PDA

View Full Version : Feinstin says were all mental



TSgt"M"
03-08-2013, 06:32 PM
Feinstein basically said all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped. In response to the amendment, she said the following:

…this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was effect… and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States… that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So you know I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

sandsjames
03-08-2013, 06:54 PM
I love how she says that PTSD is a new thing. Does she mean it's only recently been recognized or does she mean that nobody had it before the recent wars?

Feinstein is an idiot. This is from a long term lack of oxygen to the brain from having her face buried in Barbara's "Box"er.

Greg
03-08-2013, 07:04 PM
I think it's an individual who is using the mainstream media as a megaphone to advance their own agenda.

Consider the sources where this is regarded as "news."

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&p=Feinstein+basically+said+all+veterans+have+PTSD

Banned
03-08-2013, 07:10 PM
Feinstein basically said all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped. In response to the amendment, she said the following:

…this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was effect… and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States… that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So you know I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

Where did she say ALL veterans are like this? If you're diagnosed with a mental disorder, be it PTSD or something else - yes, one could make a good case you wouldn't necessarily be a responsible gun owner. Though that would the agenda of "putting a gun in every household."

RobotChicken
03-08-2013, 07:19 PM
:clock Next she will want to ban all men from military service BEcause THEY are responsible for 98% of Rapes and Pregnancies. :yield

TSgt"M"
03-08-2013, 07:25 PM
I'll agree the sources are just a little on the fringe.

sgtpotsie
03-08-2013, 08:02 PM
So it's okay for these men and women to carry fully automatic weapons on a daily basis in a war zone, but they are not competent enough to own their semi-automatic counterparts at home? I call bullshit.

JD2780
03-08-2013, 08:09 PM
So it's okay for these men and women to carry fully automatic weapons on a daily basis in a war zone, but they are not competent enough to own their semi-automatic counterparts at home? I call bullshit.

well its ok for an 18 year old to carry a handgun for military duties, but cant possess one outside of the military. Shitty.

CYBERFX1024
03-08-2013, 09:20 PM
Well I did hear her say it actually. I watched the whole damn committee hearing last night all 1 hour and 43 minutes of it. Luckily I was at home and got to do some research about her bill while hearing it. She is utterly bat shit crazy. She is claiming that everyone who has ever seen combat has PTSD, and that we can't have weapons due to that PTSD.

Also the 100+ weapons she is trying to ban is anything that can fit 10 rounds or more. As well as just having a pistol grip makes it a "Assualt Weapon". So basically that Home Defense Shotgun with a pistol grip I just bought is going to be off limits. She is a cunt can go fuck herself

sandsjames
03-08-2013, 09:26 PM
Well I did hear her say it actually. I watched the whole damn committee hearing last night all 1 hour and 43 minutes of it. Luckily I was at home and got to do some research about her bill while hearing it. She is utterly bat shit crazy. She is claiming that everyone who has ever seen combat has PTSD, and that we can't have weapons due to that PTSD.

Also the 100+ weapons she is trying to ban is anything that can fit 10 rounds or more. As well as just having a pistol grip makes it a "Assualt Weapon". So basically that Home Defense Shotgun with a pistol grip I just bought is going to be off limits. She is can go fuck herself

She DOES make me proud to be from California.

jconners [Stolen Valor]
03-08-2013, 09:46 PM
PTSD and comorbid psychotic disorder: comparison with veterans diagnosed with PTSD or psychotic disorder.
Sautter FJ, Brailey K, Uddo MM, Hamilton MF, Beard MG, Borges AH.
SourcePsychology Service (116B), New Orleans Veterans Affairs Medical Center, LA 70146, USA.

Abstract
Symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychosis, general psychopathology, role functioning, violence potential, and cognitive and emotional aspects of psychotic states were compared in three groups of veterans. Groups were defined on the basis of their DSM-IV diagnoses: Psychotic disorder and war-related PTSD, war-related PTSD without psychotic symptoms, and psychotic disorder without PTSD. Veterans with PTSD and a comorbid psychotic disorder showed significantly higher levels of positive symptoms of psychosis, general psychopathology, paranoia, and violent thoughts, feelings, and behaviors than the other two groups. These data show that patients with comorbid PTSD and psychotic disorder show levels of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral disturbance that far exceed the levels of disturbance seen in patients with PTSD without psychosis or in patients with psychotic disorder.

PTSD and weapons ownership warrants continued discussion...and I believe will ultimately result in restrictions for some PTSD patients, those exhibiting symptoms which may result in placing themselves and others in increased danger being denied gun ownership. I do not believe the science has evolved adequately to differentiate those symptoms and any regulations for such PTSD restrictions will not be enacted; however persons with PTSD and also diagnosed for certain mental diseases will be subjected to gun ownership restrictions if the popular concerns addressing violence and gun ownership continues. I believe that this concern will continue and escalate.

Banned
03-08-2013, 11:25 PM
She DOES make me proud to be from California.

She's been a big advocate of increasing funding for TBI research, and reducing veteran poverty and joblessness. Not that you care about any of that - its all about "putting a gun in every household", right?

sandsjames
03-08-2013, 11:46 PM
She's been a big advocate of increasing funding for TBI research, and reducing veteran poverty and joblessness. Not that you care about any of that - its all about "putting a gun in every household", right?

If you can show me one time I even remotely said that I want to put guns in every household I'll be impressed. I do believe every household has the choice of whether they own them or not. You're about freedom of choice, aren't you Joe?

Banned
03-09-2013, 12:24 AM
If you can show me one time I even remotely said that I want to put guns in every household I'll be impressed. I do believe every household has the choice of whether they own them or not. You're about freedom of choice, aren't you Joe?

Dug it up again... just for you.


What "training" does the doctor need? Guns shoot bullets. If the bullets hit someone, they get hurt or die. Not rocket science.


That's not the point. The point is that they aren't going to ask if I have any knives over 2.5 inches. They aren't going to ask if I text while driving. They aren't going to ask if I store fertilizer. It's not about whether it helps anyone. It's about the demonization of guns.


Probably because pretty much everyone has large knives in the house.


Exactly!!!! You've finally got it figured out. Now, if pretty much everyone had guns in the house...


Also - nice way to dodge the question. It seems to me you don't give a shit what good a politician, doctors, or anyone else does for veterans, the moment they interfere with your gun agenda, they become the enemy? Is that right?

Rizzo77
03-09-2013, 01:24 AM
Jeebus, just ban everything. Americans are fat and stupid and incapable of living. It is only the government that even keeps us from walking in to traffic or impaling ourselves on scissors.

sandsjames
03-09-2013, 01:36 AM
Dug it up again... just for you.










Also - nice way to dodge the question. It seems to me you don't give a shit what good a politician, doctors, or anyone else does for veterans, the moment they interfere with your gun agenda, they become the enemy? Is that right?Still waiting.

DaveIn3D
03-09-2013, 01:51 AM
Also - nice way to dodge the question. It seems to me you don't give a shit what good a politician, doctors, or anyone else does for veterans, the moment they interfere with your gun agenda, they become the enemy? Is that right?

and by gun agenda, you mean the Constitution?

For the record, it is possible to like how someone deals with one issue and despise them for how they deal with another. I agree with Obama on his 'evolving' gay marriage stance. I highly dislike damn near everything else. Feinstein is proving now, as she did with the previous assault weapons ban, that she know next to nothing about guns, how they work, the weapons that really cause problems, or how any idea of hers actually relates to the "shall not be infringed' part of the second amendment. I commend her on her work with veterans. I really do. We need support like that in Congress. However, that does not give her a pass on other issues.

-3D

EODCOLRET
03-11-2013, 02:26 PM
I think it's an individual who is using the mainstream media as a megaphone to advance their own agenda.

Consider the sources where this is regarded as "news."

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&p=Feinstein+basically+said+all+veterans+have+PTSD

I specifically joined the Forums to address your comments. I guess if you don't consider CPSAN a viable news source you could question the statement. I watched the CSPAN broadcast live and saw the Senator makes the comments about veterans/military retirees couldn't have an exemption because "you wouldn't be able to identify those that didn't have PTSD" so they shouldn't have an exemption and calling PTSD "a new phenomena of the Iraq War". I personally found it extremely insulting and a return to the days of calling Vietnam vets "psycho baby killers". Also not an isolated case since the exact same tone/comments were made in CO Senate during their gun control hearings by Democratic State Senator Mary Hodge.

Pullinteeth
03-11-2013, 03:40 PM
I specifically joined the Forums to address your comments. I guess if you don't consider CPSAN a viable news source you could question the statement. I watched the CSPAN broadcast live and saw the Senator makes the comments about veterans/military retirees couldn't have an exemption because "you wouldn't be able to identify those that didn't have PTSD" so they shouldn't have an exemption and calling PTSD "a new phenomena of the Iraq War". I personally found it extremely insulting and a return to the days of calling Vietnam vets "psycho baby killers". Also not an isolated case since the exact same tone/comments were made in CO Senate during their gun control hearings by Democratic State Senator Mary Hodge.

If true, that is an extremely dangerous statement. Requiring veterans to prove a negative would make it MORE difficult for a veteran to get one than some schmuck that never served which seems to be the exact opposite of the intent of this exemption....

Banned
03-11-2013, 03:45 PM
If true, that is an extremely dangerous statement.

Then its fortunate that this thread is mostly made up of imaginary arguments then, right?


and by gun agenda, you mean the Constitution?

Oh hardly. I would call his agenda anything BUT the Constitution.


For the record, it is possible to like how someone deals with one issue and despise them for how they deal with another. I agree with Obama on his 'evolving' gay marriage stance. I highly dislike damn near everything else. Feinstein is proving now, as she did with the previous assault weapons ban, that she know next to nothing about guns, how they work, the weapons that really cause problems, or how any idea of hers actually relates to the "shall not be infringed' part of the second amendment. I commend her on her work with veterans. I really do. We need support like that in Congress. However, that does not give her a pass on other issues.

-3D

I don't entirely see how this has anything to do with knowledge of guns - as opposed to questioning whether or not mental patients with military training should have easy access to them. I don't necessarily agree with her (honestly haven't thought about the issue too much) - but I can see where she's coming from.

CYBERFX1024
03-11-2013, 07:13 PM
I specifically joined the Forums to address your comments. I guess if you don't consider CPSAN a viable news source you could question the statement. I watched the CSPAN broadcast live and saw the Senator makes the comments about veterans/military retirees couldn't have an exemption because "you wouldn't be able to identify those that didn't have PTSD" so they shouldn't have an exemption and calling PTSD "a new phenomena of the Iraq War". I personally found it extremely insulting and a return to the days of calling Vietnam vets "psycho baby killers". Also not an isolated case since the exact same tone/comments were made in CO Senate during their gun control hearings by Democratic State Senator Mary Hodge.

I am standing right there beside you in thinking that this is insulting at the least and absurd at the most. So just because I had survivor's guilt and had to take some anti-depression meds back 6 years ago. Now that would disqualify me from having a weapon in my house? Is that what you are saying Joe? Get off your fucking Socialist/Maoist soapbox for once and see it how it is really seen by everyday people.
By saying that us service men and women who have been to a hazardous environment are not capable of buying and having weapons. Then that defeats the whole judgement of sending people off to war. If you are going to send me off to war to protect my way of life and the country. Then as soon as I get home from said war be told that I can't have a weapon in my own house. That violates my civil liberties and is against the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

Joe, 1 or 2 good things done by Sen. Fienstien for us Veterans does not out weigh all the bad that she has done.

Greg
03-11-2013, 09:32 PM
I specifically joined the Forums to address your comments. I guess if you don't consider CPSAN a viable news source you could question the statement. I watched the CSPAN broadcast live and saw the Senator makes the comments about veterans/military retirees couldn't have an exemption because "you wouldn't be able to identify those that didn't have PTSD" so they shouldn't have an exemption and calling PTSD "a new phenomena of the Iraq War". I personally found it extremely insulting and a return to the days of calling Vietnam vets "psycho baby killers". Also not an isolated case since the exact same tone/comments were made in CO Senate during their gun control hearings by Democratic State Senator Mary Hodge.

I consider the websites listed as being involved in sensationalism.

The CSPAN link you mention was on LiveLeak. I don't consider that source reputable.

Banned
03-12-2013, 03:57 AM
I am standing right there beside you in thinking that this is insulting at the least and absurd at the most. So just because I had survivor's guilt and had to take some anti-depression meds back 6 years ago. Now that would disqualify me from having a weapon in my house? Is that what you are saying Joe? Get off your fucking Socialist/Maoist soapbox for once and see it how it is really seen by everyday people.

I don't know what the acceptable qualifiers or specifics would be. Nor have I said I necessarily agree with the idea. I just think all of this hysterical rambling I'm seeing in this thread is dumb and blown out of proportion. Its also silly to go on a rant about how horrible Feinstein is when she's actually done a lot of positive things for veterans - but might have been off target with this particular idea.

And I find it hilarious that you called me a "Maoist". LOL!!! You do realize that Mao armed and trained peasant farmers to overthrow the government, right? How the fuck is DIS-arming the masses "Maoism"? You just threw out that term with absolutely not the foggiest idea of what it meant, didn't you?

I love how people throw around these labels "communist/socialist/maoist/leninist/stalinist/etc"... apparently believing these terms are all synonymous and interchangeable. But then again, some people also accuse Obama of being an atheist and a muslim in the same breath - so I guess in their minds it makes sense.

And no - that wasn't an endorsement of Mao - I'm just clarifying what the term actually means. Not to say that Maoism isn't ineffective revolutionary concept from a military/political standpoint... its very effective. But gun control isn't one of the tenets.


By saying that us service men and women who have been to a hazardous environment are not capable of buying and having weapons. Then that defeats the whole judgement of sending people off to war. If you are going to send me off to war to protect my way of life and the country. Then as soon as I get home from said war be told that I can't have a weapon in my own house. That violates my civil liberties and is against the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

War damages people. And it breaks people. That's why war is a bad thing, and should be avoided. To say war has no psychological effect, and that people function perfectly fine afterwards is - well - foolish - and you yourself having struggled with depression should know this.

And yes, I'm in the same boat, I've been on a few meds in the past - however briefly.


Joe, 1 or 2 good things done by Sen. Fienstien for us Veterans does not out weigh all the bad that she has done.

I can't wait for this... in regards to veterans, what is "all the bad she has done" - and mind you, I'm talking about veteran issues specifically, so don't go off on a rant about the war on christmas or some shit.

Monkey
03-12-2013, 09:21 AM
I'm talking about veteran issues specifically, so don't go off on a rant about the war on christmas or some shit.

Oh, so you now you want to take Christmas away from veterans?!? Feinstein certainly does.

Robert F. Dorr
03-12-2013, 09:37 AM
Where did she say ALL veterans are like this? If you're diagnosed with a mental disorder, be it PTSD or something else - yes, one could make a good case you wouldn't necessarily be a responsible gun owner. Though that would the agenda of "putting a gun in every household."

Conflicts with the Americans With Disabilities Act, doesn't it?

Banned
03-12-2013, 10:45 AM
Conflicts with the Americans With Disabilities Act, doesn't it?

Does it? I don't think it would.

JD2780
03-12-2013, 10:52 AM
Does it? I don't think it would.

How wouldnt it conflict with it?

Also, Joe do you think a person that took anti-depressants for a short period of time while in counseling should be banned from gun ownership? I'm 100% certain that this would put an even larger stigma on the mental health program which is already mildly effective due to the fact folks are worried about their clearances. Now guy wont go because they're afraid being labeled as to crazy to own a weapon. Shitty situation.

Banned
03-12-2013, 12:28 PM
How wouldnt it conflict with it?

Where in the ADA does it say that? Show me.

So how about driver's licenses? If you're blind and aren't allowed to drive, by your reasoning, isn't that a violation too?


Also, Joe do you think a person that took anti-depressants for a short period of time while in counseling should be banned from gun ownership? I'm 100% certain that this would put an even larger stigma on the mental health program which is already mildly effective due to the fact folks are worried about their clearances. Now guy wont go because they're afraid being labeled as to crazy to own a weapon. Shitty situation.

As I already stated... no, I don't think so.

sandsjames
03-12-2013, 12:52 PM
Where in the ADA does it say that? Show me.

So how about driver's licenses? If you're blind and aren't allowed to drive, by your reasoning, isn't that a violation too? It depends. Is there medication that can handle the symptoms of blindness?

