livendive

My briefing... "When I say legs up, I mean pull your knees towards your chest. Once you have your knees up, extend your feet out, but only as far as you can without dropping your knees" Also, my briefing includes "Under canopy, the nature of the tandem system leaves you leaning slightly forward. This causes a natural tendency for students to reach up and grab their upper attachment straps, which unfortunately puts your hands within inches of my emergency handles. You must resist that urge and keep your hands in front of you. My friend Robert was killed by someone doing this, and I do not respond well to students trying to reenact that incident." Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

1-2% of the time, it’s to help a struggling solo student push past a wall of some sort. 10-20% of the time, it’s to help someone who’s not particularly capable of making a solo jump. 20-30% of the time, it’s for the infectious good mood my student shares with me, plus a paycheck. 20-30% of the time, it’s for the “challenge” my student poses for me, plus a paycheck. 10-20% of the time, it’s just for a paycheck. 1-2% of the time, it’s just because I’m freaking out that nothing in my body hurts. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Same, in a manner of speaking. My OEM blades don't take inserts, have to buy the whole unit from the manufacturer for some ridiculous price...I think they were like $30 each or something. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm not sure how it's coming across. I just mean that seperate accounts allow us to not worry about what the other is spending. Ownership aside, the adminstration of 3 accounts (hers, mine, and our's) seems easier than constantly trying to coordinate plans for one account. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Yeah dont get that at all, I would never think of "keeping track" or my wifes spending. to enter into a relationship with this as a concern, to me means there's already a communication issue I, too don't understand the "keeping track of". Mike and I have only joint accounts which we have equal access to. We don't differentiate "his and her money". It must not be obvious in the way I phrased it, but I *don't* want to keep track of her spending. I just want to be able to throw $500 worth of gas in the boat without first asking her whether there have been any recent couple hundred dollar trips to Victoria's Secret (e.g.). Having our own accounts plus a joint account lets us each spend confidently without having to ask what the other is up to. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Not married yet, but that'll change next year, and we've already discussed this. Despite living together, we've maintained seperate accounts up to this point...she writes me a couple checks each month to help with bills and I pay them. We're keeping our accounts, but also starting a joint account in which we can team up on bigger purchases, e.g. saving for the upcoming wedding. The plan is to keep that account open after we're married for joint emergency funds, vacation funds, other large purchases, etc. I got burned pretty hard on my joint banking account in my first marriage, but that doesn't even really figure into my opinion...I just want to know how much money I have in my accounts without having to keep track of someone else's spending. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I had it done last winter. The procedure itself was rather odd, as it was a friend of mine who did it, but no big deal outside the smell of smoke coming from your scrotum. I bruised up a bit and found a jockstrap or tight shorts made things more comfortable for the first couple days back at work. I'm one of the rare individuals who actually did my two follow-ups to be sure. An unexpected bonus was that sex without even subconscious concerns about pregnancy is better than expected. Going in, my thoughts were that drive/performance might go down a bit, but the reverse turned out to be the case. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Erin and I just barely made the threshold when we started up together, I was 37 and she was 25. A couple months later I turned 38 and we were outside the boundaries for a few months. But 5 years later, I'm 42, she's 30, all is good. Her dad can't say much, as his wife is only 2 months older than me. The more awkward issue was my daughter, who, at 23, is much closer to Erin's age than I am, but that worked out too, and she'll be one of Erin's bridesmaids next year. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

There is some judgement, but not so much as you imply. I never suggested corporations cheat their way out of taxes, nor did I suggest that sending their investments overseas was illegal. Yes, it's individuals and small businesses who fail to report income, because that's the only way of dodging taxes that they can afford. Large corporations on the other hand, buy politicians who will give them perfectly tailored tax breaks. If they fail to purchase sufficient "friends" of this type, they take their ball and go to Asia and then try to purchase said "friends" from their. When they get enough, they'll bring their ball back, but only if we agree to also throw a homecoming party for them, complete with BJs from everyone for the guest of honor. You do make a good point about the general state of the economy, but it's kind of outside the scope of what I wanted to learn in this thread. I know I'm personally in a state of spending less, saving more, and shedding some debt, and I expect that to continue for awhile. However I also have increasing regard for those companies that I consider good "corporate citizens", and I think my future spending should probably start taking that into consideration. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

