How do you fear something currently not possible?

[sirs]

Just to generate discussion.  Can be fear of anything one wishes to use as an example

[Plane]

Stress , hormones and drugs can induce fear that has no object.

Fear can arise from a ghost story , even if you know Dean Koonts is makeing it up.

Or you might even think that Global warming is dreadfull even though you are knee deep in March snow. You might just be wrong .

Illusions are common and the impact of an illusion is the same as the effect of seeing something real.

[Christians4LessGvt]

How do you fear something currently not possible?

I guess it depends on context.

"Not possible" in conversation can mean "99.9%"

I've often heard people say things like
"my worst fears came true and I didn't think this was even possible".

Ya know when some freak accident happens like a baby drowns when
it's hair gets caught in a hot tub drain that had an automatic shutoff
valve but the shutoff valve didn't work that one time.

Or like I fear the Islamonazis blowing up multiple US Cities
with nuclear weapons although I don't think they have that
capability just yet.....but they are working on it.

I fear the Left taking away my right to own a gun,
I honestly think they would like to do that,
currently they don't have the votes to do that,
legislatively or judicially, but I still fear one
day it might happen.

I fear an Islamic "Caliphate", I fear
Sharia coming to the US...these
things seem impossible to many
but things that seem impossible
can happen.

In fact many of the things happening today in
technology, in medicine, in our economy,
in our politics, in crime, in our society as whole
would have seemed impossible just a few years ago.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why not fear Catholics taking over the public school system? Or Mormons declaring Mormonism to be the state religion? Or being lynched by Kluxers or beamed into orbit by demented Trekkies?

There is no danger of Sharia law in the US, or anyone taking away your guns, assuming that they are not automatic assault weapons.

There is fear, and there is paranoia. What you mention are examples of the latter.

[Christians4LessGvt]

XO my purpose in this thread was not to discuss the
pros and cons of those specific issues...you are a real
pro at changing the subject....but first before we move
on in your rush to different subjects....let me see what
SIRS point is in asking his question which is the topic
of this thread.

[Xavier_Onassis]

How do you fear something currently impossible?   UNWISELY.

It's like "How do you eat something that is not food?"

[Christians4LessGvt]

Again....it's all about "context".

What is "impossible" today can sometimes be possible tomorrow.

Thus those with foresight can rationally fear what is impossible today.

If one is safely at home they could certainly fear a boat ride scheduled for
tomorrow if there are rough seas predicted....it is impossible for them to
get hurt on the boat today because they are not even on the boat...
but they certainly could have fear about it.

One could currently fear flunking a test even though the test
is not until next week.

One could lock their car doors while still in their garage
because they have rational fear of robbery later that
would basically be impossible inside their own garage.

[sirs]

XO my purpose in this thread was not to discuss the
pros and cons of those specific issues...you are a real
pro at changing the subject....but first before we move
on in your rush to different subjects....let me see what
SIRS point is in asking his question which is the topic
of this thread.

The "point" was largely allowing Bt to better explain his use of the term fear, though it would appear initially that it was merely a deroggatory deflection effort.  I could be wrong, but the context in which he provided it, would make one think so.

Fear of a non-existant mandate.  But it also was to provide any dicussion into what fears are rational vs not, specifically in the realm of politics.  It's easy to say "Regulatory back door approaches to socialism will be halted dead in their tracks", yet we have Obamacare, we have Government bailouts and takeovers of a whole host of private industry.  Is socialism knocking on the door?, no.  Is the water that the frog was placed in getting warmer?, I'd say yes.  Thankfully, the Nov elections turned the heat to neutral, but the regulations are in place, as is Obamacare. 

Is that something to be "feared"?

[sirs]

Oh, not that this is "fearful" or anything, but I got a chance to listen to several portions of Obama's speech to the CoC.  No wonder he only was applauded 2x.  At one point he was making clear government's "role", that of providing the "foundation" for business to do what they do best......(apparently to pay more taxes to the Government).  Not 1 day after he gives that speech, Obama budget proposes broader unemployment taxes .

Something to be feared?  Perhaps Business should

[BT]

Not 1 day after he gives that speech, Obama budget proposes broader unemployment taxes .

That's not a bad idea.

[Christians4LessGvt]

That's not a bad idea.

It's not?
I see it as another disgraceful tax on soccer Moms and working people.
Business will simply adjust by not giving raises or not hiring as many people.
All so we can keep extending payments to people sitting at home?
I am not even completely sure I support any unemployment benefits
Business already pays for 26 weeks.... But some states Cal, Mich, NY, PA,
and ILL run off business & then want borrow billions to pay people sitting at home
At the very max it should last 8 weeks....bunch a bullshit people sitting for 99 weeks!
The gvt keeps extending the benefits for the lazy asses
Now they are outta money and now it's
"Ooooops whattta we do...we were Santa Claus now wees outta money"
Bingo...."Lets go rob the producers some more so we can be Santa again"!