Pullinteeth
03-12-2013, 12:54 PM
And I find it hilarious that you called me a "Maoist". LOL!!! You do realize that Mao armed and trained peasant farmers to overthrow the government, right? How the fuck is DIS-arming the masses "Maoism"? You just threw out that term with absolutely not the foggiest idea of what it meant, didn't you?

I love how people throw around these labels "communist/socialist/maoist/leninist/stalinist/etc"... apparently believing these terms are all synonymous and interchangeable. But then again, some people also accuse Obama of being an atheist and a muslim in the same breath - so I guess in their minds it makes sense.

And no - that wasn't an endorsement of Mao - I'm just clarifying what the term actually means. Not to say that Maoism isn't ineffective revolutionary concept from a military/political standpoint... its very effective. But gun control isn't one of the tenets.

Apparently you have no idea what you are talking about there Joe... Chairman Mao was a HUGE proponant of gun control. He only wanted guns in the hands of communists so he disarmed everyone else...course then they slaughtered their unarmed countrymen but.....

JD2780
03-12-2013, 02:12 PM
Where in the ADA does it say that? Show me.

So how about driver's licenses? If you're blind and aren't allowed to drive, by your reasoning, isn't that a violation too?



As I already stated... no, I don't think so.

Joe you can calm down now. Or you can just keep crying. Its up to you. I was simply asking you why you think it wouldnt conflict with it. I didnt look it up. I wasnt siding with either. Once again, you can untwist your panties.

Driving and gun ownership are two different things. One is protected under constitution specifically the 2nd amendment while the other isnt.

Once again Joe, two options. Go cry some more on huge pillow or untwist your panties and continue to discuss with out going all fanatical democrat on me.

EODCOLRET
03-12-2013, 02:37 PM
Also for additional food for thought, Army Times has article where Department of Veterans Affairs states they won't comply with the new NY gun law reporting requirements concerning reporting those who may harm themselves or others to ensure that personnel will continue to seek help. Be interesting to see whether VA will adhere to this if pressure to comply comes out of the White House.

Banned
03-12-2013, 04:35 PM
It depends. Is there medication that can handle the symptoms of blindness?

Is there medication that can cure depression? Attempt to allevate the symptoms yes. Cure it no.


Apparently you have no idea what you are talking about there Joe... Chairman Mao was a HUGE proponant of gun control. He only wanted guns in the hands of communists so he disarmed everyone else...course then they slaughtered their unarmed countrymen but.....

Yeah... no. Sounds like you've been reading Fox News just a little too much. 1930s China was in anarchy. Everybody who wanted to fight was already fighting. Everyone who wanted to own a gun already owned a gun. Yes, Mao defeated his enemies and had them killed, exiled, imprisoned, etc. But that's because they straight up LOST A WAR... nothing to do with gun control against the overall population. To claim that gun control was somehow a prerequisite for Mao's victory conditions is not just false, but flies in the face of all common sense.

I suggest you really do some reading on Maoism before talking about it. We're talking popular revolt here. If anything the NRA and right wing extremist groups are more similar to Mao than the American gun control movement.


Also for additional food for thought, Army Times has article where Department of Veterans Affairs states they won't comply with the new NY gun law reporting requirements concerning reporting those who may harm themselves or others to ensure that personnel will continue to seek help. Be interesting to see whether VA will adhere to this if pressure to comply comes out of the White House.

The VA has generally been exempt from most reporting requirements. Even applying for the FBI or some other Federal Agency, you are not required to report any mental health treatment you've received from the VA specifically.

Banned
03-12-2013, 04:39 PM
Joe you can calm down now. Or you can just keep crying. Its up to you. I was simply asking you why you think it wouldnt conflict with it. I didnt look it up. I wasnt siding with either. Once again, you can untwist your panties.

Driving and gun ownership are two different things. One is protected under constitution specifically the 2nd amendment while the other isnt.

Once again Joe, two options. Go cry some more on huge pillow or untwist your panties and continue to discuss with out going all fanatical democrat on me.

Oh wow, looks like poor JD is having another one of his traumatic episodes. What's the matter? Did a big scary poodle show up?

There was NOTHING in my post that should have hurt your feelings.

First you jump up and claim that this proposed idea would violate the ADA - which is (to my knowledge) - completely false. Then when I call you out on it you backtrack like a little pussy and start whining that I'm "crying".

Whatever bro. Go bark up someone else's tree. Oh, bad choice of words...

Pullinteeth
03-12-2013, 05:03 PM
Is there medication that can cure depression? Attempt to allevate the symptoms yes. Cure it no.

Yeah... no. Sounds like you've been reading Fox News just a little too much. 1930s China was in anarchy. Everybody who wanted to fight was already fighting. Everyone who wanted to own a gun already owned a gun. Yes, Mao defeated his enemies and had them killed, exiled, imprisoned, etc. But that's because they straight up LOST A WAR... nothing to do with gun control against the overall population. To claim that gun control was somehow a prerequisite for Mao's victory conditions is not just false, but flies in the face of all common sense.

I suggest you really do some reading on Maoism before talking about it. We're talking popular revolt here. If anything the NRA and right wing extremist groups are more similar to Mao than the American gun control movement.

Good god man...is there a medication that can cure YOU?

I would suggest YOU take a history class or read a book sometime... China wasn't in anarchy in the '30s they were in the state of periodic civil war...and it started in 1911, then the Japanese expanded into China in 1919 and then the shit REALLY hit the fan. The commies and the republicans "united" to fight the Japanese-that lasted into the '20s..during that time, then the KMT turned on the commies, the nationalists mopped the floor with the commies then continued fighting the Japanese while the commies made up their own country in rural china. The KMT kept trying to wipe them out but it didn't work so well... The commies again allied with KMT to fight the Japanese in '35 and that lasted until '40. Then they decided that civil war was more fun so they decided to do that again. That time, it lasted until '49.

Of course none of that has ANYTHING to do with what I said but...I have come to expect that from you.

When Chairman Mao took over, he killed (according to him 700,000). Then came the Hundred Flowers Campaign (another 500,000 or so)... Then he starved his allies and enemies alike...more dead...blah...blah....blah....

I never said one word about gun control being a factor in his victory. I guess your vision is going? I said he was a proponent of gun control when it came to anyone that wasn't a communist-and a communist that he agreed with at that. As a matter of fact, since '66 the private manufacture, sale, transport, possession and import or export of bullets and guns (including fake guns) has been illegal in China. The price for violating? Anywhere from a 3 year prison sentence to a death sentence...Yeah, you are right, sounds like Mao was against gun control....

Since you obviously don't know your history, next time you might want to try a web search before you go spouting off your nonsense....

JD2780
03-12-2013, 05:03 PM
Oh wow, looks like poor JD is having another one of his traumatic episodes. What's the matter? Did a big scary poodle show up?

There was NOTHING in my post that should have hurt your feelings.

First you jump up and claim that this proposed idea would violate the ADA - which is (to my knowledge) - completely false. Then when I call you out on it you backtrack like a little pussy and start whining that I'm "crying".

Whatever bro. Go bark up someone else's tree. Oh, bad choice of words...

Nope didnt hurt my feelings at all, but sure seemed to have a traumatic impact on your life. Nope no episodes no poodle. Nice work stealing PYB's material, so its true. You're simply his minion.

I didnt say it DID violate the ADA. Re-read the post clown shoes. Somebody else did, I asked how doesnt it conflict with it. Fishing for your opinion.

For reference here you go.
Conflicts with the Americans With Disabilities Act, doesn't it?

WOW somebody is all sorts of butt hurt today. You mad bro?

Banned
03-12-2013, 10:47 PM
I would suggest YOU take a history class or read a book sometime... China wasn't in anarchy in the '30s they were in the state of periodic civil war...

lol wow, not a state of anarchy - civil war! Civil war... that just has "law and order" written all over it. You funny GI.


I never said one word about gun control being a factor in his victory. I guess your vision is going?

And this is why you fail. If you're going to jump in and accuse me of being wrong, don't go back and try to retroactively change what my argument supposedly was.


Nope didnt hurt my feelings at all, but sure seemed to have a traumatic impact on your life. Nope no episodes no poodle. Nice work stealing PYB's material, so its true. You're simply his minion.

I didnt say it DID violate the ADA. Re-read the post clown shoes. Somebody else did, I asked how doesnt it conflict with it. Fishing for your opinion.

For reference here you go.

WOW somebody is all sorts of butt hurt today. You mad bro?

Oh shit JD talking smack. If you think the ADA prohibits Feinstein's proposed legislation, then it is UP TO YOU to prove it. I don't care either way, because as far as I know the ADA says nothing about the matter. Now if someone takes this to court, and they determine this is indeed a violation of the intentions behind ADA, that's all fine and dandy. But until then, I don't see any evidence for the notion. If you whip out some evidence SHOWING this is indeed a violation of ADA... cool.

Now run along to your group therapy session - dog slayers anonymous.

JD2780
03-13-2013, 10:46 AM
lol wow, not a state of anarchy - civil war! Civil war... that just has "law and order" written all over it. You funny GI.



And this is why you fail. If you're going to jump in and accuse me of being wrong, don't go back and try to retroactively change what my argument supposedly was.



Oh shit JD talking smack. If you think the ADA prohibits Feinstein's proposed legislation, then it is UP TO YOU to prove it. I don't care either way, because as far as I know the ADA says nothing about the matter. Now if someone takes this to court, and they determine this is indeed a violation of the intentions behind ADA, that's all fine and dandy. But until then, I don't see any evidence for the notion. If you whip out some evidence SHOWING this is indeed a violation of ADA... cool.

Now run along to your group therapy session - dog slayers anonymous.

Once again nice try using somebody else's material. Sadly unoriginal. I've actually stopped my sessions as of recently. I'm doing really well. No more nightmares, being all freaked out in crowded places. Thanks for bringing it up.


Now go cry for an individual that supported a terrorist organization and spouted anti-American rhetoric. Good job showing how you cant simply answer a question without flying off the handle like a the little liberal biotch you are. Congrats on proving so many folks correct.

Still dont know why you're so pissed when all I did was ask a question.

Oh I didnt dog slayers anon. That would assume I was addicted to slaying dogs. Sorry to disappoint.

TJMAC77SP
03-13-2013, 10:57 AM
Oh wow, looks like poor JD is having another one of his traumatic episodes. What's the matter? Did a big scary poodle show up?



Very low cross thread reference.

That smell is back

Pullinteeth
03-13-2013, 12:31 PM
And this is why you fail. If you're going to jump in and accuse me of being wrong, don't go back and try to retroactively change what my argument supposedly was.

Since you apparently don't remember saying it;


And I find it hilarious that you called me a "Maoist". LOL!!! You do realize that Mao armed and trained peasant farmers to overthrow the government, right? How the fuck is DIS-arming the masses "Maoism"? You just threw out that term with absolutely not the foggiest idea of what it meant, didn't you?

Still wrong...sure he armed 'em...to meet his needs. Once that happened, he took all the guns away and made it illegal for anyone to own 'em... Sure sounds like gun control to me...

CYBERFX1024
03-13-2013, 02:26 PM
I consider the websites listed as being involved in sensationalism.

The CSPAN link you mention was on LiveLeak. I don't consider that source reputable.

Well I believe that every news station sensationalizes news nowadays. I didn't believe the article at first that's why I looked at the damn video. If that isn't real then I don't know what is.

Greg
03-13-2013, 03:00 PM
Well I believe that every news station sensationalizes news nowadays. I didn't believe the article at first that's why I looked at the damn video. If that isn't real then I don't know what is.

I agree with the sensationalizing, that's why I catch a little of local news, CNN, and FOX before I walk out the door in the morning. Contrast and compare.

And I was referencing LiveLeak, not CSPAN. Should have made it clear.

Banned
03-13-2013, 05:24 PM
Once again nice try using somebody else's material. Sadly unoriginal. I've actually stopped my sessions as of recently. I'm doing really well. No more nightmares, being all freaked out in crowded places. Thanks for bringing it up.

I'm glad you're getting all of your sympathy needs taken care of on the interwebz.


Now go cry for an individual that supported a terrorist organization and spouted anti-American rhetoric.

Not something I'm going to cry about - I already know America is going straight down the shitter - mainly because of people like you whining about how hard their lives are and their "sacrifices", then turn right around and preach the most ugly violence against our "enemies".


Good job showing how you cant simply answer a question without flying off the handle like a the little liberal biotch you are. Congrats on proving so many folks correct.

So what got dog slayer so mad and angry, and caused another imaginary PTSD episode for sympathy? This...


Where in the ADA does it say that? Show me.

So how about driver's licenses? If you're blind and aren't allowed to drive, by your reasoning, isn't that a violation too?

As I already stated... no, I don't think so.

Explain where in that post I "flew off the handle"...?


Still dont know why you're so pissed when all I did was ask a question.

Oh I didnt dog slayers anon. That would assume I was addicted to slaying dogs. Sorry to disappoint.

You are a scared, cowardly little tool posing as a big bad war hero. And you know damn well I didn't get rude with you until you did:


Joe you can calm down now. Or you can just keep crying. Its up to you. I was simply asking you why you think it wouldnt conflict with it. I didnt look it up. I wasnt siding with either. Once again, you can untwist your panties.

Driving and gun ownership are two different things. One is protected under constitution specifically the 2nd amendment while the other isnt.

Once again Joe, two options. Go cry some more on huge pillow or untwist your panties and continue to discuss with out going all fanatical democrat on me.

So basically, you started a flame war, and couldn't handle the heat. Good job buddy. America's enemies are trembling in their boots no doubt.

CYBERFX1024
03-13-2013, 05:31 PM
I agree with the sensationalizing, that's why I catch a little of local news, CNN, and FOX before I walk out the door in the morning. Contrast and compare.

And I was referencing LiveLeak, not CSPAN. Should have made it clear.

I am the same way as well. I catch a couple news stories from CNN, Foxnews. Then if I want further proof I will go and do actual research on it to get the "real" story.

JD2780
03-13-2013, 07:08 PM
I'm glad you're getting all of your sympathy needs taken care of on the interwebz.



Not something I'm going to cry about - I already know America is going straight down the shitter - mainly because of people like you whining about how hard their lives are and their "sacrifices", then turn right around and preach the most ugly violence against our "enemies".



So what got dog slayer so mad and angry, and caused another imaginary PTSD episode for sympathy? This...



Explain where in that post I "flew off the handle"...?



You are a scared, cowardly little tool posing as a big bad war hero. And you know damn well I didn't get rude with you until you did:



So basically, you started a flame war, and couldn't handle the heat. Good job buddy. America's enemies are trembling in their boots no doubt.

My life isnt hard really. Never claimed it was all that hard nowadays. Nice try though. You know exactly where you flew off the handle like a little girl. You started getting all pissy so I called you a cry baby. Simple as that. To bad you cant come up with your own material. Go pull up some more PYBs pages, because you wore that material out and you need more. Never claimed ot be a big bad war hero, I wasnt a hero. So far every person I've done CPR on died of their injuries on the LZ. Nice try. Once again.

Imaginary PTSD? Nice one. Good try.

CYBERFX1024
03-13-2013, 09:25 PM
My life isnt hard really. Never claimed it was all that hard nowadays. Nice try though. You know exactly where you flew off the handle like a little girl. You started getting all pissy so I called you a cry baby. Simple as that. To bad you cant come up with your own material. Go pull up some more PYBs pages, because you wore that material out and you need more. Never claimed ot be a big bad war hero, I wasnt a hero. So far every person I've done CPR on died of their injuries on the LZ. Nice try. Once again.

Imaginary PTSD? Nice one. Good try.

Touche......

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2013, 04:26 PM
I'm glad you're getting all of your sympathy needs taken care of on the interwebz.



Not something I'm going to cry about - I already know America is going straight down the shitter - mainly because of people like you whining about how hard their lives are and their "sacrifices", then turn right around and preach the most ugly violence against our "enemies".



So what got dog slayer so mad and angry, and caused another imaginary PTSD episode for sympathy? This...



Explain where in that post I "flew off the handle"...?



You are a scared, cowardly little tool posing as a big bad war hero. And you know damn well I didn't get rude with you until you did:



So basically, you started a flame war, and couldn't handle the heat. Good job buddy. America's enemies are trembling in their boots no doubt.

Jesus Joe, at least TRY to have an original thought.............

Pullinteeth
03-14-2013, 05:07 PM
Interesting take on an ancillary topic... Author alleges that Democrats don't want poor people to have guns.. Provides a fairly rational case too... Some of it is just the same old political posturing of course but there are some seemingly valid points as well...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/12/can-poor-people-be-trusted-with-guns/

Banned
03-14-2013, 10:45 PM
Jesus Joe, at least TRY to have an original thought.............