OK, so the basic concept is that American corporations pay corporate taxes. Some of them don't want to pay their share, so they invest overseas and make money there. The government (reasonably in my opinion) then says, hey, all good...just pay your tab when you bring that money back in country. If they didn't do this, then those who ship jobs overseas would have a distinct tax advantage over those who keep jobs here, in addition to the common salary/cost advantage. Now, the proposal being bantied about is to offer a holiday, or steep discount on those taxes, in order to stimulate jobs? Are you kidding me? If these countries were interested in creating American jobs, they'd have kept that money here in the first place! In my opinion, the better course of action would be to offer tax benefits to those companies who DON'T ship jobs overseas. I'm curious how proponents of this kind of cut justify it, I mean besides the whole "the only good tax is the one that doesn't affect me" thing. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Last I checked, Palin = Palin, but Obama /= Hoffa. Why would you blame Obama for what Hoffa says? Is he also responsible for what Olbermann says? And Amazon? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Um.... I actually think she turned you down. sorry Nah, she spoke to him in a dominant and insulting tone...for Remi, that's like third base. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What is my error? I'm just copying the IRS website.. Do they have something wrong on their website?? You seem to be asserting that those who make 180,000/year pay taxes at the 180,000/year rate. The reality is their taxable income is 180,000 minus interest on their mortgage, the interest on their timeshare or yacht, their kid's college tuition (and a credit for buying said kid a Prius), capital gains, losses from their Mary Kay business (including the purchase of wifey's new car with the Mary Kay sticker on it), etc... Income /= taxable income, which is kind of the point the subject of this thread is trying to make. Blues, Dave And those in the lower brackets have deductions and credits that THEY can take which lower THEIR taxable income. Agreed, to an extent. I'm quite opposed to the oxymoronic "earned income credit"...in no way should we be "refunding" taxes one didn't pay, much less on income one didn't earn. However, in part due to the hard income restriction but mostly due to the bias of tax breaks, the people who file a 1040-EZ without itemized deductions are almost entirely in dirt-poor to marginally survivable income brackets. Most of our tax breaks go to those with the most to gain by them, and this is mostly due to those people paying to elect politicians who will do them that favor. Take away tax breaks for anyone and it would go a long way toward cleaning up Congress (of course few, if any, politicians would support such a change, for exactly this reason...it would hinder their ability to buy/sell votes). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Agreed, and this is the part I don't like. And again, agreed. It would hurt, and should probably be phased in, but I support the general idea. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What is my error? I'm just copying the IRS website.. Do they have something wrong on their website?? You seem to be asserting that those who make 180,000/year pay taxes at the 180,000/year rate. The reality is their taxable income is 180,000 minus interest on their mortgage, the interest on their timeshare or yacht, their kid's college tuition (and a credit for buying said kid a Prius), capital gains, losses from their Mary Kay business (including the purchase of wifey's new car with the Mary Kay sticker on it), etc... Income /= taxable income, which is kind of the point the subject of this thread is trying to make. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

