This topic contains 43 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Rommel 8 years, 11 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #54219

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Viking:

    If your figures are for gross (take home) pay, I would say they are at best only border line sufficient. If they are for net (before deductions) pay, then no, these figures do not appear sufficient to accomodate even a meager existance.

    @viking62 wrote:

    U.S. 2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines
    Persons
    in Family or Household 48 Contiguous
    States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
    1person $10,400 $13,000 $11,960
    2 14,000 17,500 16,100
    3 17,600 22,000 20,240
    4 21,200 26,500 24,380
    5 24,800 31,000 28,520
    6 28,400 35,500 32,660
    7 32,000 40,000 36,800
    8 35,600 44,500 40,940
    For each additional
    person, add 3,600 4,500 4,140

    If it is net pay, then by these numbers:

    Un-Skilled Factory Worker – $20,800 per year ($ 10 per hour).
    Adaquate to support a family of four? Doubtful.

    After ALL deductions (take home) pay would be approx. $ 12,000 per year
    or … $ 1000 per month or … $ 250 per week. I hope this is about right.

    Ok, now let’s do the math:

    Housing – $ 350 per month, they live in a dump in the bad part of town.
    Groceries – $ 400 per month, they eat cheap and never go out.
    Electric – $ 120 per month, cooking, bathing, and laundry for four.
    Water – $ 50 per month, same as above.

    So far, our happy worker has spent $ 920 and still hasn’t covered all of the items required to keep the State from taking the children.

    This leaves only $ 80 per month for things such as:

    Automobile repairs
    Birthdays
    Clothing
    Doctor visits
    Electrical applicances
    Family and friends
    Gasoline
    Household items

    Ooops, GASOLINE – $20 per week or $ 80 per month
    Our happy worker can afford to go to work. That is about all.
    The kids are sick, their shoes are too small and their clothes are in tatters.

    The State takes the kids.

    Semi-Skilled Technician – $ 62,200 per year ($ 30 per hour) Adaquate to support a family of FIFTEEN!

    I’m not so sure.

    Backdraft? I saw that movie. One of the guys in the fire department was setting fires and causing all sorts of problems.

    Best wishes,

    Rommel

    #54220

    Rommel
    Participant

    Sorry about the posting difficulty.@bigbear wrote:

    @boy wrote:

    Lots of funny stuff

    Sadly none of the TV channels I’ve got show reruns of the Jerry Springer Show these days, but that was just as entertaining. 😉 😛

    You removed the seperator and joined my post to Chopper with the one to LT.

    I repaired the damage.

    You rejoined them.

    At least that is what I see on this end.

    Best Wishes,

    Rommel

    #54221

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    …gross (take home) pay, …net (before deductions) pay…

    other way around : P

    #54222

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi BOY:

    Actually, the Governor of California is a Republican.

    The governor may reject individual items by exercising the line-item veto or may reject (veto) a bill in its entirety.

    @boy wrote:

    the stupid states are California and NY, both want/need a bailout, paid for by taxpayers from all states nice and fair like…. hmmm, who runs those states… Oh yeah, the Democrats! 😡

    Both Legislative branches are controlled by a simple majority. This means that they do not have the required number of votes to overturn a veto.

    The Assembly :
    Democrats – 48, Republicans -32
    Required for 2/3 majority – 54

    The Senate :
    Democrats – 25, Republicans – 15
    Required for 2/3 majority – 27

    Thus, California has been under Republiclan control for approximately 5 years.

    Best Wishes,

    Rommel

    #54223

    Rommel
    Participant

    YIKES !!!
    @laptops Daddy wrote:

    @rommel wrote:

    …gross (take home) pay, …net (before deductions) pay…

    other way around : P

    Good catch! Should I change it or leave it as a good example of why it is important to actually read?

    Thanks,

    Rommel

    #54224

    BigBear
    Participant

    — Moderators note —
    It’s all very simple Romm. It is not good forum practice to make several posts in a row. It would be one thing if it had been two weeks and you are bumping the thread or whatever, but multi-posting within minutes just bloats the thread and is not necessary. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you in advance!