I'm not trying to be original. He wants to act all tough, then cry like a little girl when I start firing back. He shouldn't throw rocks if he lives in a glass house...

Banned
03-14-2013, 10:47 PM
Interesting take on an ancillary topic... Author alleges that Democrats don't want poor people to have guns.. Provides a fairly rational case too... Some of it is just the same old political posturing of course but there are some seemingly valid points as well...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/12/can-poor-people-be-trusted-with-guns/

He makes a strong case, and I believe he is right.

But to be perfectly honest, I live in a poor neighborhood, and in all honesty, we've already got enough firefights going on, no need to add even more guns into the equation.

Robert F. Dorr
03-15-2013, 02:17 AM
Well I believe that every news station sensationalizes news nowadays. I didn't believe the article at first that's why I looked at the damn video. If that isn't real then I don't know what is.

And how many print newspapers did you read today?

Banned
03-15-2013, 02:29 AM
And how many print newspapers did you read today?

Well, Sarah Palin reads ALL of them (http://gawker.com/5057211/palin-reads-all-magazines-and-newspapers). Every good citizen should strive to be like her.

RobotChicken
03-15-2013, 02:52 AM
QUOTE=Pullinteeth;612428]Good god man...is there a medication that can cure YOU?

I would suggest YOU take a history class or read a book sometime... China wasn't in anarchy in the '30s they were in the state of periodic civil war...and it started in 1911, then the Japanese expanded into China in 1919 and then the shit REALLY hit the fan. The commies and the republicans "united" to fight the Japanese-that lasted into the '20s..during that time, then the KMT turned on the commies, the nationalists mopped the floor with the commies then continued fighting the Japanese while the commies made up their own country in rural china. The KMT kept trying to wipe them out but it didn't work so well... The commies again allied with KMT to fight the Japanese in '35 and that lasted until '40. Then they decided that civil war was more fun so they decided to do that again. That time, it lasted until '49.

Of course none of that has ANYTHING to do with what I said but...I have come to expect that from you.

When Chairman Mao took over, he killed (according to him 700,000). Then came the Hundred Flowers Campaign (another 500,000 or so)... Then he starved his allies and enemies alike...more dead...blah...blah....blah....

I never said one word about gun control being a factor in his victory. I guess your vision is going? I said he was a proponent of gun control when it came to anyone that wasn't a communist-and a communist that he agreed with at that. As a matter of fact, since '66 the private manufacture, sale, transport, possession and import or export of bullets and guns (including fake guns) has been illegal in China. The price for violating? Anywhere from a 3 year prison sentence to a death sentence...Yeah, you are right, sounds like Mao was against gun control....

Since you obviously don't know your history, next time you might want to try a web search before you go spouting off your nonsense....[/QUOTE]
:spy Great history post 'P-tooth'....1912-1942..Republic of China, Chiang Kai-shek..(wife died in NY city a few years ago,being US educated before the war) he stocked piled weapons,planes,tanks,etc during the war (which angered the US) the fight against the communist that no doubt was COMING!! '49 he moved his govt to Taiwan till his death in '75. So we our still dealing with the 'Legacy of WW-II.
(and Vietnam,and............IKE's legacy exist to this day) :tape

JD2780
03-15-2013, 11:51 AM
I'm not trying to be original. He wants to act all tough, then cry like a little girl when I start firing back. He shouldn't throw rocks if he lives in a glass house...

I asked a question Joe. Where is asking a question acting tough? I dont threaten people on here, saying if we had a face to face I'd change your opinion. I believe your hero PYB said something along those lines. I dont investigate to find out where people ar stationed and get a hold of first sgts like some folks around here. So not really acting like a keyboard tough guy. Talking smack from behind a computer. Nice work. You went all panty twisted and started throwing PYBs material like a child tries to emulate Jordan.

"I wanna be, I wanna be like PYB"- The mantra of Joe Bonham

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2013, 12:11 PM
And how many print newspapers did you read today?

I get my news from the town crier

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-15-2013, 12:31 PM
This lady thinks its legal to hunt humans. Why do people keep electing her?

Banned
03-15-2013, 03:51 PM
I asked a question Joe. Where is asking a question acting tough?

Here:


Joe you can calm down now. Or you can just keep crying. Its up to you. I was simply asking you why you think it wouldnt conflict with it. I didnt look it up. I wasnt siding with either. Once again, you can untwist your panties.

Driving and gun ownership are two different things. One is protected under constitution specifically the 2nd amendment while the other isnt.

Once again Joe, two options. Go cry some more on huge pillow or untwist your panties and continue to discuss with out going all fanatical democrat on me.

Now stop being a little bitch making up stolen valor, and GTFO

The Cooler
03-15-2013, 03:56 PM
joe, taking pot shots at someones issues with PTSD is truly classless. and i'd hope you aren't just pulling things out of your hat by accusing someone of stolen valor.

JD2780
03-15-2013, 05:34 PM
Here:



Now stop being a little bitch making up stolen valor, and GTFO


Please show your evidence of stolen valor. I dont have any medals that I didnt earn. I have all the documentation that goes with them. No I dont think I'll GTFO. WHy dont you post the part where I asked you the question. You're truly showing your fanatical side and its kind of sad. I bet you wish your big bro was here.

JD2780
03-15-2013, 05:36 PM
joe, taking pot shots at someones issues with PTSD is truly classless. and i'd hope you aren't just pulling things out of your hat by accusing someone of stolen valor.

He really is pulling it out of his hat. I got documentation of every award I earned and received. They're all on my DD214 as well. I believe Joe just committed a crime by slandering me unjustly. Interesting.

DaveIn3D
03-15-2013, 06:46 PM
I like how this went from a decent conversation to a mud slinging contest. This forum is starting to look like youtube comments. I would like to say we all start acting like adults, but for all I know I am talking to 11 year old girls posting here between facebook status updates about the cute boy in class. Maybe the venom is mostly for Joe because as most of the board has remained the same, we have witnessed a radicalization of Joe from back in the day till now. These guys must just miss the old Joe who didnt seem to be sucking the tit of alinsky and his ilk. It doesnt help that Joe now quickly resorts to mud slinging, also a rules for radicals way to divert attention from the true issue, which turns any good natured conversation into a tough mudder. All of you other characters need to stop raising to his bait. KCCO and GTFO if your points can no longer be made without talking shit......

.....which I just did..

Friggin internets..

Speaking of tough mudding, this guy will be doing that 19 may. noon relay. jacksonville, fla.

-3D

sandsjames
03-15-2013, 07:26 PM
joe, taking pot shots at someones issues with PTSD is truly classless. and i'd hope you aren't just pulling things out of your hat by accusing someone of stolen valor.

Don't worry. It's not Joe's thoughts here. It's PYB's. You don't think Joe could come up with anything original, do you?

CYBERFX1024
03-15-2013, 09:12 PM
And how many print newspapers did you read today?

Print Newspapers,? Really? I live in LA County and I will NOT pay $1.50 for newspaper everyday from the LA Times. But I will read a USA Today every once in a while.
Why must one read print newspapers? Wake up this is the 21st Century. I can read newspapers on the internet from across the world all day long. Let me tell you the newspaper outlets that I read from on a DAILY basis: Philippine Star, Philippine Inquirer, Hindustan Times, Al Jazeera, Gulf Times, Al Arabiya, BBC News, Telegraph UK, Foxnews, CNN, and my local newspaper from home the News and Record.

So go ahead and try to label me as ignorant, biased, or just plain stupid. I dare you. Because unlike YOU when I hear something in the news or what someone said in politics. Then I actually go and research it more in depth to get to the truth of the matter.

Banned
03-16-2013, 03:15 AM
I like how this went from a decent conversation to a mud slinging contest. This forum is starting to look like youtube comments. I would like to say we all start acting like adults, but for all I know I am talking to 11 year old girls posting here between facebook status updates about the cute boy in class. Maybe the venom is mostly for Joe because as most of the board has remained the same, we have witnessed a radicalization of Joe from back in the day till now. These guys must just miss the old Joe who didnt seem to be sucking the tit of alinsky and his ilk. It doesnt help that Joe now quickly resorts to mud slinging, also a rules for radicals way to divert attention from the true issue, which turns any good natured conversation into a tough mudder. All of you other characters need to stop raising to his bait. KCCO and GTFO if your points can no longer be made without talking shit......

.....which I just did..

Friggin internets..

Speaking of tough mudding, this guy will be doing that 19 may. noon relay. jacksonville, fla.

-3D

You're right on that. I will admit my existence is more frustrated than it used to be. Maybe because at least on active duty I had the "grass greener on the other side" fantasy that I could EAS and go hang out with the smart people... only to find out that the Left are all fucking idiots too.

So really there's no actual movement in America I can actually really honestly identify with.


Don't worry. It's not Joe's thoughts here. It's PYB's. You don't think Joe could come up with anything original, do you?

Do me on PYB agree on everything? Absolutely not, on a lot of issues I think he's a basketcase, and vica versa. But I like him, because at least he's got the balls to say what he actually believes in without worrying about if its popular. Same reason I respect WJ5, however bizarre I find his political/religious beliefs to be.

Speaking of which, I have yet to see you go on a limb on anything - would you be willing to say something here, on the internet, even if you knew it wouldn't be popular?

Greg
03-16-2013, 12:27 PM
So really there's no actual movement in America I can actually really honestly identify with.


Why limit yourself to one movement? Why not find a couple that interest you, and start attending? After establishing your bona fides you may be able to contribute to meaningful change, change you may see fit, and after discussing this change with the others.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-18-2013, 02:10 PM
Has anyone broiught up the fact that the Gun ban exempts conrgess just as Obamacare exempts them from having to follow the laws they make?

Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

Banned
03-18-2013, 02:17 PM
Has anyone broiught up the fact that the Gun ban exempts conrgess just as Obamacare exempts them from having to follow the laws they make?

Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

..."government officials and law enforcement". In other words - that M-16A4 you were issued is still okay for you to have.

BTW - stop repeating the hysteria that congress is "exempt from Obamacare" like that's some sort of conspiracy. All Federal Employees are exempt, because they fall under a different healthcare provider!

http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/

sandsjames
03-18-2013, 02:42 PM
Speaking of which, I have yet to see you go on a limb on anything - would you be willing to say something here, on the internet, even if you knew it wouldn't be popular?

What would you like me to go on a limb about, Joe? Do you want me to make statements I don't believe just to attempt to disagree with people? I'm pretty sure you are aware of most of my views. Shall I run them down for you (so we can decide if there is a limb for me)? These are my honest opinions and avoid all of the usual devil's advocate stuff that is usually included:

1. Abortion is not for me or my family. However, in a free country, people should be able to choose what they do.

2. I am a Christian. I have not been to church more than 5 times in over 20 years because I feel a lot like you do about organized religion. The churches I've tried are very hypocritical. Not the people, but the church. It's more about what one is wearing (walked into a baptist church in blue jeans once and was made to feel very out of place) or how much money one puts in the offering plate.

3. I believe that homosexuality is a choice and not a genetic factor. However, in a free country, people should be allowed to choose any lifestyle they want as long as everyone is consenting and of legal age.

4. I believe that there are specific gender roles. My wife also feels the same way. This is why I go to work and she takes care of the home. I wouldn't have married someone who felt differently on this. Again, we are both consenting adults and this is our choice. In other families, if both members want to work, or have the wife work and the husband stay home or whatever, I have no issues with that.

5. I believe that stereotypes are around for a reason. Whether it's age, sex, race, whatever, generalizations of EVERY category have some basis in reality. However, these stereotypes should be kept to yourself and should not change how you interact with people because we are all individuals and don't all fit into a category.

6. I believe that too many people abuse welfare but to get rid of it would hurt the ones who really need it.

7. I don't think spanking is abuse. I do believe there is a very distinct line between spanking and beating.

8. Insurance companies have ruined this country. They are the largest contributor to the failing economy. Every overpriced item (to include heathcare) is that way because of insurance companies.

9. I feel that, in our society, insurance companies have the right to charge what they want. I also feel that they will, at some point, be forced to drop their prices once we can no longer afford it. I don't think it's the governments job to get involved.

10. I feel the same way about gun laws as I do about welfare. Punishing everyone for the misuse of the few is not the right thing to do.

I'm sure there are several more. Maybe I'll list those later.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-18-2013, 03:47 PM
..."government officials and law enforcement". In other words - that M-16A4 you were issued is still okay for you to have.

BTW - stop repeating the hysteria that congress is "exempt from Obamacare" like that's some sort of conspiracy. All Federal Employees are exempt, because they fall under a different healthcare provider!

http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/
Exactly. And its only the weapons we are issued for wars, caus heaven forbid us having our own on a government installation or in the privacy of our own homes.

"Let them eat cake!!!"

TJMAC77SP
03-18-2013, 03:50 PM
BTW - stop repeating the hysteria that congress is "exempt from Obamacare" like that's some sort of conspiracy. All Federal Employees are exempt, because they fall under a different healthcare provider!

http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/

Please don't go all crazy on me for asking a question but why is the FEHB exempt from Obamacare?

Banned
03-18-2013, 04:12 PM
Please don't go all crazy on me for asking a question but why is the FEHB exempt from Obamacare?

Why wouldn't it be? Why would I need to be covered under healthcare plan #B if I'm already under #A?

Also worth noting that Federal employees are barred from using Tricare while covered.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-18-2013, 04:47 PM
Why wouldn't it be? Why would I need to be covered under healthcare plan #B if I'm already under #A?

Also worth noting that Federal employees are barred from using Tricare while covered.

Because it was supposed to be soo good that everyone would want to be covered by it. Oh, except those who give themselves even better healthcare packages. "Let them eat cake!!!"

TJMAC77SP
03-18-2013, 04:58 PM
Why wouldn't it be? Why would I need to be covered under healthcare plan #B if I'm already under #A?

Also worth noting that Federal employees are barred from using Tricare while covered.

I am still not getting it. Obamacare doesn't create a health care policy it regulates the contents, coverage and managment of health care policies offered by private companies. Why shouldn't the policies under the FEHB (which btw are underwritten by the same companies whose other health care plans ARE subject to Obamacare) be subject to the same provisions?

sandsjames
03-18-2013, 05:27 PM
I am still not getting it. Obamacare doesn't create a health care policy it regulates the contents, coverage and managment of health care policies offered by private companies. Why is the policies under the FEHB (which btw is underwritten by the same companies whose other health care plans ARE subject to Obamacare) be subject to the same provisions?

Exactly. This is forcing people into lining the pockets, even more, of those same companies that are being bitched about.

Banned
03-18-2013, 07:49 PM
I am still not getting it. Obamacare doesn't create a health care policy it regulates the contents, coverage and managment of health care policies offered by private companies. Why is the policies under the FEHB (which btw is underwritten by the same companies whose other health care plans ARE subject to Obamacare) be subject to the same provisions?

Did some digging, this seems to clear up the confusion pretty well:


How did the notion of an "exemption" get started? So far as we can find, the first to make the "exempt" claim was columnist John Fund, who used the word in a June Wall Street Journal opinion piece to describe a draft of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill. Fund wrote that the proposal "would specifically exempt Members of Congress from many of [the Obama plan's] provisions." But that was a misrepresentation.

Rather than listing "many" exemptions, Fund pointed only to page 114. That section stated that individuals who buy their own insurance and small firms (size to be determined) would be eligible to participate in state-based exchanges, which would offer a range of health insurance plans for purchase. Those who already get insurance through Medicare, Medicaid, the military’s Tricare insurance program, or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program wouldn’t be eligible. All federal employees, including members of Congress, fall under the FEHBP. Those who have coverage from a large employer wouldn’t be eligible, either, unless their coverage didn’t meet minimum benefits criteria or was deemed to be unaffordable.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/


Exactly. This is forcing people into lining the pockets, even more, of those same companies that are being bitched about.

You have still yet to explain how its fair for me to be forced to pay for uninsured people's emergency treatment at a hospital... rather than just get them insurance at a subsidized rate.

Its sad how people gloat about how they "pay their own medical bills"... which is really cute until they get slammed with a 10-20 thousand dollar bill that they can't pay.

TJMAC77SP
03-18-2013, 07:56 PM
Did some digging, this seems to clear up the confusion pretty well:


http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/




Well it cleared up the etymology of the use of 'exemption' in this case but not really my confusion. If I read this right FEHB is exempt but its not the only exemption (and I knew that). I still don't know why its exempt. It can't be because it meets all the requirements because TRICARE doesn't currently meet the requirements and it is still exempt.

I don't want to side track this thread. I just don't understand the exemption process.

