard that free clinics are dirty and the wait is long. The free clinic here is in the ghetto and they help homeless people. I dont know what to do.
What is your opinion on free clinics?
"Free Clinics" You get what you pay for.
Reply:If you have injured your ankle, then it is possible it is broken. Not all free clinics have xrays available, and not many offer casting either. County hospitals are another alternative and they may see you if you have no insurance. They will probably still bill you later, but at least you'll get proper medical attention. Just get billed and worry about paying the bill later, take care of your ankle now.
Reply:Go there, or you will end ignoring your problem like i did, and nearly die.
What have you got to lose????? To get rid of pain, i would do anything.
Reply:The waiting area may be a bit dirty because they don't have the means to pay people to clean and pick up after others but I'm sure their doctors area is clean for procedures. If your hurting bad enough it won't matter how it looks or who is there waiting with you. Everyone needs healthcare and I'm so glad you do have it available for free in your area. And since you have a job please leave a small donation. Good luck.
Reply:If you're hurt that badly you have nothing at all to lose, and possibly something to gain. Go.
Reply:Go to it and see. They will do what they can. Bring a few dollars becaues most ask for donations
Reply:You could also try your local health department. I don't know where you live, or how your state does things. You could also call your health department, and if they don't provide services they can point you in the right direction. I live in Michigan, and there's a free hospital for people who don't have insurance. But all doctors from different hospitals from around the city have to donate time there.
Free clinics are not necessarily dirty, regardless of who is being treated, All DOCTORS FOLLOW UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS; It is true, that the wait is long and you should arrive early in the morning.
Without free clinics a lot of people would be in bad shape. They service people with medical crisis, pregnant women, std's.
I have actually been to a couple of free clinics, and the doctors looked pretty clean to me. The hospital looked pretty clean to me. There was no odor, or visible dirt. The people didn't even look dirty, and looked pretty clean. Although the clinic was in the inner city (Detroit)
I've been to a free clinic in the suburbs as well, and they even helped me to purchase my medicine. The service I received was pretty professional. Honey do the wise thing, and take care of your body. Go see about yourself. Do not let others deter you, you won't know until you judge for yourself.
What is your opinion on free clinics?
"Free Clinics" You get what you pay for.
Reply:If you have injured your ankle, then it is possible it is broken. Not all free clinics have xrays available, and not many offer casting either. County hospitals are another alternative and they may see you if you have no insurance. They will probably still bill you later, but at least you'll get proper medical attention. Just get billed and worry about paying the bill later, take care of your ankle now.
Reply:Go there, or you will end ignoring your problem like i did, and nearly die.
What have you got to lose????? To get rid of pain, i would do anything.
Reply:The waiting area may be a bit dirty because they don't have the means to pay people to clean and pick up after others but I'm sure their doctors area is clean for procedures. If your hurting bad enough it won't matter how it looks or who is there waiting with you. Everyone needs healthcare and I'm so glad you do have it available for free in your area. And since you have a job please leave a small donation. Good luck.
Reply:If you're hurt that badly you have nothing at all to lose, and possibly something to gain. Go.
Reply:Go to it and see. They will do what they can. Bring a few dollars becaues most ask for donations
Reply:You could also try your local health department. I don't know where you live, or how your state does things. You could also call your health department, and if they don't provide services they can point you in the right direction. I live in Michigan, and there's a free hospital for people who don't have insurance. But all doctors from different hospitals from around the city have to donate time there.
Free clinics are not necessarily dirty, regardless of who is being treated, All DOCTORS FOLLOW UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS; It is true, that the wait is long and you should arrive early in the morning.
Without free clinics a lot of people would be in bad shape. They service people with medical crisis, pregnant women, std's.
I have actually been to a couple of free clinics, and the doctors looked pretty clean to me. The hospital looked pretty clean to me. There was no odor, or visible dirt. The people didn't even look dirty, and looked pretty clean. Although the clinic was in the inner city (Detroit)
I've been to a free clinic in the suburbs as well, and they even helped me to purchase my medicine. The service I received was pretty professional. Honey do the wise thing, and take care of your body. Go see about yourself. Do not let others deter you, you won't know until you judge for yourself.
Australian's (or others) what is your opinion on harm minimization vs zero tolerance?
Harm minimization has been Australia's policey towards drugs since 1984 and as far as I know it has had a positive effect. I think the zero tolerance to drugs is ridiculous it will hurt the drug users and the community around them.
It is pretty dodgy that an addict can get clean needles for free but a diabetic person still has to pay for them but I am glad that they have the opportunity to do that otherwise god knows where the needles will end up and if I will pay for it and get stabbed by a dirty needle.
Zero tolerance in theory is brilliant but it just not feasible.
Australian's (or others) what is your opinion on harm minimization vs zero tolerance?
Whichever the Australian government choose they will not support their policies with money and resources. The drug problem (Ice in Western Australia) is a problem regardless of the way it is addressed (minimization or zero tol) and needs constant specialist support in the community. Support that Howard is not willing to give.
It is pretty dodgy that an addict can get clean needles for free but a diabetic person still has to pay for them but I am glad that they have the opportunity to do that otherwise god knows where the needles will end up and if I will pay for it and get stabbed by a dirty needle.
Zero tolerance in theory is brilliant but it just not feasible.