    #54225

    parasti
    Participant

    @bigbear wrote:

    — Moderators note —
    It’s all very simple Romm. It is not good forum practice to make several posts in a row. It would be one thing if it had been two weeks and you are bumping the thread or whatever, but multi-posting within minutes just bloats the thread and is not necessary. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you in advance!

    Err… Sorry to put it this way, BB, but that’s a really lame excuse for messing with somebody else’s posts. It makes perfect sense to start a new post to reply to a different person’s comment rather than lumping unrelated replies together in a single post.

    #54226

    BigBear
    Participant

    @parasti wrote:

    Err… Sorry to put it this way, BB, but that’s a really lame excuse for messing with somebody else’s posts. It makes perfect sense to start a new post to reply to a different person’s comment rather than lumping unrelated replies together in a single post.

    Not a bad point I must admit. I am not sure I agree but I guess I’ll leave that kind of thing be.
    As for me looking for excuses to “mess” with ppls posts I strongly reject any such notion. Sorry to put put it this way as you said, but that is pure BS. If I make a mistake that is one thing, but whatever action I take as mod is certainly not to mess with anyone.

    #54227

    parasti
    Participant

    You know, it said “editing” before I changed it to “messing with” for effect. 😛

    #54228

    Viking62
    Participant

    @boy wrote:

    Anyway, the only important thing is that America is stupid for electing a socialist President, but worse than that he’s practically a terrorist with all the friends he’s got. He may as well work for Hamas.

    **Don’t forget to buy more guns while you still can, and oh, don’t forget to save money for private school (lets hope private school will still be legal) so your children aren’t forced to recide muslim prayers while you’re not looking.**

    /rant

    Senate Bill-SB 1200:
    Not far off………..Pay attention to what is going on around you(This is being pushed NationWide). If they take our gun rights away;We, the law abiding peoples, will no longer have a voice & you may as well bow to the dictators forthcoming.
    Fight this whether you like guns or not–A society that cannot defend/fight back becomes…….well, read some history for yourself.

    Current Bill Summary
    SB 1200 – This act requires the department of public safety to develop and maintain an ammunition coding system database containing certain information provided by manufacturers and vendors of firearm ammunition. The information shall only be made available to law enforcement agencies to be used in criminal investigations. The database shall be developed and operational by January 1, 2009. Manufacturers and vendors that do not provide the required information shall be subject to civil fines.
    ➡ Link for Missouri: http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=r&BillID=148094

    Google SB1200 for your state-contact your reps & tell them no!!
    “This will be a first step of many” & most of it will not be on prime time-since most of those are regulated;)

    #54229

    Viking62
    Participant

    @ Big bear, I had to separate these two posts……. ie: Content

    I read this & felt the need to post it…… ➡ http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_19787.shtml


    Obama


    Refused to sign the brief supporting an individual Second Amendment right in the Heller case.

    Against Right-to-Carry. (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08; Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04)

    Director, Joyce Foundation—one of the most anti-gun foundations in America. (Politico)

    “I think it’s a scandal that this president [Bush] did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.” (Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04)

    “Clinging” to guns—how Obama described “bitter” gun owners at a San Francisco fundraiser.

    Ammunition ban supporter. Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. (United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05)

    Limiting self-defense. Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who us a firearm for self-defense in their homes. (Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04)

    Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
    This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
    Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy


    Hmmmm


    Agenda 21 or Freedom 21 Connecting the Dots to Tyranny
    By Tom DeWeese
    MichNews.com
    Mar 26, 2008

    Which do you choose? A way of life where you are the master of your destiny, or one where virtually all decisions are made for you by one ruling body or another? It’s the classic struggle facing every human on earth. Freedom or control.

    Truth be known, there are many who actually choose control. It makes for a well-ordered society with few surprises. In a controlled society, one doesn’t have to make complicated career choices, health care is provided.

    Community planners decide where housing will be placed. Committees decide what industries are to be allowed and how they will operate. Self-appointed watchdogs decide the foods that you shall be permitted to eat, to protect our health, of course.