Banned
03-18-2013, 08:02 PM
Well it cleared up the etymology of the use of 'exemption' in this case but not really my confusion. If I read this right FEHB is exempt but its not the only exemption (and I knew that). I still don't know why its exempt. It can't be because it meets all the requirements because TRICARE doesn't currently meet the requirements and it is still exempt.

I don't want to side track this thread. I just don't understand the exemption process.

I don't either... but I brought that up to refute the insinuation that Congress has some magic exemption from the provisions.

sandsjames
03-18-2013, 08:18 PM
You have still yet to explain how its fair for me to be forced to pay for uninsured people's emergency treatment at a hospital... rather than just get them insurance at a subsidized rate.

Its sad how people gloat about how they "pay their own medical bills"... which is really cute until they get slammed with a 10-20 thousand dollar bill that they can't pay.

I just can't believe that you, of all people Joe, are in bed with the insurance companies. I thought it was the Repubs who sucked the dicks of big business.

I'll agree with you completely that you shouldn't have to pay the medical bills of any other person, as you said. You should NOT be forced to pay for uninsured people's emergency treatment. I'm glad we're on the same track. After months and months of bickering, we've finally found some common ground.

Banned
03-18-2013, 08:36 PM
I just can't believe that you, of all people Joe, are in bed with the insurance companies. I thought it was the Repubs who sucked the dicks of big business.

I'll agree with you completely that you shouldn't have to pay the medical bills of any other person, as you said. You should NOT be forced to pay for uninsured people's emergency treatment. I'm glad we're on the same track. After months and months of bickering, we've finally found some common ground.

Yes, common ground is a good thing. So to clear this up -

1) We both agree that a privatized insurance system is greedy and inneficient.

2) We both agree (hopefully) that we can't just let people die in the street either.

So... is this an argument for a single payer system? Not trying to put words in your mouth... just clarifying.

sandsjames
03-18-2013, 08:49 PM
Yes, common ground is a good thing. So to clear this up -

1) We both agree that a privatized insurance system is greedy and inneficient.

2) We both agree (hopefully) that we can't just let people die in the street either.

So... is this an argument for a single payer system? Not trying to put words in your mouth... just clarifying.

Yes, a single payer system, as long as that means I'm the single payer who pays for my single medical care.

RobotChicken
03-18-2013, 09:03 PM
Yes, common ground is a good thing. So to clear this up -

1) We both agree that a privatized insurance system is greedy and inneficient.

2) We both agree (hopefully) that we can't just let people die in the street either.

So... is this an argument for a single payer system? Not trying to put words in your mouth... just clarifying.

BUT....Look at all the people that are 'exempt' from the program to begin with....just like the USPS having to fund everything 'up front'. They took ALL that money and spent it Chop-Chop! So in effect,there is no money for the Post offices future payments.(unless you really trust their vouchers)

RobotChicken
03-18-2013, 09:03 PM
Yes, common ground is a good thing. So to clear this up -

1) We both agree that a privatized insurance system is greedy and inneficient.

2) We both agree (hopefully) that we can't just let people die in the street either.

So... is this an argument for a single payer system? Not trying to put words in your mouth... just clarifying.

BUT....Look at all the people that are 'exempt' from the program to begin with....just like the USPS having to fund everything 'up front'. They took ALL that money and spent it Chop-Chop! So in effect,there is no money for the Post offices future payments.(unless you really trust their vouchers)

Banned
03-18-2013, 10:19 PM
Yes, a single payer system, as long as that means I'm the single payer who pays for my single medical care.

So you think if you slip down the stairs and have an $80k medical bill you're just going to pay it all off yourself? And if you can't afford it, you have no issue with dying or being a cripple for life?


BUT....Look at all the people that are 'exempt' from the program to begin with....just like the USPS having to fund everything 'up front'. They took ALL that money and spent it Chop-Chop! So in effect,there is no money for the Post offices future payments.(unless you really trust their vouchers)

Sort of I guess. USPS got thrown under the bus... they were required to pay for the pensions of people who literally haven't even joined yet up front, which of course put them deep into the hole.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2013, 11:42 AM
Yes, common ground is a good thing. So to clear this up -

1) We both agree that a privatized insurance system is greedy and inneficient.Riiiiiiiiight.....Cause government controled systems are the epitome of eficientcy. And greedy? Nah, they will just take what they need without your consent to pay for those that can't/wont pay their bills.


2) We both agree (hopefully) that we can't just let people die in the street either.

So... is this an argument for a single payer system? Not trying to put words in your mouth... just clarifying.
Yeah, its better they die in a comfy hospital bed that costs more than a night at the Ritz.

Pullinteeth
03-19-2013, 01:23 PM
You have still yet to explain how its fair for me to be forced to pay for uninsured people's emergency treatment at a hospital... rather than just get them insurance at a subsidized rate.

Are you seriously saying that you would like to pay other people's bills (that they may or may not have) all the time rather than just ponying up a portion when it is needed?

CYBERFX1024
03-19-2013, 03:07 PM
Sort of I guess. USPS got thrown under the bus... they were required to pay for the pensions of people who literally haven't even joined yet up front, which of course put them deep into the hole.

Actually they were required to actually put that money into the Postal Service pension system for every person enrolled instead of just a IOU. I actually looked into it because I was intrigued. The only people that are not employed by the USPS and still receiving money from the pension system are those that are already retired from it.

Banned
03-19-2013, 03:34 PM
Riiiiiiiiight.....Cause government controled systems are the epitome of eficientcy. And greedy? Nah, they will just take what they need without your consent to pay for those that can't/wont pay their bills.

I know, that's pretty awful of them to take care of the poor like that.


Yeah, its better they die in a comfy hospital bed that costs more than a night at the Ritz.

Did you really just say what I think you said... wow, that's some brotherly love right there!


Are you seriously saying that you would like to pay other people's bills (that they may or may not have) all the time rather than just ponying up a portion when it is needed?

That's the beauty of a single payer system... everybody puts into the pot what they can afford, everybody takes out what they need.


Actually they were required to actually put that money into the Postal Service pension system for every person enrolled instead of just a IOU. I actually looked into it because I was intrigued. The only people that are not employed by the USPS and still receiving money from the pension system are those that are already retired from it.

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

sandsjames
03-19-2013, 03:38 PM
That's the beauty of a single payer system... everybody puts into the pot what they can afford, everybody takes out what they need.





Like Social Security? How's that working out?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2013, 03:53 PM
I know, that's pretty awful of them to take care of the poor like that.You get more of something when you subsidise and less of what you tax. Isnt that the basis for taxing things like cigs? So we keep susidising the poor, and looky there, we have more poor than ever before. Not to mention you have to steal from those that produce to give to those that dont. You have to be nieve to think that 47 million people on food stamps is just a product of the times and not because THIS government keeps making it worth wild to those that want to have it easy.

Banned
03-19-2013, 03:56 PM
Like Social Security? How's that working out?

I could try to argue about tax brackets, the baby boomers, and all that stuff to you, but I know it would be pointless. So let's resolve this with a simple choice.

You have been injured, you will never be able to work again. You have two options:

#1: social security disability.

or

#2 private charity


Which would you choose?


You get more of something when you subsidise and less of what you tax. Isnt that the basis for taxing things like cigs? So we keep susidising the poor, and looky there, we have more poor than ever before. Not to mention you have to steal from those that produce to give to those that dont. You have to be nieve to think that 47 million people on food stamps is just a product of the times and not because THIS government keeps making it worth wild to those that want to have it easy.

Would you bet money on that?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2013, 04:02 PM
That's the beauty of a single payer system... everybody puts into the pot what they can afford, everybody takes out what they need.



Like Social Security? How's that working out?
People put in what the government says they can afford and then takes out what the government says they need. When the government is in charge, you have no real say, its just an illusion.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2013, 04:04 PM
Would you bet money on that?

Are you looking at real numbers, percentages, or some other cherry picked number you pull out to try and make your point?

Banned
03-19-2013, 04:05 PM
People put in what the government says they can afford and then takes out what the government says they need. When the government is in charge, you have no real say, its just an illusion.

As are most things. Explain to me the value of shiny yellow rocks. When you think about it, pretty much every aspect of a modern economy is imaginary - only reason it works is that everybody accepts the same conventions of value and worth.


Are you looking at real numbers, percentages, or some other cherry picked number you pull out to try and make your point?


No I'm just curious if you actually believe America is in some sort of dark age right now.

Poverty and standard of living - despite various problems - has steadily improved over time in America. No matter what Glenn Beck says.

sandsjames
03-19-2013, 04:05 PM
I could try to argue about tax brackets, the baby boomers, and all that stuff to you, but I know it would be pointless. So let's resolve this with a simple choice.

You have been injured, you will never be able to work again. You have two options:

#1: social security disability.

or

#2 private charity


Which would you choose?



You're missing my point, Joe. Social Security is (almost) a necessity. The problem is that the government seems unable to run a program like that. If that money was used for what it was intended instead of used for other governmental needs/wants the system would be fine. But it's not. To expect any other social program to serve it's intended purpose and to not be used for other things is naive. It's simple. If I pay into something for 50 years I should be able to expect that money to be there when I need it. However, that is not currently the case. Also, to require me to pay into a system that I'll probably never see the results of is fraud. I'd rather be able to put the money under my mattress and have it when I need it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2013, 04:07 PM
I could try to argue about tax brackets, the baby boomers, and all that stuff to you, but I know it would be pointless. So let's resolve this with a simple choice.

You have been injured, you will never be able to work again. You have two options:

#1: social security disability.

or

#2 private charity


Which would you choose?
Oh, I know. Since I was WORKING, I saved my money for my own retirement and emergency situation. That and insurance that I freely elected to contribute to. So now I covered my self incase of a horrific accident and dont have to rely on someone else to provide for me cause I did without some luxury and set my priorities straight.

Banned
03-19-2013, 04:08 PM
You're missing my point, Joe. Social Security is (almost) a necessity. The problem is that the government seems unable to run a program like that. If that money was used for what it was intended instead of used for other governmental needs/wants the system would be fine. But it's not. To expect any other social program to serve it's intended purpose and to not be used for other things is naive. It's simple. If I pay into something for 50 years I should be able to expect that money to be there when I need it. However, that is not currently the case. Also, to require me to pay into a system that I'll probably never see the results of is fraud. I'd rather be able to put the money under my mattress and have it when I need it.

The issue is that it is essentially a ponzi scheme... which works, until you get a generation that is larger than the ones that follow it - which is exactly what we have with the baby boomers. That in itself wouldn't necessarily be bad, but there is also this ideology that all taxes are bad, so we can't even adjust the brackets to fix the system.

And of course sky-rocketing medical costs.


Oh, I know. Since I was WORKING, I saved my money for my own retirement and emergency situation. That and insurance that I freely elected to contribute to. So now I covered my self incase of a horrific accident and dont have to rely on someone else to provide for me cause I did without some luxury and set my priorities straight.

I'm curious how long you think those savings would last if you were unable produce any new income.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2013, 04:15 PM
As are most things. Explain to me the value of shiny yellow rocks. When you think about it, pretty much every aspect of a modern economy is imaginary - only reason it works is that everybody accepts the same conventions of value and worth.Listening to more of the drivel from the left economists huh? Gold having no entrinsic (sp) value? Its only been a staple of human currency from about the beginning. Its physical and is given value because it can be touched. Not to mention it is very useful in many technologies and decorations. I threw in decoration for the liberal artists out there. The fiat crap of now, can be gone in a blink of an eye. But that is ok as long as you have a mans word that its backed right?


No I'm just curious if you actually believe America is in some sort of dark age right now.

Poverty and standard of living - despite various problems - has steadily improved over time in America. No matter what Glenn Beck says.
I dont listen to Beck since his backing of Santorum, but thanks for the assuption.

We arent dark yet, but its a tall tale sign of things to come. Cycle of democracy is swiftly approaching the end in the US as it is doing in many EU nations.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2013, 04:20 PM
The issue is that it is essentially a ponzi scheme... which works, until you get a generation that is larger than the ones that follow it - which is exactly what we have with the baby boomers. That in itself wouldn't necessarily be bad, but there is also this ideology that all taxes are bad, so we can't even adjust the brackets to fix the system.

And of course sky-rocketing medical costs.So you are ok with fraud? Why is it ok for the government to keep your money when it cant pay you, but if the "evil banks" did it, then you are in an uproar? The government doesnt produce anything. Everything it gives out must first be taken from someone else. At least the banks start with a product. But no investment is 100% secure, not even keeping the cash under the mattress.


I'm curious how long you think those savings would last if you were unable produce any new income.
Depends on the insurance I took out. I would have planned for what my income needed to be if I couldnt produce any more. Fore thought, something the government never has.

Banned
03-19-2013, 04:32 PM
Listening to more of the drivel from the left economists huh? Gold having no entrinsic (sp) value? Its only been a staple of human currency from about the beginning. Its physical and is given value because it can be touched. Not to mention it is very useful in many technologies and decorations. I threw in decoration for the liberal artists out there. The fiat crap of now, can be gone in a blink of an eye. But that is ok as long as you have a mans word that its backed right?

Your belief system falters when you realize that the mining of gold, diamonds, and other precious minerals is carefully controlled around the world - so as to not gather too much at once and collapse the market. And why is this? Because their value is not based on reality, it is an arbitrary construct of human society.

I would think you of all people would understand that worldly possessions have no real value!


I dont listen to Beck since his backing of Santorum, but thanks for the assuption.

We arent dark yet, but its a tall tale sign of things to come. Cycle of democracy is swiftly approaching the end in the US as it is doing in many EU nations.

...so is poverty lower or higher than it was 20 years, 50 years, and 100 years ago?


So you are ok with fraud? Why is it ok for the government to keep your money when it cant pay you, but if the "evil banks" did it, then you are in an uproar? The government doesnt produce anything. Everything it gives out must first be taken from someone else. At least the banks start with a product. But no investment is 100% secure, not even keeping the cash under the mattress.


Depends on the insurance I took out. I would have planned for what my income needed to be if I couldnt produce any more. Fore thought, something the government never has.

Where did I mention fraud? Its not okay for anyone to commit fraud.

bluecyclone1
03-19-2013, 04:40 PM
The issue is that it is essentially a ponzi scheme... which works, until you get a generation that is larger than the ones that follow it - which is exactly what we have with the baby boomers. That in itself wouldn't necessarily be bad, but there is also this ideology that all taxes are bad, so we can't even adjust the brackets to fix the system.

And of course sky-rocketing medical costs.



I'm curious how long you think those savings would last if you were unable produce any new income.

Joe is right on this one. Social Security was a ponzi scheme in every possible way. What FDR had no possible clue of was the fact that WW2 was going to spawn the amount of people that it did. I don't know about anyone else, but in no way am I going to depend on social security when I retire. We were all taught as children(hopefully) how to save money and be responsible with our money. If you weren't able to get that lesson then it's not my fault you're broke and have nothing to live on after retirement. However, like I've said before numerous times, if you're destitute through no fault of your own, then fine I have no problem helping you out. It's time we got rid of Social Security as it is now and put something in that is actually profitable and makes good use of our tax money. If it means a TSP/IRA style program then so be it.

bluecyclone1
03-19-2013, 04:41 PM
The issue is that it is essentially a ponzi scheme... which works, until you get a generation that is larger than the ones that follow it - which is exactly what we have with the baby boomers. That in itself wouldn't necessarily be bad, but there is also this ideology that all taxes are bad, so we can't even adjust the brackets to fix the system.

And of course sky-rocketing medical costs.



I'm curious how long you think those savings would last if you were unable produce any new income.

Joe is right on this one. Social Security was a ponzi scheme in every possible way. What FDR had no possible clue of was the fact that WW2 was going to spawn the amount of people that it did. I don't know about anyone else, but in no way am I going to depend on social security when I retire. We were all taught as children(hopefully) how to save money and be responsible with our money. If you weren't able to get that lesson then it's not my fault you're broke and have nothing to live on after retirement. However, like I've said before numerous times, if you're destitute through no fault of your own, then fine I have no problem helping you out. It's time we got rid of Social Security as it is now and put something in that is actually profitable and makes good use of our tax money. If it means a TSP/IRA style program then so be it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2013, 04:51 PM
Your belief system falters when you realize that the mining of gold, diamonds, and other precious minerals is carefully controlled around the world - so as to not gather too much at once and collapse the market. And why is this? Because their value is not based on reality, it is an arbitrary construct of human society.