[BT]

That's not a bad idea.

It's not?
I see it as another disgraceful tax on soccer Moms and working people.
Business will simply adjust by not giving raises or not hiring as many people.
All so we can keep extending payments to people sitting at home?
I am not even completely sure I support any unemployment benefits
Business already pays for 26 weeks.... But some states Cal, Mich, NY, PA,
and ILL run off business & then want borrow billions to pay people sitting at home
At the very max it should last 8 weeks....bunch a bullshit people sitting for 99 weeks!
The gvt keeps extending the benefits for the lazy asses
Now they are outta money and now it's
"Ooooops whattta we do...we were Santa Claus now wees outta money"
Bingo...."Lets go rob the producers some more so we can be Santa again"!

 

So what is the federal backstop fund for?
Few states were prepared for such widespread and lasting unemployment, leading them to exhaust their funds. To make up revenue, some 41 states have already boosted their unemployment insurance tax. Even as states have raised their taxes on employers, they haven?t been able to keep up with demand for unemployment benefits. That?s where the federal fund comes into play. States can borrow from the fund in order to continue paying jobless benefits. As of early February, some 30 states borrowed $42.4 billion from the federal government to pay unemployment insurance.

What happens if states don?t pay the funds back fast enough?
Companies in some states are already paying higher federal unemployment insurance taxes because their states have been unable to pay back the federal loans in a timely manner. The longer it takes to pay back the loan, the higher the tax rate on companies goes. So instead of an 0.8% rate it starts inching up to the 6.2%. That took hold in 2010 for Michigan, Indiana and South Carolina. The Labor Department estimates that  employers in up to 23 states will have to pay higher federal taxes this year.

If i am reading this correctly, businesses pay for only the first 7k in employee earnings, the feds want to bump it to 15k. The last time the ceiling was raised was in the early 80's I guess under Reagan. The federal poverty level is at 11.5k just to add perspective.

This isn't a a bailout of the slobs sitting on their couches at home. This is actually a means to bail out the states and at the same time build up their reserves so they don't need to go to DC begging.

And just to stir the dust more, i think they should eliminate the cap on wages subject to FICA.
But i don't think they should means test once you are ready to collect.

[Xavier_Onassis]

General Motors was simply bailed out by the government. It was never controlled by the government and now is operating totally independently, other than for the obligation to repay the loans. The same is true of mosyt of the banks. There was never any movement to nationalize any industry.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Unemployment 101: Who pays for jobless benefits, anyway?

Employers pay state and federal taxes to cover all those unemployment checks.
But with unemployment at 9 percent, those taxes aren't enough, leaving some states in dire straits.

By Ron Scherer, Staff writer / February 9, 2011

The Obama administration is trying to change the way the unemployment insurance system is funded.

Republicans call it a "job-destroying? tax hike on business and a bailout for states that are overly generous
with their jobless benefits. Here are some fundamental questions and answers concerning how the
unemployment insurance system works.

What?s behind this battle?

At the moment, employers pay a state tax for each employee.
The money pays for all those state-issued unemployment checks ? the first 26 weeks of them, anyway.

Employers also pay a per-employee federal tax, which funds administrative costs of implementing the system.

But because the unemployment rate ? now at 9 percent ? has remained relatively high for so long, 30 states
have exhausted their funds and have had to borrow $41 billion from Uncle Sam. The biggest borrowers are
California, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

If Congress makes no changes in current law, states will start paying interest on these loans in September.
(They got a break from paying interest under the president?s tax stimulus bill, but that reprieve expired on Jan. 1.)

To fund those interest payments, states probably will add a "special assessment" on businesses within
their boundaries.

To pay the principal, federal taxes on employers will go up in borrowing states, under current law.
Those higher federal taxes will start hitting businesses this year and will stay higher until the loans
are paid off ? which will take more than a decade in many states, by some estimates.

?There are going to be tax increases on employers in states that have borrowed [to cover unemployment
benefits], unless something is done,? says Mike Leachman, assistant director of the State Fiscal Project
at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) in Washington. ?That means taxes will be going up
both this year and next year, when the economy is still weak, and they could be at very high levels late
in the decade.?

How would the Obama proposal change this?

The president's proposed budget is expected to include a two-year postponement of the special
"state assessment" tax hikes on business, plus a similar delay in any increase in federal unemployment
insurance taxes.

That's the carrot.

Here's the stick.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0209/Unemployment-101-Who-pays-for-jobless-benefits-anyway

[kimba1]

what pops in my head that might be not possible

outdoor second hand smoke - I don`t recall any such study that says it is harmful in anyway or that small expoosure to second hand smoke is harmful to any degree.

eating meat is thought of as unhealthy,despite the majority of humanity has eaten meat in various quantity with fairly negligible effects. meaning if true shouldn`t most people lifespans be alot shorter?