    Family planners decide the number of children allowed and how they will be raised. Those children, of course, will be well taken care of every day in public education centers that not only provide a centrally planned curriculum, but also provide for all physical and mental health needs.

    Crime can be eliminated in the coming Utopia because there will be no real possessions or personal property to steal and no personally owned weapons to threaten the authority of the State. Economic security is promised in a better world as everyone equally sacrifices their earned wealth to the State so all may live in harmony, free of greed and the stress of daily living. Everything is well organized, peaceful and controlled. Everyone is secure in the knowledge that tomorrow will be just like today.

    On the other hand, there is the chaos of what some call freedom. In such a society, people are fully responsible for their own actions. Untethered individuals throw a monkey wrench into a well-ordered society by inventing new gadgets that make life easier and more productive, but threaten old ways.

    “Selfish” people pursue their own dreams and ideals without ever worrying about how they fit into the order created by the State. They want to benefit from the fruits of their labor, own property and raise families without controls established from the wisdom of the community.

    Imagine such a society in which parents get to decide how best to educate their children. And think of the irresponsibility of individuals actually being able to choose if and how they want to invest their money to prepare for retirement. In the so-called free society, people eat what they want without benefit of government approval. Children are part of the family that bore them, not overseen by the State. People start enterprises without asking permission. Nothing stays the same, except that individuals are secure in their homes and have the ability to live their lives as they choose.

    Control today has a name. “Agenda 21.” This is the name of a policy document first unveiled at the United Nations’ Earth Summit in 1992. Implementation of the treaty is through a policy called Sustainable Development. This program is now the official policy of the United States and is being systematically imposed in every single state of the Union and in every city and town. There are very few exceptions. Sustainable Development is no less than a ruling principle through which decisions for all aspects of our lives are determined through public/private partnerships between government (at all levels) and private institutions in our communities. They provide guidelines to determine business decisions; property use; medical care; education curriculum; foreign policy; economics; taxes; labor policy; career decisions; housing; building material; farming policy; and much more. Agenda 21 is based on the principle that government is the maker of rights.

    If you choose freedom, then there is a counter to Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development program. It’s called Freedom 21, and it’s quickly growing into a “freedom movement.” Freedom 21 is not an organization. It is a loose coalition of groups and individuals who believe that our nation’s Founding Fathers had it right when they established this nation as one with tightly controlled reins on government. The Founding Fathers believed that all individuals were born with their rights of individual liberty, and that government’s job is to protect those rights as individuals pursue their own dreams and goals. That’s the basis for the Freedom 21 agenda.

    #54230

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @viking62 wrote:

    Fight this whether you like guns or not–A society that cannot defend/fight back becomes…….well, read some history for yourself.

    defend against who? youre talking about guns for civilians. please elaborate?

    #54231

    Viking62
    Participant

    Re: The need for the 2nd amendment in the U.S.A.

    2 points of view–I am sure Boy/Deathbal or any American could elaborate . . . .

    The point is to make sure it remains a democracy. -Free society-

    A disarmed populace is fine as long as the government remains benevolent. But power corrupts, right? The American constitution is founded on the idea that governments cannot be trusted. Many of us view the second amendment as a vital “check and balance” that ensures democracy will continue over the long haul.

    I tend to think most people in our government right now are well-intentioned. When they try to take away our guns, encryption, or free speech, it’s generally for benevolent reasons of law enforcement. What they neglect to consider, is that they are making it easier for future government officials who may not be so well-intentioned. If the road to despotism remains long and difficult, it will be a less tempting road to take.

    So while none of us (other than a few whackos) are planning any kind of armed revolution, we do feel much more comfortable having a reasonable balance of power between the government and the governed.