I would think you of all people would understand that worldly possessions have no real value!Yes, the law of supply and demand. Its why our dollar is going down and gas prices and food prices are going up, cause the QEs are producing so much of the dollar. The difference is, gold has only a finite amount of it while adding zeros into a digital system has no end and can be done with a few key strokes. There is work involved when going for gold, very little in the production of new fiat currency.

Nice jab at the Christianity btw, but Jesus was more upset at the hagglers and husslers of the investment industry than he was a gold and worldly objects.


...so is poverty lower or higher than it was 20 years, 50 years, and 100 years ago?That is a loaded question. Are there more people on food stamps needing help from government? Yes. Do the poor make more? Yes. Does it buy less? Yes. And liberals favorite line of the wealth gap expanding? Yes. Why? Cause the government producing more dollars and giving it to those that dont work for it, there for spend it and ask for more, and that money goes to the owners of the businesses, thus widening the gap. The poor stay at zero, and the rich get richer.


Where did I mention fraud? Its not okay for anyone to commit fraud.
Hence what a ponzi scheme is, but you are ok with the government SS program why? Cause you are FORCED to participate?

sandsjames
03-19-2013, 05:19 PM
The issue is that it is essentially a ponzi scheme... which works, until you get a generation that is larger than the ones that follow it - which is exactly what we have with the baby boomers. That in itself wouldn't necessarily be bad, but there is also this ideology that all taxes are bad, so we can't even adjust the brackets to fix the system. Agree here, except I don't believe that taxes are bad. We CAN adjust the brackets. A flat rate for everyone, with no deductions or loopholes.


And of course sky-rocketing medical costs. Due to all medical professionals, and hospitals, having to purchase an exhorbitant amount of malpractice insurance due to people being award outrageous settlements from frivolous lawsuits.


I'm curious how long you think those savings would last if you were unable produce any new income.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2013, 05:42 PM
Due to all medical professionals, and hospitals, having to purchase an exhorbitant amount of malpractice insurance due to people being award outrageous settlements from frivolous lawsuits.
But thats just a way to redistibute the money from the wealthy to those that dont have much. And lawsuits are a great tool for social justice. Although, it should be clear to the obvious spectator that those people are just biting the hand that feeds them and causing it to be worse for everyone else.

Banned
03-19-2013, 07:34 PM
But thats just a way to redistibute the money from the wealthy to those that dont have much. And lawsuits are a great tool for social justice. Although, it should be clear to the obvious spectator that those people are just biting the hand that feeds them and causing it to be worse for everyone else.

Its a product of the free market. If there's a demand for lawyers and litigation, lawyers will come into the business - and it is in their interest to encourage increases in litigation. That's market logic for you.

Banned
03-19-2013, 07:46 PM
Yes, the law of supply and demand. Its why our dollar is going down and gas prices and food prices are going up, cause the QEs are producing so much of the dollar.

The price of energy is unrelated to the dollar. Food prices are directly related to energy prices - if the cost of energy goes up, food will for obvious reasons follow suit.


The difference is, gold has only a finite amount of it while adding zeros into a digital system has no end and can be done with a few key strokes. There is work involved when going for gold, very little in the production of new fiat currency.

Which is exactly why virtually the entire world moved away from the gold standard almost a hundred years ago. The monetary supply can be shrunk or expanded based upon the needs of the economy. The size of our population and economy has gone up almost exponentially over time... hence why the gold standard failed.


Nice jab at the Christianity btw, but Jesus was more upset at the hagglers and husslers of the investment industry than he was a gold and worldly objects.

Not a jab at all - I just find it interesting that Christians were among the first people to oppose the gold standard... now its Christians saying we should bring it back. Fascinating how cultural attitudes change over time.


That is a loaded question. Are there more people on food stamps needing help from government? Yes. Do the poor make more? Yes. Does it buy less? Yes. And liberals favorite line of the wealth gap expanding? Yes. Why? Cause the government producing more dollars and giving it to those that dont work for it, there for spend it and ask for more, and that money goes to the owners of the businesses, thus widening the gap. The poor stay at zero, and the rich get richer.

And that's part of it. Back in the "old days" the poor simply starved. If poor children got sick, they died. Simple as that. They died. No ifs ands or buts about it. Your kids got sick and you had no money, you got to watch them die and there was nothing you could do about it. Now we have social safety nets in place to prevent that from happening. Poverty in America has DEFINITELy improved.


Hence what a ponzi scheme is, but you are ok with the government SS program why? Cause you are FORCED to participate?

Society is "forced" to support you if you need it, so its only fair that you be required to support society. Its a social contract.


Agree here, except I don't believe that taxes are bad. We CAN adjust the brackets. A flat rate for everyone, with no deductions or loopholes.

Due to all medical professionals, and hospitals, having to purchase an exhorbitant amount of malpractice insurance due to people being award outrageous settlements from frivolous lawsuits.

That's a product of a capitalist system.

Pullinteeth
03-19-2013, 08:03 PM
Poverty and standard of living - despite various problems - has steadily improved over time in America. No matter what Glenn Beck says.

So...actual facts and figures don't make a dent in your world view?

The FACT is that in 2012 more than 16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty-highest number since 1993. Abject poverty rates are double the 1996 rates (defined by living off of $2 a day or less). Of course raw #s don't tell the real story but percentages come close. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, poverty levels in the U.S. are rapidly approacing the poverty rates of the 1960s so yeah....giant leaps and bounds forward right? It isn't really fair to compare anything before 1960 because prior to then, the U.S. didn't really have an established poverty line....

If you like charts, here is a chart from 1959-2009. Just imagine the line continues upward to 16% in 2012...


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf

CYBERFX1024
03-19-2013, 08:25 PM
And that's part of it. Back in the "old days" the poor simply starved. If poor children got sick, they died. Simple as that. They died. No ifs ands or buts about it. Your kids got sick and you had no money, you got to watch them die and there was nothing you could do about it. Now we have social safety nets in place to prevent that from happening. Poverty in America has DEFINITELy improved.
Society is "forced" to support you if you need it, so its only fair that you be required to support society. Its a social contract.
That's a product of a capitalist system.

I believe that the Social Security System should be scaled WAY back from it is now. I believe everyone below a certain age bracket should put a percentage of the money going to social security now, be put into a 401K system for retirement. Then the rest of that should go to pay the current retirees. So that it STOPS being a PONZI scheme. It has already been proven by the administration itself that you will get paid less than you pay into social security.

Social Security should be used to help those that CAN NOT help themselves due to some disability or impairment. Not for those that want to scam the system.

CYBERFX1024
03-19-2013, 08:33 PM
[QUOTE=Joe Bonham;613911]The price of energy is unrelated to the dollar. Food prices are directly related to energy prices - if the cost of energy goes up, food will for obvious reasons follow suit.
Which is exactly why virtually the entire world moved away from the gold standard almost a hundred years ago. The monetary supply can be shrunk or expanded based upon the needs of the economy. The size of our population and economy has gone up almost exponentially over time... hence why the gold standard failed.
Not a jab at all - I just find it interesting that Christians were among the first people to oppose the gold standard... now its Christians saying we should bring it back. Fascinating how cultural attitudes change over time.QUOTE]

You are correct and that is why the USA moved off the gold standard. So that the government can print money with NO back whenever they want to shore up the economy. It's not just Christians who are wanting to bring back the gold standard, but people of all religions. We are tired of this administration printing more and more money to make sure that the interests rates stay low and buying bonds to artificially push up the economy.

Banned
03-20-2013, 02:20 AM
So...actual facts and figures don't make a dent in your world view?

The FACT is that in 2012 more than 16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty-highest number since 1993. Abject poverty rates are double the 1996 rates (defined by living off of $2 a day or less). Of course raw #s don't tell the real story but percentages come close. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, poverty levels in the U.S. are rapidly approacing the poverty rates of the 1960s so yeah....giant leaps and bounds forward right? It isn't really fair to compare anything before 1960 because prior to then, the U.S. didn't really have an established poverty line....

If you like charts, here is a chart from 1959-2009. Just imagine the line continues upward to 16% in 2012...


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf

I think you missed the context of that conversation.

We're talking about long term trends - hence why I said "50 years, 100 years" etc. That's like saying America hasn't improved poverty levels and pointing to the Great Depression. We've had depressions and recessions... we've bounced back every time. In case we haven't noticed, we just left the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, so it shouldn't be a surprise that poverty levels are abnormally high.

What I'm much more concerned about is wealth redistribution increasing upwards to the 1%...

As for the census chart, surely you'll agree that our definition of "poverty" has changed drastically over time. The average poor person today is hurting... but we're not talking grapes of wrath levels of poverty!


I believe that the Social Security System should be scaled WAY back from it is now. I believe everyone below a certain age bracket should put a percentage of the money going to social security now, be put into a 401K system for retirement. Then the rest of that should go to pay the current retirees. So that it STOPS being a PONZI scheme. It has already been proven by the administration itself that you will get paid less than you pay into social security.

Social Security should be used to help those that CAN NOT help themselves due to some disability or impairment. Not for those that want to scam the system.

We're already hitting the "bump in the road" with the baby boomers. Once they're dead, the situation will stabilize.




You are correct and that is why the USA moved off the gold standard. So that the government can print money with NO back whenever they want to shore up the economy. It's not just Christians who are wanting to bring back the gold standard, but people of all religions. We are tired of this administration printing more and more money to make sure that the interests rates stay low and buying bonds to artificially push up the economy.

The point I was driving at - is that American Christians originally opposed the gold standard because it is a cruel, senseless, and completely stupid system. "The cross of gold".

Banned
03-20-2013, 02:39 AM
William Jennings Bryan is one of my favorite American politicians of all time - I'll even give him a pass on his silly crusade against evolution, because to me, he is the very definition of a moral human being.

His "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896 is one of the most famous speeches in American history, and is worth reading in full:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 02:48 AM
It's time we got rid of Social Security as it is now and put something in that is actually profitable and makes good use of our tax money.

Anyone who says that needs to go read up on the great depression and the original reasoning behind Social Security, it isn't, and never was, a retirement plan.


Which is exactly why virtually the entire world moved away from the gold standard almost a hundred years ago.

Nixon took the US Dollar (and hence the rest of the world) off the gold standard in 1973, hardly a hundred years ago, although it might seem like it.



We're already hitting the "bump in the road" with the baby boomers. Once they're dead, the situation will stabilize.

Had politicians (Republicrats and Demicans alike) left the Social Security Trust Fund alone, and not constantly used it as a piggy bank ripe for raiding, there would have been more than enough funds to cover this "bump in the road." It's not the Social Security system that is broke, it's the abuse and manipulation of a good system that is the problem.


The point I was driving at - is that American Christians originally opposed the gold standard because it is a cruel, senseless, and completely stupid system. "The cross of gold".

Religious ideology had nothing to do with leaving the gold standard. Furthermore, some economist have argued that the roots of our Great Recession go back to Nixon pulling us off the gold standard by essentially making the US Dollar a fiat currency - promises are easy to make with nothing to back it up.

Banned
03-20-2013, 02:59 AM
Nixon took the US Dollar (and hence the rest of the world) off the gold standard in 1973, hardly a hundred years ago, although it might seem like it.

The United States left the Gold standard for the first time in the 20th century under FDR... (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-takes-united-states-off-gold-standard)


Religious ideology had nothing to do with leaving the gold standard. Furthermore, some economist have argued that the roots of our Great Recession go back to Nixon pulling us off the gold standard by essentially making the US Dollar a fiat currency - promises are easy to make with nothing to back it up.

In a sense - but the free silver movement, and the culmination of effort that eventually led to FDR taking us off the gold standard during the great depression was very much a moral movement. Christians objected to the gold standard because it screwed over the working class for the benefit of the rich.

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 03:07 AM
The United States left the Gold standard for the first time in the 20th century under FDR... (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-takes-united-states-off-gold-standard)

The US did not leave the gold standard under FDR, he made steps away from it, but from your own reference: "The government held the $35 per ounce price until August 15, 1971, when PresidentRichard Nixon (http://www.history.com/topics/richard-m-nixon) announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, thus completely abandoning the gold standard."


In a sense - but the free silver movement, and the culmination of effort that eventually led to FDR taking us off the gold standard during the great depression was very much a moral movement. Christians objected to the gold standard because it screwed over the working class for the benefit of the rich.

Rubbish.

Pullinteeth
03-20-2013, 01:40 PM
I think you missed the context of that conversation.

We're talking about long term trends - hence why I said "50 years, 100 years" etc. That's like saying America hasn't improved poverty levels and pointing to the Great Depression. We've had depressions and recessions... we've bounced back every time. In case we haven't noticed, we just left the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, so it shouldn't be a surprise that poverty levels are abnormally high.

What I'm much more concerned about is wealth redistribution increasing upwards to the 1%...

As for the census chart, surely you'll agree that our definition of "poverty" has changed drastically over time. The average poor person today is hurting... but we're not talking grapes of wrath levels of poverty!

Wrong and...wrong. Poverty levels are higher than they were 50 years ago. It is impossible to tell what they are compared to 100 years ago because it wasn't until 1959 when the U.S. established a standard for the poverty line. The census chart ONLY shows data from 1959 (when the U.S. established a standard for determining poverty) so no, the data on that chart is fairly accurate. Anything before that, is just a guess or an estimation because it is impossible to determine who would or would not have fallen below the poverty standard established in 1959.

CYBERFX1024
03-20-2013, 01:54 PM
The United States left the Gold standard for the first time in the 20th century under FDR... (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-takes-united-states-off-gold-standard)

In a sense - but the free silver movement, and the culmination of effort that eventually led to FDR taking us off the gold standard during the great depression was very much a moral movement. Christians objected to the gold standard because it screwed over the working class for the benefit of the rich.

I don't know where you get your information from but it is wrong. FDR confiscated everyone's gold in the 1930's and gave them cash for the gold. We didn't go off gold standard until the 70's.

Why do you keep insisting in making everything a religious debate? You bring up something someone said over a 100years ago and then broadly claim that all Christians feel this way.

bluecyclone1
03-20-2013, 01:55 PM
Anyone who says that needs to go read up on the great depression and the original reasoning behind Social Security, it isn't, and never was, a retirement plan.



Nixon took the US Dollar (and hence the rest of the world) off the gold standard in 1973, hardly a hundred years ago, although it might seem like it.



Had politicians (Republicrats and Demicans alike) left the Social Security Trust Fund alone, and not constantly used it as a piggy bank ripe for raiding, there would have been more than enough funds to cover this "bump in the road." It's not the Social Security system that is broke, it's the abuse and manipulation of a good system that is the problem.



Religious ideology had nothing to do with leaving the gold standard. Furthermore, some economist have argued that the roots of our Great Recession go back to Nixon pulling us off the gold standard by essentially making the US Dollar a fiat currency - promises are easy to make with nothing to back it up.

How do you figure that? Do you actually expect seniors to work until they die. Crack that whip massa!! Yes, FDR instituted Social Security because of seniors that were impoverished during the great depression. Those same seniors were also considered to be "retired". So if that isn't a "retirement plan", then what in the hell is? Oh and here's a little gem from the Roosevelt Institute:
The most famous measure of the New Deal was the 1935 Social Security Act, which led to the establishment of the Social Security Administration and the creation of a national system of old-age pensions and unemployment compensation.
Old age pensions.....interesting indeed.

Banned
03-20-2013, 03:35 PM
Why do you keep insisting in making everything a religious debate? You bring up something someone said over a 100years ago and then broadly claim that all Christians feel this way.

Because at one point, this religion used to be an admirable movement, fighting for the poor against an unfair system.


[QUOTE=Quixotic;613986]The US did not leave the gold standard under FDR, he made steps away from it, but from your own reference: "The government held the $35 per ounce price until August 15, 1971, when PresidentRichard Nixon (http://www.history.com/topics/richard-m-nixon) announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, thus completely abandoning the gold standard."


So why did you contest my statement that we "moved away" from the gold standard under FDR? What part of this statement is inaccurate?


Rubbish.

On the contrary, American Christianity was an extremely admirable movement until it got hijacked and twisted into an apologist front for the 1%.


As for the folks here insisting we go back to the gold standard, here's some food for thought:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/Oct/Figure1-depression.png


Wrong and...wrong. Poverty levels are higher than they were 50 years ago. It is impossible to tell what they are compared to 100 years ago because it wasn't until 1959 when the U.S. established a standard for the poverty line. The census chart ONLY shows data from 1959 (when the U.S. established a standard for determining poverty) so no, the data on that chart is fairly accurate. Anything before that, is just a guess or an estimation because it is impossible to determine who would or would not have fallen below the poverty standard established in 1959.

