Thursday, October 16, 2008

The Obama rate increase

Apologies for my absence, it's likely to continue, but I wanted to point up that the Obama economic recovery plan which will not occur regardless of who wins in the election includes a $3000 tax credit for small businesses who take on a new employee.  For my colleagues in the executive directing business with high turnover, this plan could really add up.  Be careful, though, spend it on wage increases and you risk killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

14 comments:

paul said...

What are “simple needs”, how do they compare to needs that are NOT “simple needs”?

How does one differentiate between “simple needs” and needs that are NOT “simple needs”?

What does “met simply” mean?

What is a less simple way of meeting needs?

I know that Chicken Little season is over but, I thought I would ask...

Doug said...

Uh...you on the right post, Brer Paul?

Andy said...

Who is Louis without Schmeling? Ali without Frazier? Brer Rabbit without Brer Fox?

Methinks our pal Paul may be lonely or lost. Is his post a cry for help? Is this a first, albeit rather tame attempt to lure Stanley back into the pool? Does he dream his semantic gobbledygook---simple needs, simply met, et al ad nauseum pro bono----will raise the old fellow’s well-known ire towards DD do-gooder double talk?

True, you cannot fish without bait, but you won’t get Ahab on board by pointing at a porpoise. You must chum the waters with buckets upon buckets of bloody red white whale meat!

Simple needs, simply met? No, no, no . . . try “DDS sets the standard for every state’s private/public partnerships. Its bold leadership and aggressive regulatory oversight of the continuum of compassionate care it established and nurtures provides the benchmark of quality for the constituency it so tirelessly strives to serve and protect.”

Now that’s how you get an old salt snatching his harpoon off the mantel and dashing to the keyboard! As an anxious Paul lays in wait . . . the tools of his siege at the tips of his fingers . . . his bookmarked legal briefs, the “Word for the Day” tab refreshed on his homepage, his English-Latin Dictionary,et al ad nauseum pro bono.

Would the old whaler fall for such an obvious ploy? Perhaps . . . after all, the mythic beast is still out there.

Down goes Ahab! Down goes Ahab!


---Andy


p.s. Yeah, I know I promised to stay on topic . . . but what the hell is the topic? Paul’s the one who turned left without signaling!

Anonymous said...

ha ha very funny...perhaps there is a pony in in there someone...too cute put downs of MIAers is yet another reason for "Status quo"

You choose to suck up to go along to get along rather than address the elephants in the room.

Top Ten Elephants for the DDS System Status Quo

10. Homely – Comely Advocate (CA)
9. Rolly-Polly - Svelte Advocates (SA)
8. Stiff - Lithe Advocates (LA)
7. Loquacious - Taciturn Advocates (TA)
6. Obsequious – Assertive Advocates (AA)
5. Effeminate – Manly Advocates (MA)
4. Compromising – Intransigent Advocates (IA)
3. Unimaginitive – Creative Advocates (CA)
2. Andy
1. Paul
0. Doug



And the number one reason for the DD System Status Quo is….

-1. Stupid/nonsensical/obtuse – Intelligent advocates

Doug said...

Brer Andy, this white whale could use a new blog to stalk.

Or elephant, Paul, I might be an elephant, too.

OK, so a question: How would you guys feel about writing this blog with me?

Andy said...

Fearless leader wrote: OK, so a question: How would you guys feel about writing this blog with me?

I do not believe the punishment fits the crime.

Anonymous said...

I just hope this circle jerk of posting occurs when you are on your free time and not the regional center's dime. The responses to this blog are no longer worth reading.

Doug said...

Andy, you give yourself too much credit for your innocence.

Anonymous, that's real leadership by example. Let your heart rest easy, I am not employed by a regional center and so am never on regional center time.

stanley said...

for the record...i am NOT anonymous...have never post anything as anon and at this "no country for old men" stage of life will not start...perhaps anon should ID self or doug should band any anon post...

anon posts are beyond the pale...and contribute nothing...absolutely NOTHING...to DD system reform.

stanley seigler.

paul said...

"anon posts are beyond the pale...and contribute nothing...absolutely NOTHING...to DD system reform."
-Stanley,

Stanely,

Welcome back!!

I cannot completely agree. Personally, I think that anonymity is underrated. Our world of Gods and Demons praises or demonizes interlocutors almost completely on ‘who’ they are rather than on ‘what’ they say. The end result is much urban legend and little accurate information. Such a world would probably benefit from some anonymity – Anonymity would remove the WHO and leave only a WHAT.

The only thing stopping us is much Ego. After all, people want to get credit for being magnanimous and saving the world.

There are of course downsides..

stanley said...

back only say i never was and never will be anon...will let great minds, a-holes and intelligent advocates fill the anon rolls...since they believe there is value in being anon.

stanley seigler

*-h*le Paul said...

"will let great minds, a-holes and intelligent advocates fill the anon rolls...since they believe there is value in being anon."
-Stanley-


Stanley,

What a great suggestion!!!

How about it Doug?

A discussion about the pros and cons of Anonymity as it relates to developmental Disabilities system Reform??

I would be willing to post some general issues/(pros and cons) regarding Anonymity in general and Anonymity in cyberspace.

Imagine a forum where you ARE NOT permitted to identify yourself!!!

Would people participate? Why not, and what do the reasons for non-participation portend in regards to any "reform"?

Do we want/need credit for what we say? Do we want/need praise, adulations, someting else?
...etc.

Questions are endless!!!

Thanks Again Stanley!!!

Andrew said...

Doug, regarding your forlorn plea for help with this blog, would you consider having "guest topics?"

I can't speak for Paul, (who can?) but I can more easily commit to providing and moderating an occasional topic than to taking up this cross with you.

Of course, if I could secure a job with a regional center, I might reconsider.

I am curious as to whom anon was addressing. I thought it might be me (egomania or Catholic guilt . . . take your pick). Anon's identity is less of a concern (and I agree with Stanton, that that's just not his m.o.) . . . the concern is the idea of losing a valued reader. Let us strive to get him or her back (if I was concerned about identity, I'd guess "him". "Circle jerk" is a term that seems more common, and familiar, to men).

How about a topic on the double standards the system and the advocrats impose on the clientele (e.g. formal and informal requirements for being a successful client ---you need the ennobling experience of work! . . . you need to establish real relationships with real people--i.e. non-disabled)

Could this topic lure our anti-jerk friend back? Please respond during a regional center holiday, to avoid any disconcerting perceptions.

--Andy

Doug said...

Stanley, we're fine. I assume your temper when it comes out is directed at the system. I think you were the first person to sign comments here, too.

Paul, I have learned to love a little anonymity on the side. Want to know her name?

Stan, you can come to the party in costume or formalwear. No nudity, please.

Great Paul. Next post.

Andrew, I would. Thanks for volunteering.