    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
    The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., “keep and bear arms”) in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people’s arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

    Before the Heller decision, there was much disagreement as to whether it protected a collective right or an individual right, because the amendment contains a prefatory clause that refers to a “well regulated militia.”[5][6] Previously, the Supreme Court had not directly addressed the amendment, or had only done so in limited or ambiguous terms.[7]

    A minority have argued that because the District of Columbia, which is not a state, was the only government involved in Heller, uncertainty remains concerning whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local jurisdictions by way of incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court’s unambiguous declaration that the right to bear arms is an individual privilege, taken with the Fourteenth Amendment’s clear stricture that, “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” appears to conclusively support incorporation.[8][9]
    **In the end-It is the law abiding/constitution believing citizens of this country that want to keep our rights intact as set forth by our forefathers–Our present government has been taking our original rights away bit by bit……thereby implementing more & more personal control over our lives–> & some of us do not like it at all!!! Nuff said….. Still stirring that fire 😉

    #54232

    Viking62
    Participant

    Interesting “Gun” posts from the U.K.–Banning in progress (sad):(
    Are we next here in the U.S.?


    *Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:21:47 GMT*
    > Some people seem to forget that we still have a lot to lose over here,
    > slowly but surely our rights are being eroded. We lost semi auto’s, then we
    > lost hand guns,
    > We still have the *right* to own rifles and shot guns.

    Well… Not quite.

    At the moment, provided we jump through the necessary hoops and
    comply with the ludicrously draconian demands of the police and the
    Home Office, we’re *allowed* to own *certain kinds* of rifles and
    shotguns, though there are further highly restrictive limits about
    when, where and how we use them. We do not, however, have any
    *rights* whatsoever.

    In the next couple of months, when the government announces the next
    generation of anti-gun laws, gun ownership will effectively be wiped
    out in the UK. Having read the submissions to the government
    committee currently drafting the new laws, I am resigned to the
    following, as a bare minimum;

    (1) shotguns being licensed in the same way as rifles and
    muzzle-loaders; which will wipe out most clay pigeon shooting and
    game shooting, in turn leading to the collapse of what remains of the
    gun trade; the police will use their ‘discretion’ to limit shotgun
    ownership to farmers and professional pest controllers (who are, in
    the stated opinion of the Labour government, the only people who
    should be allowed to own shotguns)

    (2) gun ownership of any kind being illegal in ‘urban areas’ –
    another Labour party ‘manifesto promise’

    (3) outright confiscation of lever-action rifles and muzzle-loading
    pistols, possibly all guns capable of firing more than one shot
    without reloading; criminalisation of antique, deactivated and
    replica guns, crossbows and airguns

    (4) further persecution of smallbore and fullbore rifle clubs,
    effectively making it almost impossible for them to recruit new
    members and thereby wiping out the sport in the UK; imposition of new
    ‘safety’ and ‘registration’ criteria that will be impossible for most
    clubs to meet, thereby forcing them to close and leading to immediate
    confiscation of their members’ guns

    (5) requirement that all guns used for target shooting (as opposed to
    pest control) be stored at clubs rather than in owners’ homes; taking
    the security ‘requirements’ announced during the short-lived
    ‘reprieve’ for .22 pistols as a minimum required standard (but expect
    even more stringent demands), very few clubs will be able to meet
    these demands, and will therefore close. Without clubs to belong to,
    UK target shooters will lose their licenses and have their guns confiscated

    (That’s assuming that the government doesn’t opt for outright blanket
    confiscation; which Labour party sources admit is their ultimate
    objective. So far, the threat of having to pay some level of
    compensation to former owners has deterred the government from
    wholesale confiscation; the likely cost has been estimated by Home
    Office officials as in excess of 5 billion pounds sterling, which the
    Treasury cannot afford. Accordingly, the government plans to reduce
    the numbers of gun owners by (uncompensated) attrition by means of
    the measures referred to above, to the point where confiscation
    becomes affordable. However, pressure from anti-gun extremists within
    the Labour party may well force the government to seek a blanket
    confiscation now, and deal with the problem of wriggling out of
    paying compensation later)

    Is there anything that can be done to save gun ownership of any kind
    in the UK? No, nothing at all. Gun owners are a very small minority,
    vilified by the media to the point where no politician who values his
    career would dare support them in public. Red herrings such as the
    appeal to the European Court or the Bill of Rights are doomed to
    failure, as Britain has no constitution and the government of the day
    has no restraints on its power – with the effective abolition of the
    House of Lords, malignant legislation can’t even be delayed, let
    alone defeated. The options are; put up with it, or emigrate.