Oh, so first it was higher than in 1996, now all of a sudden you're claiming its also higher than in 1959? You're full of shit... even your own source shows this isn't true. Your graph shows the poverty in the 1950s to be over 20%... while the end of the graph in 2009 showed it to be less than 15%, at the height of the recession.

Pullinteeth
03-20-2013, 04:45 PM
Oh, so first it was higher than in 1996, now all of a sudden you're claiming its also higher than in 1959? You're full of shit... even your own source shows this isn't true. Your graph shows the poverty in the 1950s to be over 20%... while the end of the graph in 2009 showed it to be less than 15%, at the height of the recession.

Yeah...so you can't read. I get that. I never said it was higher than it was in 1959. I said 50 years ago...by my math, that would be 1963. Even then, you are correct, it was slightly higher in 1963 but not by much...It also looks like 1983 was pretty close to last year. I also said that you would have to use your imagination to see the line go UP to 16% for 2012... Doesn't seem like the data supports your asseration that poverty levels have declined over the last 50 years...unless of course you meant they declined and climbed back up...

Banned
03-20-2013, 04:51 PM
Yeah...so you can't read. I get that. I never said it was higher than it was in 1959. I said 50 years ago...by my math, that would be 1963. Even then, you are correct, it was slightly higher in 1963 but not by much...It also looks like 1983 was pretty close to last year. I also said that you would have to use your imagination to see the line go UP to 16% for 2012... Doesn't seem like the data supports your asseration that poverty levels have declined over the last 50 years...unless of course you meant they declined and climbed back up...

If you can't see how a drop from 22% to 14% is an improvement, then I really can't help you except to offer my sympathies...

Also love how you ignored the entire argument how "poverty" today is different than it used to be, because we have social safety nets...

EDIT - I think we're definitely getting off on the wrong foot here, and I'm being muddled in what I'm trying to say. The point I was driving at is that the poverty situation today is better than it used to be, due to the poor having safety nets... but at the same time I am concerned about stagnating wages and wealth concentration - which are both extremely negative factors towards poverty levels in the United States.

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 06:13 PM
So why did you contest my statement that we "moved away" from the gold standard under FDR? What part of this statement is inaccurate?

The fact that that wasn't your statement.



On the contrary, American Christianity was an extremely admirable movement until it got hijacked and twisted into an apologist front for the 1%.

Still, rubbish.

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 06:18 PM
How do you figure that? Do you actually expect seniors to work until they die. Crack that whip massa!! Yes, FDR instituted Social Security because of seniors that were impoverished during the great depression. Those same seniors were also considered to be "retired". So if that isn't a "retirement plan", then what in the hell is? Oh and here's a little gem from the Roosevelt Institute:
The most famous measure of the New Deal was the 1935 Social Security Act, which led to the establishment of the Social Security Administration and the creation of a national system of old-age pensions and unemployment compensation.
Old age pensions.....interesting indeed.

There's a big difference between a retirement plan, and a meager pension designed only to allow the elderly to live at the poverty line.

I can't wait until the 85% of my peer group who have saved nothing for retirement, i.e. have no retirement plan, turn 65 and think they're going to live a life of leisure on Social Security.

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 06:20 PM
There's a big difference between a retirement plan, and a meager pension designed only to allow the elderly to live at the poverty line.

I can't wait until the 85% of my peer group who have saved nothing for retirement, i.e. have no retirement plan, turn 65 and think they're going to live a life of leisure on Social Security.

Probably doesn't matter. By the time your peer group reaches retirement age, the retirement age will be 92.

Banned
03-20-2013, 06:38 PM
The fact that that wasn't your statement.

So this isn't my statement...?

"Which is exactly why virtually the entire world moved away from the gold standard almost a hundred years ago."



Still, rubbish.

I'm no fan of religion... but I give credit where its due. And Christianity in its uncorrupted form did do some good things for the country.

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 07:05 PM
So this isn't my statement...?

"Which is exactly why virtually the entire world moved away from the gold standard almost a hundred years ago."




I'm no fan of religion... but I give credit where its due. And Christianity in its uncorrupted form did do some good things for the country.

As does everything else in it's uncorrupted form. You know all the things you advocate? If they were uncorrupted, I'd be all for them. However, every single "safety net" program is as corrupt as you claim Christianity to be.

Banned
03-20-2013, 07:16 PM
As does everything else in it's uncorrupted form. You know all the things you advocate? If they were uncorrupted, I'd be all for them. However, every single "safety net" program is as corrupt as you claim Christianity to be.

We're not seeing eye to eye on this one. Safety nets, however imperfect, exist for the benefit of the poor. Christianity as an organization, from a historical perspective in America, had my support until the movement stopped fighting for the poor and became a tool for the rich to keep the poor down.

Christian Socialists? Christian Free Silver Movement? All good in my book.

Pullinteeth
03-20-2013, 07:18 PM
So this isn't my statement...?

"Which is exactly why virtually the entire world moved away from the gold standard almost a hundred years ago."

I have to agree with you on this one Joe... Though both of you are kinda right and if either of you had read the whole article you posted, I think there would have been less disagreement. FDR took us off of the true gold standard in 1933-where our currency was backed by gold, exchangable for gold, and the relative worth of the currency was based upon the value of the gold that backed it up. He also ordered the confiscation (exchange) of gold in civilian hands. Then, Congress increased what they deemed gold to be worth and the dollar was strengthened overnight-would be nice to have that kind of control today huh? However, our currency was still backed by gold to a certian extent until Nixon scrapped the whole thing in 1971 so we were technically on the gold standard still but in name only. In 1974, Ford made it legal for civilians to own gold again and the price has been on the rise since...

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 07:18 PM
So this isn't my statement...?

"Which is exactly why virtually the entire world moved away from the gold standard almost a hundred years ago."


NOBODY moved away from the gold standard a hundred years ago - not even American Christians.

FDR DID NOT pull us off the gold standard in 1934.

Nixon did pull us off the gold standard in 1971 via E.O 11615.

Why is that so hard for you to get?

Banned
03-20-2013, 07:20 PM
I have to agree with you on this one Joe... Though both of you are kinda right and if either of you had read the whole article you posted, I think there would have been less disagreement. FDR took us off of the true gold standard in 1933-where our currency was backed by gold, exchangable for gold, and the relative worth of the currency was based upon the value of the gold that backed it up. He also ordered the confiscation (exchange) of gold in civilian hands. Then, Congress increased what they deemed gold to be worth and the dollar was strengthened overnight-would be nice to have that kind of control today huh? However, our currency was still backed by gold to a certian extent until Nixon scrapped the whole thing in 1971 so we were technically on the gold standard still but in name only. In 1974, Ford made it legal for civilians to own gold again and the price has been on the rise since...

That's a good explanation, and increases my own understanding of the subject as well. Thanks.

Pullinteeth
03-20-2013, 07:25 PM
NOBODY moved away from the gold standard a hundred years ago - not even American Christians.

FDR DID NOT pull us off the gold standard in 1934.

Nixon did pull us off the gold standard in 1971 via E.O 11615.

Why is that so hard for you to get?

Well...that just isn't true. The UK went off the gold standard during the Napoleonic wars, the U.S. went off the gold standard during the Civil War, the U.K. went off again at the onset of WWI, Germany went off it in 1914...

Oh and you are right FDR didn't pull us off the gold standard in 1934...it was 1933.

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 07:35 PM
Well...that just isn't true. The UK went off the gold standard during the Napoleonic wars, the U.S. went off the gold standard during the Civil War, the U.K. went off again at the onset of WWI, Germany went off it in 1914...

Yes, the Napoleonic wars, the Civil War, and WWI all happened exactly a hundred years ago today, got it.

Banned
03-20-2013, 07:46 PM
Yes, the Napoleonic wars, the Civil War, and WWI all happened exactly a hundred years ago today, got it.

Where did I say "exactly" a hundred years ago? Jesus. Now you're just getting silly. Why can't we just meet in the middle on this one?

Pullinteeth
03-20-2013, 07:54 PM
Yes, the Napoleonic wars, the Civil War, and WWI all happened exactly a hundred years ago today, got it.

I didn't say it was...it was actually over 100 years ago and you said no one went off the gold standard 100 years ago. Of course you also said FDR didn't pull us off the gold standard in 1934 because it was in fact 1933 so I guess I should have expected you to limit the scope of interest to 1913... Germany and the UK both went off the gold standard in 1914 but apparently that isn't close enough for you...

Banned
03-20-2013, 07:58 PM
I didn't say it was...it was actually over 100 years ago and you said no one went off the gold standard 100 years ago. Of course you also said FDR didn't pull us off the gold standard in 1934 because it was in fact 1933 so I guess I should have expected you to limit the scope of interest to 1913... Germany and the UK both went off the gold standard in 1914 but apparently that isn't close enough for you...

That started when I said "almost a hundred years ago", referring to FDR and rounding up.

bluecyclone1
03-20-2013, 08:04 PM
There's a big difference between a retirement plan, and a meager pension designed only to allow the elderly to live at the poverty line.

I can't wait until the 85% of my peer group who have saved nothing for retirement, i.e. have no retirement plan, turn 65 and think they're going to live a life of leisure on Social Security.

Well, let's see here. The same thing could be said about the military's "retirement plan". Do you think for one flat second that you could afford to live from age 38 until death on 75%(at best) of say an E-7s high three base pay? The best you can conservatively hope for AFTER 40 years of retirement(if you live that long) is $40K/yr. Talk about a "meager pension".......

We could argue semantics all day long, but the definitions remain the same regardless of personal interpretation. The first sentence of SSA Publication No. 05-10035 states that Social Security is part of the retirement plan of almost every American worker. Now whether or not you decide to foolishly depend solely on Social Security in this day and age is completely up to you. That is a point I will not debate because I already stated that I won't depend on it at all for retirement. But there were a lot of people who were sold on this "Social Security" as a retirement. The interwebz, the media, and some of the books you read in the shool(yes, I meant to misspell school) paint a completely different picture that what people who actually lived through the depression were told by the government when they were trying to slide this deal through congress. I heard about the sales pitch every single day growing up.

Do you think that if it wasn't marketed as a "retirement plan" they would have been able to get it ratified? A tax increase during a time when money was already extremely tight would have gone over like a fart in church and FDR would have been run out on a rail unless it was camouflaged with two tons of bullshit. And there you have your "Social Security".

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 08:38 PM
I didn't say it was...it was actually over 100 years ago and you said no one went off the gold standard 100 years ago. Of course you also said FDR didn't pull us off the gold standard in 1934 because it was in fact 1933 so I guess I should have expected you to limit the scope of interest to 1913... Germany and the UK both went off the gold standard in 1914 but apparently that isn't close enough for you...

No you didn't, I did, in the post you were referring to.

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 08:49 PM
[QUOTE=bluecyclone1;614194]Well, let's see here. The same thing could be said about the military's "retirement plan". Do you think for one flat second that you could afford to live from age 38 until death on 75%(at best) of say an E-7s high three base pay? The best you can conservatively hope for AFTER 40 years of retirement(if you live that long) is $40K/yr. Talk about a "meager pension".......

I'm not talking about the military retirement plan, I'm talking about Social Security.


We could argue semantics all day long, but the definitions remain the same regardless of personal interpretation. The first sentence of SSA Publication No. 05-10035 states that Social Security is part of the retirement plan of almost every American worker. Now whether or not you decide to foolishly depend solely on Social Security in this day and age is completely up to you. That is a point I will not debate because I already stated that I won't depend on it at all for retirement. But there were a lot of people who were sold on this "Social Security" as a retirement. The interwebz, the media, and some of the books you read in the shool(yes, I meant to misspell school) paint a completely different picture that what people who actually lived through the depression were told by the government when they were trying to slide this deal through congress. I heard about the sales pitch every single day growing up.

Key word, part, a small part, not a plan in and of its self. Go find the word "retirement plan" in the legislation, I didn't see it, do you?


Do you think that if it wasn't marketed as a "retirement plan" they would have been able to get it ratified? A tax increase during a time when money was already extremely tight would have gone over like a fart in church and FDR would have been run out on a rail unless it was camouflaged with two tons of bullshit. And there you have your "Social Security".

Yes, that's exactly what happened, I'm sure of it.

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 08:55 PM
We could argue semantics all day long, but the definitions remain the same regardless of personal interpretation.

So you consider a retirement plan, a pension, and unemployment insurance to all be pretty much the same thing?

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 09:03 PM
So you consider a retirement plan, a pension, and unemployment insurance to all be pretty much the same thing?

That sounds about right. Well, not UI, but the other two, yes.

bluecyclone1
03-20-2013, 09:31 PM
So you consider a retirement plan, a pension, and unemployment insurance to all be pretty much the same thing?

When did I ever mention anything about unemployment insurance? I was referring to Social Security in the context of retirement only. Clever attempt at misdirection, but let's stay on the subject shall we? So when you ask if I consider a retirement plan and a pension to be pretty much the same thing, I would say yes. Maybe you should read your W-2 once in a while. There is a little box called Box 13(yes I'm actually going to make you read your W-2 to find out what this box means). One of the IRS definitions for having this box checked is as follows: A qualified pension, profit-sharing, or stock-bonus plan under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a) (including a 401(k) plan). That should just about do it I believe.

Shrike
03-20-2013, 09:32 PM
Well, let's see here. The same thing could be said about the military's "retirement plan". Do you think for one flat second that you could afford to live from age 38 until death on 75%(at best) of say an E-7s high three base pay? The best you can conservatively hope for AFTER 40 years of retirement(if you live that long) is $40K/yr. Talk about a "meager pension".......


75% of E-7 means they served 30 years (which can't happen in the USAF, but that's besides the point). Someone retiring today as an E-7 with a 75% pension would get $3673.28 per month in pension, which is $44079.39 a year. If they live another 40 years and get a COLA increase of only 1% per year their pension would be $5469 per month, which is $65628 a year.

bluecyclone1
03-20-2013, 09:50 PM
[QUOTE]

Key word, part, a small part, not a plan in and of its self. Go find the word "retirement plan" in the legislation, I didn't see it, do you?


Social Security, is a social pension (a non-contributory pension in some countries), which consists of a regular cash transfer to older people. It can also be known as "Social Insurance" or "Retirement Insurance"

Retirement Insurance is authorized under Title II of the Social Security Act. While it may not say "retirement plan" verbatim as you wish it to read, it is still and will remain to be a retirement plan for the people for another oh 5 years if we're lucky. And with that I think we officially have :deadhorse .

bluecyclone1
03-20-2013, 09:51 PM
75% of E-7 means they served 30 years (which can't happen in the USAF, but that's besides the point). Someone retiring today as an E-7 with a 75% pension would get $3673.28 per month in pension, which is $44079.39 a year. If they live another 40 years and get a COLA increase of only 1% per year their pension would be $5469 per month, which is $65628 a year.

And Uncle Sam doesn't get any of that at all? We tend to forget that quite a bit. Don't forget that I also put 75% as "being lucky". The fact of the matter is that if you retire at 20 years you're certainly not going to get 75%.

Pay Computation

For members who entered active duty or on prior to 8 September 1980, retired pay amounts are determined by multiplying your service factor (normally referred to as your "multiplier") by your active duty base pay at the time of retirement.

If you entered active duty after 8 September 1980, the base pay is the average of the highest 36 months of active duty base pay received. Additionally, your initial (first) cost-of-living adjustment will be reduced by 1 percent.

The "multiplier" for the above two plans is 2.5% (up to a maximum of 75%). For example, a person who entered active duty on or before 8 September 1980, and spent 22 years on active duty, would receive 55% of his/her base pay as retirement or retainer pay. A person who entered active duty after 8 September 1980, and spent 22 years on active duty, would receive 55% of the average of the highest 36 months of active duty base pay.

Shrike
03-21-2013, 03:09 AM
And Uncle Sam doesn't get any of that at all? We tend to forget that quite a bit. Don't forget that I also put 75% as "being lucky". The fact of the matter is that if you retire at 20 years you're certainly not going to get 75%.

Pay Computation

For members who entered active duty or on prior to 8 September 1980, retired pay amounts are determined by multiplying your service factor (normally referred to as your "multiplier") by your active duty base pay at the time of retirement.

If you entered active duty after 8 September 1980, the base pay is the average of the highest 36 months of active duty base pay received. Additionally, your initial (first) cost-of-living adjustment will be reduced by 1 percent.

The "multiplier" for the above two plans is 2.5% (up to a maximum of 75%). For example, a person who entered active duty on or before 8 September 1980, and spent 22 years on active duty, would receive 55% of his/her base pay as retirement or retainer pay. A person who entered active duty after 8 September 1980, and spent 22 years on active duty, would receive 55% of the average of the highest 36 months of active duty base pay.