Australian's (or others) what is your opinion on harm minimization vs zero tolerance?
Whichever the Australian government choose they will not support their policies with money and resources. The drug problem (Ice in Western Australia) is a problem regardless of the way it is addressed (minimization or zero tol) and needs constant specialist support in the community. Support that Howard is not willing to give.
What is your opinion of Blackwater and soldiers of fortune in general?
Are paid professionals better than draftees or volunteers?
What is your opinion of Blackwater and soldiers of fortune in general?
What most of you do not realize is that the Blackwater Contractors are for the most part ex Special Forces (SF, SEAL, etc...) They are getting paid 150k a year to do what they were doing for less than 50K a year...what would you do? Plus they get many more benefits that they did not get in the Military (Six months in country, One month paid leave home {to include airfare} and then five months back in country) That is the main reason the Military has raised their Re-Enlistment Bonuses for SF to 150K...to get hired by Blackwater you have to have been at least an Infantryman, Medic, or SWAT, but they prefer SF...so at one time or another they were volunteers, who found a way to make money for their families...seeing that the Billy Bob cut many of their benefits while he was in office...
Reply:They're mercenaries. They only care about money.
Reply:They are needed and do the job
Reply:And when they return to a peace loving country, perhaps they wouldn't mind working as High School principals, it would be a nice example.
Reply:Blackwater hasn't lost a client as of yet.
Reply:I agree with Zardoz. Using mercenaries to fight our wars is just another way of getting private industry to do things that really should be done by the government.
I understand why some people might accept a job as a mercenary, but that doesn't excuse it. They are loyal only to whoever pays the highest. If Saudi Arabia, say, offered them a higher salary, they'd be working for the Saudis in a heartbeat and Blackwater could kiss them goodbye.
Reply:Superfluous money-loving killers.
Reply:Other than the cost, I don't get the liberal angst about paid professionals...ON the one hand they complain about "our boys and girls" (even though they volunteered) having to fight a war, so we hire some professionals, and that's bad too...I say do what works.
Reply:I don't think the country can afford to pay members of our mercenary "army" like blackwater $150,000 a year tax free.
I know a guy near 60 years old who was a college cop that's doing it.
If our country needs to fight a war there should be a draft. Either the people support the war or not. We shouldn't hire mercenaries.
Reply:Blackwater--and any other mercenaries--are hired killers. They are a disgrace and should be disbanded immediately.
Reply:They Sully the great reputation that the A-Team created. This would have never happened if they Had, BA, Murdoch, Faceman and Hannibal. Also aren't our Volenteer Military Paid Proffesionals. Much of the Blackwater and these other groups are just Ex Military.
Reply:They're great. They don't have the bindings that the US puts on it's military. They know if someone stands in front of an enemy, they are themselves an enemy and should be shot in order to kill the enemy and the radical Muslims we are fighting has had a very long history of human shields.
What is your opinion of Blackwater and soldiers of fortune in general?
What most of you do not realize is that the Blackwater Contractors are for the most part ex Special Forces (SF, SEAL, etc...) They are getting paid 150k a year to do what they were doing for less than 50K a year...what would you do? Plus they get many more benefits that they did not get in the Military (Six months in country, One month paid leave home {to include airfare} and then five months back in country) That is the main reason the Military has raised their Re-Enlistment Bonuses for SF to 150K...to get hired by Blackwater you have to have been at least an Infantryman, Medic, or SWAT, but they prefer SF...so at one time or another they were volunteers, who found a way to make money for their families...seeing that the Billy Bob cut many of their benefits while he was in office...
Reply:They're mercenaries. They only care about money.
Reply:They are needed and do the job
Reply:And when they return to a peace loving country, perhaps they wouldn't mind working as High School principals, it would be a nice example.
Reply:Blackwater hasn't lost a client as of yet.
Reply:I agree with Zardoz. Using mercenaries to fight our wars is just another way of getting private industry to do things that really should be done by the government.
I understand why some people might accept a job as a mercenary, but that doesn't excuse it. They are loyal only to whoever pays the highest. If Saudi Arabia, say, offered them a higher salary, they'd be working for the Saudis in a heartbeat and Blackwater could kiss them goodbye.
Reply:Superfluous money-loving killers.
Reply:Other than the cost, I don't get the liberal angst about paid professionals...ON the one hand they complain about "our boys and girls" (even though they volunteered) having to fight a war, so we hire some professionals, and that's bad too...I say do what works.
Reply:I don't think the country can afford to pay members of our mercenary "army" like blackwater $150,000 a year tax free.
I know a guy near 60 years old who was a college cop that's doing it.
If our country needs to fight a war there should be a draft. Either the people support the war or not. We shouldn't hire mercenaries.
Reply:Blackwater--and any other mercenaries--are hired killers. They are a disgrace and should be disbanded immediately.
Reply:They Sully the great reputation that the A-Team created. This would have never happened if they Had, BA, Murdoch, Faceman and Hannibal. Also aren't our Volenteer Military Paid Proffesionals. Much of the Blackwater and these other groups are just Ex Military.
Reply:They're great. They don't have the bindings that the US puts on it's military. They know if someone stands in front of an enemy, they are themselves an enemy and should be shot in order to kill the enemy and the radical Muslims we are fighting has had a very long history of human shields.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)