    For Americans, the moral should be clear; giving an inch means
    conceding a mile. You’ll never satisfy the anti-gun lobby by
    appeasement; your only chance of preserving your rights for any
    length of time is to oppose *all* proposed infringements with as much
    strength of numbers and argument as you can muster. Learn from our mistakes.


    This was just one post of many–From outraged citizens (UK)



    Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author on Tuesday, August 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am–Britain Needs Gun Rights – BritainNeedsGuns.co.uk

    As I’ve previously mentioned, crime in England has skyrocketed since their passage of strict gun control laws. The criminals still shoot innocent citizens, and gun smugglers bring illegal guns into the UK just as illegal drugs are imported. The criminals who are willing to commit violent crimes such as murder are just as willing to violate a relatively minor gun control law. Tired of seeing law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals, Graham Showell decided to do something:

    First, he started a gun rights petition, with the goal of bring American style concealed carry to Britain.

    More recently, he has started the website http://www.BritainNeedsGuns.co.uk, which is dedicated to restoring the right of law abiding and mentally stable British citizens to keep and bear arms for self defense – a right which they very suddenly lost.

    And to my American visitors: Please take the tragic loss of gun rights in Britain as a warning, as the same could very well happen in the USA – even after the D.C. v. Heller ruling. All it would take is a new Supreme Court justice to defeat the narrow 5-4 ruling in which gun ownership was held to be an individual right. Another threat is the “assault weapon” ban and other so-called “reasonable restrictions” on gun ownership, which are designed to slowly erode the Second Amendment and scare citizens away from gun ownership due to highly technical rules.

    “Fear the criminals that own guns/Respect the law abiding citizen that owns guns”
    A legal gun owner may save you or your families life someday………..
    For those of you…… Why would government want to take our guns away in the U.S.?
    1 answer of many: A vast number of us American citizens are prior service/veterans (Myself 13 years total) of our military forces. We all took a Oath to defend our great country against tyranny……

    Quote:
    – “I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
    These-good people-are some of your law abiding citizens…tried & true……& would gladly fight abroad as here at home to retain our freedoms!!!
    The Constitution is the Law-1st & foremost;)
    #54233

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @viking62 wrote:

    A disarmed populace is fine as long as the government remains benevolent. But power corrupts, right? The American constitution is founded on the idea that governments cannot be trusted. Many of us view the second amendment as a vital “check and balance” that ensures democracy will continue over the long haul.

    I tend to think most people in our government right now are well-intentioned. When they try to take away our guns, encryption, or free speech, it’s generally for benevolent reasons of law enforcement. What they neglect to consider, is that they are making it easier for future government officials who may not be so well-intentioned. If the road to despotism remains long and difficult, it will be a less tempting road to take.

    So while none of us (other than a few whackos) are planning any kind of armed revolution, we do feel much more comfortable having a reasonable balance of power between the government and the governed.

    @viking62 wrote:

    Interesting “Gun” posts from the U.K.–Banning in progress (sad):(
    Are we next here in the U.S.?

    You shouldnt misinterpret that. I didnt get as far as reading it all, but I think theyre talking about the rare cases where people own guns for sport, or have acquired antiques, for example, through inheritance.

    People arent allowed to have guns in the uk. Far as I know thats been the case since before God made texas. (1830s was it? when adam and eve were just a twinkle ; )

    If youre caught with a gun in the uk, you go to prison. Theres no ‘right to bear arms’ debate, and certainly hasnt been in my life time.

    I dont think its fair to compare the uk and usa in that sense. We’re on an entirely different scale (both time and size).

    Im not convinced by this check and balance argument, though it is an interesting one. It may have been valid in the 1800’s, but I dont think it applies to 21st century America, where people are more likely to take a sheriff to court, than start a gun fight and take his badge : )

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 45 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.