I was just using the example you gave to show that your estimations were way, WAY off. Hundreds of thousands of dollars off, actually.

Quixotic
03-21-2013, 03:52 AM
[QUOTE=Quixotic;614207]

Social Security, is a social pension (a non-contributory pension in some countries), which consists of a regular cash transfer to older people. It can also be known as "Social Insurance" or "Retirement Insurance"

Retirement Insurance is authorized under Title II of the Social Security Act. While it may not say "retirement plan" verbatim as you wish it to read, it is still and will remain to be a retirement plan for the people for another oh 5 years if we're lucky. And with that I think we officially have :deadhorse .

There you go, insurance, you got it!

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-21-2013, 04:03 PM
Its a product of the free market. If there's a demand for lawyers and litigation, lawyers will come into the business - and it is in their interest to encourage increases in litigation. That's market logic for you.

Yes, gold is free market. Fiat currency is not anywhere close to free market because the government owns a monopoly on it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-21-2013, 04:29 PM
The price of energy is unrelated to the dollar. Food prices are directly related to energy prices - if the cost of energy goes up, food will for obvious reasons follow suit.And since America is producing almost more oil than Saudi, what is the reason for the price going up in your opinion? And when most of the oil producing countries use the dollar to exchange for the oil, and we have "printed" 200% more dollars under Obama, why wouldnt the price of gas go up if the dollar is worth less?


Which is exactly why virtually the entire world moved away from the gold standard almost a hundred years ago. The monetary supply can be shrunk or expanded based upon the needs of the economy. The size of our population and economy has gone up almost exponentially over time... hence why the gold standard failed.It didnt fail, it just wasnt as easily controled by those in power seeking more power. When an individual could go out and find his own wealth without the governments approval and taxation, how could anyone in power let that continue?


Not a jab at all - I just find it interesting that Christians were among the first people to oppose the gold standard... now its Christians saying we should bring it back. Fascinating how cultural attitudes change over time.
Well, people can admit they are wrong some times.


And that's part of it. Back in the "old days" the poor simply starved. If poor children got sick, they died. Simple as that. They died. No ifs ands or buts about it. Your kids got sick and you had no money, you got to watch them die and there was nothing you could do about it. Now we have social safety nets in place to prevent that from happening. Poverty in America has DEFINITELy improved.No, they simply didnt "just die". Some where taken care of through charity. And quiet frankly, its the church and individuals that should do that, not the state. The state has to TAKE from others to provide, and usually its done on credit, which is why the Christians are backing the balanced budget and not credit.


Society is "forced" to support you if you need it, so its only fair that you be required to support society. Its a social contract.Its not a contract that I signed up for, I was forced to. Its the governments way of keeping you in bondage. They forcibly taken from you to "give" back when you meet their requirements, and that isn't even a guarentee.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-21-2013, 04:38 PM
I think you missed the context of that conversation.

We're talking about long term trends - hence why I said "50 years, 100 years" etc. That's like saying America hasn't improved poverty levels and pointing to the Great Depression. We've had depressions and recessions... we've bounced back every time. In case we haven't noticed, we just left the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, so it shouldn't be a surprise that poverty levels are abnormally high.

What I'm much more concerned about is wealth redistribution increasing upwards to the 1%...

As for the census chart, surely you'll agree that our definition of "poverty" has changed drastically over time. The average poor person today is hurting... but we're not talking grapes of wrath levels of poverty!You keep agreeing with me on every turn about why its bad to print new money and give it to the poor who didnt work for it, they keep pushing it back to the top every time, thus "redistibuting" (how can they if they had nothing to distribute to begin with) to the 1%. The dollars out there, the more it will go to the rich and the gap will increase.


We're already hitting the "bump in the road" with the baby boomers. Once they're dead, the situation will stabilize.With your line in thinking, its good thing Obamacare has death panels.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-21-2013, 05:33 PM
And with all these issues, no wonder why Feinstien wants to take our guns. Most people are realizing how the government is robbing us blind for their own interests and bank accounts while wanting us to eat more cake. French revolution happened because there were no guillotine restrictions.

bluecyclone1
03-21-2013, 10:53 PM
There you go, pension, you got it!

Fixed that for ya.

bluecyclone1
03-21-2013, 10:57 PM
I was just using the example you gave to show that your estimations were way, WAY off. Hundreds of thousands of dollars off, actually.

How does my estimation of 40K a year AFTER TAXES and your estimation of 64K BEFORE TAXES come to hundreds of thousands of dollars? It's in essence the SAME DAMN AMOUNT!! I'd say maybe it's time for a math refresher don Shrike.

Now that I've thought about this a minute, I think I've figured out why everyone is in debt up to their ass and how that whole mess with people borrowing more money than they could afford came about. They've forgotten that they actually have to pay taxes on the money they earn and have also forgotten that those taxes come out before that money even gets anywhere close to your bank account. You can certainly gross $64K a year and do quite well. However, when you in reality end up with $40K a year after the tax man cometh, you'll do quite well in the Philippines or Mehico.

Banned
03-21-2013, 11:31 PM
Yes, gold is free market. Fiat currency is not anywhere close to free market because the government owns a monopoly on it.

Both are controlled by government. Why do you think Christians and other groups were flocking to the free silver movement? Because the government-controlled gold standard was extremely damaging to the working class.


And since America is producing almost more oil than Saudi, what is the reason for the price going up in your opinion? And when most of the oil producing countries use the dollar to exchange for the oil, and we have "printed" 200% more dollars under Obama, why wouldnt the price of gas go up if the dollar is worth less?

Peak Oil. By definition the "easier" oil will be found and completely consumed first. The USA does have oil reserves (as does Russia) - but for the most part far more expensive to tap, and unable to compete with the Middle East.

That's the key reason the Soviet Union collapsed... they attempted to barge into the oil market, and the Saudis simply flooded the market with cheap oil and drove the Soviets out of business.


It didnt fail, it just wasnt as easily controled by those in power seeking more power. When an individual could go out and find his own wealth without the governments approval and taxation, how could anyone in power let that continue?

Not sure what fantasy world this is from... but the Industrial Revolution was probably the most corrupt period in American history... every aspect of life controlled by the factory owners. I doubt you would enjoy living in a company town very much!


Well, people can admit they are wrong some times.

Or realize it is easier to whore themselves to the power structure rather than oppose it. Think about it. Christians used to stand for the poor - opposing the banks and the large corporations, demanding a better way of life for the farmers and factory workers... how times have changed!


No, they simply didnt "just die". Some where taken care of through charity. And quiet frankly, its the church and individuals that should do that, not the state. The state has to TAKE from others to provide, and usually its done on credit, which is why the Christians are backing the balanced budget and not credit.

This is pure fantasy. If your kid was sick, you could either pay for medical care, or you couldn't.


Its not a contract that I signed up for, I was forced to. Its the governments way of keeping you in bondage. They forcibly taken from you to "give" back when you meet their requirements, and that isn't even a guarentee.

Not exactly what I meant...

"Thomas Hobbes famously said that in a "state of nature" human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape, and murder; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute Sovereign, preferably (for Hobbes) a monarch.

Though the Sovereign's edicts may well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of nature. Alternatively, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so. The central assertion of social contract approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but are instead human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end — the benefit of the individuals involved — and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement.

According to Hobbes (in whose view government is not a party to the original contract) citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest. According to other social contract theorists, citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey or change the leadership, through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interest of society (called the "general will" in Rousseau, who is more concerned with forming new governments than in overthrowing old ones)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract


[QUOTE=WILDJOKER5;614474]You keep agreeing with me on every turn about why its bad to print new money and give it to the poor who didnt work for it, they keep pushing it back to the top every time, thus "redistibuting" (how can they if they had nothing to distribute to begin with) to the 1%. The dollars out there, the more it will go to the rich and the gap will increase.

Its about balance of power. With the crushing defeat of the unions in the past few decades, there simply is no way for the working class to resist the power of the large employers. So you're right to the extent that printing more money will not solve that problem.


With your line in thinking, its good thing Obamacare has death panels.

...huh? The point is - this is a temporary problem.


And with all these issues, no wonder why Feinstien wants to take our guns. Most people are realizing how the government is robbing us blind for their own interests and bank accounts while wanting us to eat more cake. French revolution happened because there were no guillotine restrictions.

Why would the government and bankers need to worry about revolution when there's hordes of armed tea partiers eager to defend them?

Quixotic
03-22-2013, 04:47 AM
Fixed that for ya.

No no, you were right the first time, insurance, try not to forget.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 12:35 PM
Why would the government and bankers need to worry about revolution when there's hordes of armed tea partiers eager to defend them?[/QUOTE]

Not really. Most tea partiers arent fond of what the gov is doing. Arent fond of banks either. Since they are armed why would they be willing to defend the gov which is trying to make gun control more strict?

Shrike
03-22-2013, 12:42 PM
How does my estimation of 40K a year AFTER TAXES and your estimation of 64K BEFORE TAXES come to hundreds of thousands of dollars? It's in essence the SAME DAMN AMOUNT!! I'd say maybe it's time for a math refresher don Shrike.

I pay $400 a month in taxes on my pension. I get about $2000 back in tax return. So you have $4800 - $2000 = $2800 difference between before and after taxes. In your example the difference is greater by a little under a factor of 10. Add that cumulative difference up over your example of 40 years and you'll get hundreds of thousands of dollars.

See you in the math refresher course. I'll be the guy teaching it.

bluecyclone1
03-22-2013, 01:11 PM
I pay $400 a month in taxes on my pension. I get about $2000 back in tax return. So you have $4800 - $2000 = $2800 difference between before and after taxes. In your example the difference is greater by a little under a factor of 10. Add that cumulative difference up over your example of 40 years and you'll get hundreds of thousands of dollars.

See you in the math refresher course. I'll be the guy teaching it.

And not all of us live in the six states with no state income tax and have wives and dependents to act as tax breaks. Oh and that $2000 that you get back at the END OF THE YEAR is after what itemized deductions, exemptions, and other loopholes that other schmucks may not get to enjoy? Nice try, but lets get some real numbers up there and we'll see how much closer to the mark I was. Oh and uh before I go, how much of that $64K a year that you threw out there do you make NOW? Oh yeah that number comes out AFTER 40 YEARS of retirement. I guess that would explain how most retirees are getting those second jobs. I think we're officially done here, AGAIN. :deadhorse

bluecyclone1
03-22-2013, 01:15 PM
No no, you were right the first time, insurance, try not to forget.

Exactly, pension, like I said. You love beating that dead horse don't you? Well you keep up the good work!

Shrike
03-22-2013, 01:26 PM
And not all of us live in the six states with no state income tax and have wives and dependents to act as tax breaks. Oh and that $2000 that you get back at the END OF THE YEAR is after what itemized deductions, exemptions, and other loopholes that other schmucks may not get to enjoy? Nice try, but lets get some real numbers up there and we'll see how much closer to the mark I was. Oh and uh before I go, how much of that $64K a year that you threw out there do you make NOW? Oh yeah that number comes out AFTER 40 YEARS of retirement. I guess that would explain how most retirees are getting those second jobs. I think we're officially done here, AGAIN. :deadhorse
Whatever, man. I take the standard deduction, no loopholes and no dependents.

You used a very poor example to try and prove your point. I showed you it was wrong. You refuse to accept that. You dismiss an almost $20,000 difference/year in your example vs. reality. And from the "Don Shrike" comment I assume that I've pointed out your misstatements in the past and your feelings are still hurt over them. So I'll make this simple: don't post grossly incorrect numbers and I won't correct you. Have a nice day.

Pullinteeth
03-22-2013, 01:44 PM
75% of E-7 means they served 30 years (which can't happen in the USAF, but that's besides the point). Someone retiring today as an E-7 with a 75% pension would get $3673.28 per month in pension, which is $44079.39 a year. If they live another 40 years and get a COLA increase of only 1% per year their pension would be $5469 per month, which is $65628 a year.

Yes it can....HYT is not the same for the ANG or AFR so someone could (theoretically) be on Active Duty for 33 years as long as the last portion was as an AGR and retire as a MSgt. Highly unlikely but POSSIBLE.

Shrike
03-22-2013, 01:57 PM
Yes it can....HYT is not the same for the ANG or AFR so someone could (theoretically) be on Active Duty for 33 years as long as the last portion was as an AGR and retire as a MSgt. Highly unlikely but POSSIBLE.

Yeah, I realize there are certain circumstances where it could happen. But they're so rare as to be statistically insignificant.

bluecyclone1
03-22-2013, 02:20 PM
Whatever, man. I take the standard deduction, no loopholes and no dependents.

You used a very poor example to try and prove your point. I showed you it was wrong. You refuse to accept that. You dismiss an almost $20,000 difference/year in your example vs. reality. And from the "Don Shrike" comment I assume that I've pointed out your misstatements in the past and your feelings are still hurt over them. So I'll make this simple: don't post grossly incorrect numbers and I won't correct you. Have a nice day.

So you're going to tell me and the entire world that you file a 1040 on your retirement pension ONLY and get $2000 back at the end of the year on that pension amount only and that you have absolutely zero other income? You and your particular circumstance may be reality for you, but it certainly is NOT reality for everyone else. Until you "get that", you are not the end all be all and your "corrections" will be taken by me with at best a grain of salt. As far as any other "misstatements", your assumption is incorrect. But that's what happens when you ass-u-me I guess.

Oh one final thing. It's very obvious that you failed to RTFOP. If you would have you would have noticed something rather interesting about this part of the sentence: The best you can conservatively hope for AFTER 40 years of retirement. Did you see that word "conservatively"? Apparently not. When you conservatively estimate something you usually do low ball it a bit. You assumed(damn there's that word again), that 40K a year was the end all be all and fixated on it. Yeah, I am a little guilty for ratcheting up the convo a bit, but that happens sometimes. And you have a nice day too.

Rainmaker
03-22-2013, 02:22 PM
Feinstein basically said all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped. In response to the amendment, she said the following:

…this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was effect… and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States… that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So you know I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

What's Worse? PTSD OR PMSD?

Rainmaker
03-22-2013, 02:46 PM
well its ok for an 18 year old to carry a handgun for military duties, but cant possess one outside of the military. Shitty.

In some states it's ok for an 18 year old civilian to bone an underage civilian too. But, in the military it's a no go. unless of course you're in Korea.

Shrike
03-22-2013, 02:55 PM
So you're going to tell me and the entire world that you file a 1040 on your retirement pension ONLY and get $2000 back at the end of the year on that pension amount only and that you have absolutely zero other income? You and your particular circumstance may be reality for you, but it certainly is NOT reality for everyone else. Until you "get that", you are not the end all be all and your "corrections" will be taken by me with at best a grain of salt. As far as any other "misstatements", your assumption is incorrect. But that's what happens when you ass-u-me I guess.

Oh one final thing. It's very obvious that you failed to RTFOP. If you would have you would have noticed something rather interesting about this part of the sentence: The best you can conservatively hope for AFTER 40 years of retirement. Did you see that word "conservatively"? Apparently not. When you conservatively estimate something you usually do low ball it a bit. You assumed(damn there's that word again), that 40K a year was the end all be all and fixated on it. Yeah, I am a little guilty for ratcheting up the convo a bit, but that happens sometimes. And you have a nice day too.

You do realize that my circumstances have nothing to do with this, right? We're talking about the grossly incorrect example YOU used. You're not just trying to distract readers from the fact that you posted a bull$hit example and I corrected you, are you?

As for your second paragraph's rant, I used a 1% annual COLA as my example. The average annual COLA increase for retirees over the last 20 years is 2.4% per year. So my example used only 41% of the actual average annual increase. Now exactly WHO is the one making assumptions here? It seems that one of us was actually conservative in his example and one, well, he only blathers on about it while digging his hole even deeper.

YOU claim a $20000 difference per year after 40 years using the example YOU provided is "ratcheting up the convo a bit." I claim that's bullshit math and grossly understates the value of the pension after 40 years, not by just a little but by a massive amount, an amount large enough to purchase a very nice retirement home. One of us actually has math on his side to support him.

Shrike
03-22-2013, 02:55 PM
well its ok for an 18 year old to carry a handgun for military duties, but cant possess one outside of the military. Shitty.
Sure they can, depending on what state they're in.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 03:06 PM
Sure they can, depending on what state they're in.

I've always understood it to be 21. Thanks for the heads up.

Shrike
03-22-2013, 03:22 PM
I've always understood it to be 21. Thanks for the heads up.