From IRS: Taxable Income Tax $0 – $8,50 10% of taxable income $8,500 – $34,50 $850 plus 15% of excess over $8,500 $34,500 – $83,600 $4,750 plus 25% of excess over $34,500 $83,600 – $174,400 $17,025 plus 28% of excess over $83,600 $174,400 – $379,150 $42,449 plus 33% of excess over $174,400 $379,150+ $110,016.50 plus 35% of excess over $379,150 You see? I just corrected your false statement. People who make more are taxed at a higher percentage. And no - I don't look for any trickle. I don't go through life looking for tits to suck on from someone who has more than me The devil is in the details, I've highlighted the error in your assertion. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I see your point. We should all be doing as the left wing does and demonize them as they deserve. They are all evil and wicked, and don't deserve anything. And speaking of rose colored glasses, it must be nice to live in a world where you think taxing (even at 100%) would solve anything. I always find it amusing when a rich person who owns a rather large boat and owns an even larger truck to tow their boat and has a maid to clean their house because they are too busy enjoying the finer things in life like using their big boat, whines about other people who tend to be even richer than the rich person who does all the whining. It's not like this is a poor person who is just barely making ends meet who is whining about rich people. Poor people don't own big boats, even bigger trucks and poor people sure can not afford a maid. Only rich people can do all of that. BTW I could careless how much money or how many toys someone else has. I just find it funny when rich people whine about other rich people. When poor people whine about tax breaks for rich people and rich people whine about high taxes & welfare, both sides are simply being selfish. When you hear people, rich or poor, arguing in favor of something that will hurt them personally? That's a lot more credible. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Which side has the religous cuckoos again? It seems to me your so-called "conservatives" are the ones who think abortions, drugs, homosexuality, and pornography should be illegal. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Given the current economic situation, how about we incentivize their compensation? e.g. for each of the next 5 years, they get 1E-6 of the current year's budget surplus + 1E-9 of the current GDP ------------------------------------------------ - 1E-8 of the total budget deficits projected in the following 5 years Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Sweet...I would too, subject to the same "if" qualification. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I agree, that is analagous to our current situation. However that doesn't make it a good situation. I'm asking about fixes, especially with regard to making more money and spending less. I believe both are appropriate steps, and neither should be held as ransom while waiting for the other. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

So in your example, should the husband doing tandems at the DZ on the weekends be part of the appropriate solution? Or should he wait for the car parts/shoes/credit car bills/roof repairs to be stricken from the budget before he consider such a drastic move? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm not convinced that you are able to disregard what "others should give up." If you are really willing to give those up even if others do not, you are welcome to make voluntary donations to your government anytime, but I'm guessing that you'll only agree to that if your political will is forced upon other taxpayers. Would I be correct then in believing that your generosity is conditional on "what others should give up?" I don't have a problem with that. But if so, then how are you any different than those "selfish" folks who want their government to reduce spending before they agree that it can confiscate more of their assets? How then is your "side of this debate" any different? BTW, Your proposals to increase tax revenue seem reasonable enough to me, but I dont' think they'll make much of a dent in our defecit unless we reduce spending. The point of this thread is to change the tone of the conversation from what we think others should give up to what we'd be willing to give up. Instead of "go get that from so & so", it's "I suppose I could live without X". If we identify a common X, then maybe our perspective evolves from one of what *I* can give up to what *we* can give up. And yes, some sort of equality is assumed, we're only human. So far several people have mentioned giving up social security paid in so far and any promise of future disbursements, albeit on the contingency that no more is taken from us. Several people have also mentioned a willingness to sacrifice the mortgage interest tax deduction...whether it's secondary or primary, phased or immediate are details to be worked out, but it seems several of us are willing to consider it as part of the package of repairs. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Funny how a Canadian has to point out the obvious to you guys. Except it's not particularly funny or obvious. When a family takes a realistic look at their finances and realize they just don't work, two things happen simultaneously...they look for where they can reduce or eliminate expenses and they consider asking for a raise or taking a second job. If the husband told his wife, "Yes, I could do tandems at the DZ on weekends for some extra cash, but I won't till you prove you can cut the grocery bill in half", he'd probably find himself sleeping in the dog house, and rightfully so. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Honestly, Dave, you're not giving up much here. Few people have second mortgages or deduct their sales tax on their return. Saturday mail doesn't affect the budget (personally I'd rather drop two week days) and you can't save half of nothing not maintaining the roads. It was starters. I think there's something inherently more valuable in a "come take this" than a "go take that". I'd be fine with taking mail down to 4 days a week. I'd really like to see them charge a flat rate for it (no discount for bulk mailers). I was thinking half of current road spending would be better than all of current road spending. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)