I'm 41, divorced , medical technologist from Texas. I enjoy most everything especially getting outdoors and staying active. I also like talking to people online about most anything but am not really interested in cyber.
No favourite stories listed.
Not following any authors
really i believe that if it is at all possible one parent should stay home to care for the children. and no i dont think it matters which one...whichever one is best suited. and if neither are then maybe they should re-think the choice to have one only to let it be raised by nannies and day care workers.sadly though, our economy doesnt allow for it easily. i consider myself sooo fortunate that i can stay home with my kids :) I agree with this!! Caring for a child is more than changing diapers, feeding, clothing and protecting the child.Some have stated here that today it takes two incomes these days and I will argue that is false. If you search you can find studies done on this exact matter and the results may shock you. On average, that second income nets the family an additional $100 per week regardless of the income levels within reason. Costs like child care, eating out more often, that additional car, extra insurance, extra clothing, extra gasoline and car maintenance, and on and on eat up that second income leaving very little to actually improve family finances. You could do much better if one of the parents got a part-time job and was only gone when the other parent was home. Doing that the additional costs could be eliminated and there would always be a parent at home with the children, which is priceless in my opinion.As for which parent should stay home .... that depends on the two parents. Which one can obtain the best work situation and income? Which one has the ability to nurture the children? Can they both accept roles that are generally different than society norms?
CBS Las Vegas A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.What is your reaction to this news? Do you think the owner was right in doing this or was it either legally or morally wrong? Not sure I believe the exact specifics of this story, but it does make a point that is very much true. Whether Obama succeeds in eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the top earners or not, there are many other taxes, fees, and fines that will begin hitting businesses now that he has been re-elected such as the 21 identified taxes in ObamaCare. From what I read there is also a whole slew of new regulations from the various regulatory agencies that will also impose additional costs on employers and Obama has stated he wants increases in the corporate tax rate, capital gains tax rate, eliminate cap on FICA taxes, plus he was once talking about a 4% surtax on the rich. Here lies the problem, businesses do not know what is going to happen for sure, so they cannot make plans but they do know the entire discussion is negative to their situation. The CBO itself estimate that the end of the Bush tax cuts on the top earners would result in 700,000 people losing their jobs. In an economy where you are not creat8ing enough jobs to match immigration and population growth, that is not a good thing.You do not have to be a wizard at business to see that if some of your operating costs go up, you have to either reduce some other cost or increase prices to compensate. I know some of you think a business making a profit is immoral, but it is the ONLY reason for being in business to start with. The majority of costs are fixed such as lease, utility, insurance, taxes, etc so that leaves labor cost as the one you can reduce.In the end, whether some employees lose their jobs or all of us have to pay a little more for that product it is the average person that gets hit. The business owner will maintain what they consider a decent profit margin while the rest of us will have a higher cost of living or lose our jobs. Good thing you taught that rich guy a lesson!
I have no idea, just stating that there are those who think even your own home is too close to them. I suppose a nosy neighbor could turn you in or if you ever needed the police for anything else you better hide your ashtrays first.
I don't see this as a right being removed by law. I see this as a right being protected by law. My right to clean air, and the previously mentioned pregnant worker's right to not expose her baby to harmful toxins. As for the motorcycle riders, that must be specific to your state/country. In Canada we've had motorcycle helmet laws probably as long as we've had seat belt laws, if not longer. The theory is twofold, one, it protects riders from their own stupidity, and with our public health system, it helps me from having to pay for someone else's stupidity. Sometimes lawmakers do actually do things for our own good, when we've shown we have no inclination as a group to do anything about it on our own. Just how far does a smoker have to stay away from you? Now we have entire cities (Belmont, CA for example) that have banned smoking everywhere including inside your own home. Now we have two states that have legalized recreational pot smoking, even though it contains the very same chemicals that tobacco does. Oddly enough, the fine for smoking pot in a place such as a city park is much, much less than for smoking a cigarette.Now we are starting to see laws springing up on the size of a soft drink, the amount of salt you can use, the type of fat you can use, if you can give a toy away with a meal .... and on and on. Just who are the stupid people here?How soon we forget when they tried to pass a law that all buckets must be sold with a hole in them because the majority of infant drownings occur in a bucket.
Everyone should vote! and vote often!
Byron, there are actually more combinations that give Romney the win than there are for Obama. Obama is still enjoying the convention bounce but we all know bounces go up and then usually go back down. IF you look historically, Carter led Reagan by 4% at this time in the campaign, and Dukakis led Bush 41 by 17% and we know how those leads turned out.Voter suppression? How exactly is requiring a person to actually be a citizen to be able to vote suppression unless you are in favor of non-citizens voting? Currently in places like Texas, you can register to vote and actually vote without having to prove you are a citizen. In fact it is illegal here for them to ask for any form of ID at all. When you have counties where there are consistently more votes than citizens there is obviously something wrong. On the other hand, please explain why the Obama has not seen that the Defense Department has enacted the law he signed into law to enable the military to vote. Last election only something like 17% of the military was allowed to vote because they could not get ballots in time or could not get them back in within the time limits. BY law, there were to be offices open on military bases, foreign and domestic, to improve the voting process but that has not been done by the federal government. We even have the Justice Department suing several states who are trying to make considerations to allow our service men and women to vote.If you need a picture ID to buy cigarettes, buy liquor, board an airplane, and thousands of other things, how does it supress votes to require one to vote? Especially when most attempts have included details such as free ID cards, mobile units that will come to your home if you want to get one, and other such provisions for those who claim it is a hardship to get an ID.
Why is it a penny for your thoughts, but you want my two cents worth?
The largest problem is that the mayors of Chicago and Boston made statements that they will use their office to deny business permits to Chic-Fil-A because of the owner's view on same sex marriage. Whether you agree or disagree with the owner, he has the same 1st Amendment right to his opinion just as we all do. Having a government entity deny or punish him because of his opinion is a blatant violation of the Constitution. If the company had shown discrimination in their hiring practices or employee policies, or has denied service to a customer based on this opinion that would be another matter. No evidence of that has been found that we know of. If you are for same sex marriage, ask yourself how you would feel if a mayor of another city said they would not allow a company to build a facility in that city because the owner was pro-same sex marriage? Both situations are equally as wrong and should be condemned.As for the boycott, remember while you are punishing the owner you are also punishing all the employees and vendors of the company, many of whom probably have the same opinion as you.
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.
What would you like to do?