I believe that federal law requires people to be 21 to purchase a handgun. But possession/ownership laws vary by state; many have the age at 18 and a few are less.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 03:26 PM
I believe that federal law requires people to be 21 to purchase a handgun. But possession/ownership laws vary by state; many have the age at 18 and a few are less.


That is probably where my confusion was. 21 to purchase. Thanks.

bluecyclone1
03-22-2013, 03:37 PM
You do realize that my circumstances have nothing to do with this, right? We're talking about the grossly incorrect example YOU used. You're not just trying to distract readers from the fact that you posted a bull$hit example and I corrected you, are you?

As for your second paragraph's rant, I used a 1% annual COLA as my example. The average annual COLA increase for retirees over the last 20 years is 2.4% per year. So my example used only 41% of the actual average annual increase. Now exactly WHO is the one making assumptions here? It seems that one of us was actually conservative in his example and one, well, he only blathers on about it while digging his hole even deeper.

YOU claim a $20000 difference per year after 40 years using the example YOU provided is "ratcheting up the convo a bit." I claim that's bullshit math and grossly understates the value of the pension after 40 years, not by just a little but by a massive amount, an amount large enough to purchase a very nice retirement home. One of us actually has math on his side to support him.


So why pray tell did you inject your tax payment last year to use in your rebuttal of my estimation if your circumstances have nothing to do with it? If your situation has nothing to do with it, why didn't you use an average retiree in say California or Ohio?

And in all this you never did once answer my question.....interesting, very interesting indeed. I think that pretty much wraps this up. Time to start the weekend a bit early.

Shrike
03-22-2013, 03:59 PM
So why pray tell did you inject your tax payment last year to use in your rebuttal of my estimation if your circumstances have nothing to do with it? If your situation has nothing to do with it, why didn't you use an average retiree in say California or Ohio?

And in all this you never did once answer my question.....interesting, very interesting indeed. I think that pretty much wraps this up. Time to start the weekend a bit early.

Because you said "How does my estimation of 40K a year AFTER TAXES and your estimation of 64K BEFORE TAXES...". You grossly misstate the tax burden of a military retiree, as I said earlier by almost a factor of 10. So I posted my monthly tax amount to show you just how wrong you are.

http://wiki.godvillegame.com/images/3/3e/Dighole.jpg

Keep on diggin'...


...

Banned
03-22-2013, 04:16 PM
Not really. Most tea partiers arent fond of what the gov is doing. Arent fond of banks either. Since they are armed why would they be willing to defend the gov which is trying to make gun control more strict?

Submission and obedience are the bywords of the tea party. They might not "like" the banks, but they will defend the banks from evil lazy poor people. And the whole "gun control" thing is nonsense. No one is taking your guns away.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 04:27 PM
Submission and obedience are the bywords of the tea party.

Socialism requires submission and obedience to the government.

sandsjames
03-22-2013, 04:35 PM
Socialism requires submission and obedience to the government.

+1 internets for you.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-22-2013, 04:40 PM
Both are controlled by government. Why do you think Christians and other groups were flocking to the free silver movement? Because the government-controlled gold standard was extremely damaging to the working class.They might have controlled the market, but they didnt control who produced it. Private citizens could find gold and sell it or what ever. Now private citizens cant print their own money without penalty.


Peak Oil. By definition the "easier" oil will be found and completely consumed first. The USA does have oil reserves (as does Russia) - but for the most part far more expensive to tap, and unable to compete with the Middle East.

That's the key reason the Soviet Union collapsed... they attempted to barge into the oil market, and the Saudis simply flooded the market with cheap oil and drove the Soviets out of business.Its a good thing we have more than just oil to fall back on. How about we get them to flood the market again and relieve the middle class of such high gas prices?


Not sure what fantasy world this is from... but the Industrial Revolution was probably the most corrupt period in American history... every aspect of life controlled by the factory owners. I doubt you would enjoy living in a company town very much!
I was talking about pan handlers and other means of going out to get ones own wealth from mining gold.


Or realize it is easier to whore themselves to the power structure rather than oppose it. Think about it. Christians used to stand for the poor - opposing the banks and the large corporations, demanding a better way of life for the farmers and factory workers... how times have changed!
Why in the hell do you lump all Christians in to one group voting in one direction? You know there are many black Christians out there and they surely dont vote with the GOP. I know you would say I am being prejudice if I were to say something about black people and their political views even though 95% of them vote for dems, but you are typically ok with lumping less than half of Christians standing for something and claiming they represent all of American Christians. You hypocracy is pathetic. Was the group that wanted us off the gold standard Christian? Maybe. Did all Christians feel that way? Have proof?


This is pure fantasy. If your kid was sick, you could either pay for medical care, or you couldn't. When are you going to stop using me as an example? I am prepared and have a job to provide for my kids BEFORE I decided to have any. People were taken care of in the past through churches and individuals. To deny that is purely neive.




Not exactly what I meant...

"Thomas Hobbes famously said that in a "state of nature" human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape, and murder; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute Sovereign, preferably (for Hobbes) a monarch.

Though the Sovereign's edicts may well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of nature. Alternatively, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so. The central assertion of social contract approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but are instead human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end — the benefit of the individuals involved — and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement.

According to Hobbes (in whose view government is not a party to the original contract) citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest. According to other social contract theorists, citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey or change the leadership, through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interest of society (called the "general will" in Rousseau, who is more concerned with forming new governments than in overthrowing old ones)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract


And what does that have to do with the government taking my money by force and not giving it back when I want it? Back in FDR time, there were few retirement companies and options. Now there is a plethora of choices. If I could be putting the money I have stolen from me and put it into my own account, I can withdraw when and how much I wanted without stipulation.


Its about balance of power. With the crushing defeat of the unions in the past few decades, there simply is no way for the working class to resist the power of the large employers. So you're right to the extent that printing more money will not solve that problem.If the unions didnt over step their bounds and become corrupt, they wouldnt have needed to be crushed.


...huh? The point is - this is a temporary problem.
Which Obamacare's death pannels with expediate the baby boomers to their graves.


Why would the government and bankers need to worry about revolution when there's hordes of armed tea partiers eager to defend them?
You really are sadly mistaken if you think the TEA party is the ones you have to worry about. The TEA party in the beggining was fine, now its co-opted into the GOP. There is a rising party that if far more fed up with the duopoly than you may believe.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-22-2013, 04:48 PM
Submission and obedience are the bywords of the tea party. They might not "like" the banks, but they will defend the banks from evil lazy poor people. And the whole "gun control" thing is nonsense. No one is taking your guns away.

Wow, are you seriously going to play ignorant here? Do I need to find the examples and the proposed bills of states and the UN small arms treaty that is being considered by Obama to join?

And no, the TEA party in the beginning didnt like the banks getting bailouts, hence why they formed from both parties because they knew where the money was coming from.

Banned
03-22-2013, 04:59 PM
Socialism requires submission and obedience to the government.

Yup, because capitalism is such a beautiful thing.

http://media.katu.com/images/111117_pepper_spray.jpg


They might have controlled the market, but they didnt control who produced it. Private citizens could find gold and sell it or what ever. Now private citizens cant print their own money without penalty.

Base an entire economy on the ability of people to "find gold and sell it or what ever"? Pan for gold in your shower?


Its a good thing we have more than just oil to fall back on. How about we get them to flood the market again and relieve the middle class of such high gas prices?

We don't know how much oil they have left.


I was talking about pan handlers and other means of going out to get ones own wealth from mining gold.

Kinda like the Yahoos in Gulliver's Travels digging in the dirt for shiny rocks?


Why in the hell do you lump all Christians in to one group voting in one direction? You know there are many black Christians out there and they surely dont vote with the GOP. I know you would say I am being prejudice if I were to say something about black people and their political views even though 95% of them vote for dems, but you are typically ok with lumping less than half of Christians standing for something and claiming they represent all of American Christians. You hypocracy is pathetic. Was the group that wanted us off the gold standard Christian? Maybe. Did all Christians feel that way? Have proof?

I never said "all" Christians. But as an institution, a general movement... yes, American Christianity supported and defended the working class. I find it interesting that you take offense to that.


When are you going to stop using me as an example? I am prepared and have a job to provide for my kids BEFORE I decided to have any. People were taken care of in the past through churches and individuals. To deny that is purely neive.

I didn't mean you personally. But yes, fact remains if one is a farmer in, say - 1890 - you had currency (because the gold standard caused deflation)... so basically one relied on credit and barter... which obviously doesn't work too good when it comes to medicine - a wagonload of wheat probably isn't going to be of much interest to a Boston surgeon.


And what does that have to do with the government taking my money by force and not giving it back when I want it? Back in FDR time, there were few retirement companies and options. Now there is a plethora of choices. If I could be putting the money I have stolen from me and put it into my own account, I can withdraw when and how much I wanted without stipulation.

So you don't understand what the Social Contract is?


If the unions didnt over step their bounds and become corrupt, they wouldnt have needed to be crushed.

Wow... just wow.



Which Obamacare's death pannels with expediate the baby boomers to their graves.

If that helps you sleep at night.


You really are sadly mistaken if you think the TEA party is the ones you have to worry about. The TEA party in the beggining was fine, now its co-opted into the GOP. There is a rising party that if far more fed up with the duopoly than you may believe.

I'm sure.


Wow, are you seriously going to play ignorant here? Do I need to find the examples and the proposed bills of states and the UN small arms treaty that is being considered by Obama to join?

And no, the TEA party in the beginning didnt like the banks getting bailouts, hence why they formed from both parties because they knew where the money was coming from.

Oh great, not the UN conspiracy theory again. Yep, keep your eyes up in the sky for the French paratroopers coming to take your guns away.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 05:12 PM
Yup, because capitalism is such a beautiful thing..

Socialism is a beautiful thing (for lazy people). Rob from the rich and give to the slackers.

Banned
03-22-2013, 05:27 PM
Socialism is a beautiful thing (for lazy people). Rob from the rich and give to the slackers.

Gotta love this country, right? Don't worry - if you have the urge to try and live a better life, your social superiors will have it beaten out of you. ;)

http://americanconflicts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/BonusArmy2.jpg

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 05:50 PM
Gotta love this country, right? Don't worry - if you have the urge to try and live a better life, your social superiors will have it beaten out of you. ;)


I see your point. A person shouldn't have to work and be responsible in order to live a better life. Let's go rob some rich people. They got plenty of money. Or better yet, let's ask the government to rob some rich people for us.

Pullinteeth
03-22-2013, 05:58 PM
I believe that federal law requires people to be 21 to purchase a handgun. But possession/ownership laws vary by state; many have the age at 18 and a few are less.
It actually says two different things...

One says 21 and the other says 18...

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;

(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/i/atf-i-5300-2.pdf

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-22-2013, 06:04 PM
Yup, because capitalism is such a beautiful thing.

http://media.katu.com/images/111117_pepper_spray.jpgCrony capitalism being protested by beggers? Wow, you have some hard facts to support your assertion there.


I never said "all" Christians. But as an institution, a general movement... yes, American Christianity supported and defended the working class. I find it interesting that you take offense to that.You say a general term of "Christians" and what do you think someone is going to interpret what you mean? The "offense" was to the fact you were pretty much calling Christians "whores" to rich people now.


I didn't mean you personally. But yes, fact remains if one is a farmer in, say - 1890 - you had currency (because the gold standard caused deflation)... so basically one relied on credit and barter... which obviously doesn't work too good when it comes to medicine - a wagonload of wheat probably isn't going to be of much interest to a Boston surgeon.Are you mixing your time frames together here? A 1890 Boston surgeon was probably better off at getting that grain into bread then the 2013 Boston surgeon is at getting his own bread from the local walmart. And the 1890 doctor didnt have out rageous insurance costs either to cover, or the super inflated medical school bills so his services were a lot more affordable to hack off someones limb back then, since they didnt have open heart surgery either.


So you don't understand what the Social Contract is?A social contract is just a progressives excuse to justify theft and to destroy the democracy. It is the end of the cycle of demcracy where the population realizes it can vote for gifts from the treasury for doing nothing and say those that are wealthy should foot the bill.


Wow... just wow.So you think the Union boss should recieve $500k+ a year while the median income of the people he represents is less than $100k? This is the problem with liberals, you think its bad for the owner of a company who provides jobs to people to become filthy rich but its ok for the person not producing anything and supposed to be a servant of people to make an exorbanat amount of money while they eat cake.


If that helps you sleep at night.I thought it is what helps you sleep at night to think this is just a "bump in the road" of providing for the baby boomers. If they live to their life expectancy under the insurance their parents had, that is a very large bump of 20-30 more years. The only way to shrink that bump that you hate is to deny coverage and procedures to them because they dont provide any more of a service to the society.


Oh great, not the UN conspiracy theory again. Yep, keep your eyes up in the sky for the French paratroopers coming to take your guns away.
Once your guns are registered, they are more easily confiscated. Like when gold was confiscated. Like Colorado is trying to do. Like NY can do. Like it has been done when some official sees that someone in your house has been admitted to a psyce ward and you have a gun registered at your house. But hey, just because it can be done, doesnt mean they will do it right???? Drone attacks on American citizens.

Banned
03-22-2013, 06:04 PM
I see your point. A person shouldn't have to work and be responsible in order to live a better life. Let's go rob some rich people. They got plenty of money. Or better yet, let's ask the government to rob some rich people for us.

That must be a nice fantasy land you live in... on Earth, the rich generally use the military and police to rob the poor...

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-CJS0-m-AwqTCKZa8FjvBaNIFqns5ye5f_16hac1d4RoImaj7W1OzaQmLA mUfUlbQpu-YStTCs15Q0NTF19SczNdHHlM8jSRzHAVP6cI6VMXdOcAyN4

JD2780
03-22-2013, 06:22 PM
That must be a nice fantasy land you live in... on Earth, the rich generally use the military and police to rob the poor...

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-CJS0-m-AwqTCKZa8FjvBaNIFqns5ye5f_16hac1d4RoImaj7W1OzaQmLA mUfUlbQpu-YStTCs15Q0NTF19SczNdHHlM8jSRzHAVP6cI6VMXdOcAyN4


Yea all rich people are bad and are out squash the lower forms of life. Sorry I dont believe the police to be the foot soldiers of the rich.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 06:25 PM
Submission and obedience are the bywords of the tea party. They might not "like" the banks, but they will defend the banks from evil lazy poor people. And the whole "gun control" thing is nonsense. No one is taking your guns away.

Didnt say they WERE taking them away, but certainly making it even more tougher to get them. Oh and certain dumb political figures would like them out of the hands of veterans. Remember that name in the thread title. I'll defend a bank from poor people that think that ALL banks are evil. You're heart is still bleeding eye see.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 06:27 PM
Gotta love this country, right? Don't worry - if you have the urge to try and live a better life, your social superiors will have it beaten out of you. ;)

http://americanconflicts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/BonusArmy2.jpg

There are hundreds of examples that show people going from "rags to riches". Sorry, but you're mistaken.

Quixotic
03-22-2013, 06:29 PM
Exactly, pension, like I said. You love beating that dead horse don't you? Well you keep up the good work!

Wow, it must be so hard being wrong, and being you. LOL

Banned
03-22-2013, 07:37 PM
Yea all rich people are bad and are out squash the lower forms of life. Sorry I dont believe the police to be the foot soldiers of the rich.

If you actually believe the police aren't foot soldiers for the rich... ask yourself why police in body armor with AR-15s driving armored vehicles are necessary to deliver a Wells Fargo eviction notice.

(Answer: Because Wells Fargo fucking OWNS them)


Didnt say they WERE taking them away, but certainly making it even more tougher to get them. Oh and certain dumb political figures would like them out of the hands of veterans. Remember that name in the thread title. I'll defend a bank from poor people that think that ALL banks are evil. You're heart is still bleeding eye see.

Good for you buddy.


There are hundreds of examples that show people going from "rags to riches". Sorry, but you're mistaken.

Social mobility in (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)the United States is lower than in most of our peer countries... but good try.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 07:57 PM
That must be a nice fantasy land you live in... on Earth, the rich generally use the military and police to rob the poor...


As I said, I see your point. Paying bills and paying mortgage payments should be completely optional. Additionally, there should be no penalties for those who don't pay their bills. We should do away with the foreclosure system entirely. It is the nice thing to do. Bankers don't need any stinking rights.


the rich generally use the military and police to rob the poor...


Robbing the poor is a waste of time. We'll make more money when we rob the rich.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 08:16 PM
If you actually believe the police aren't foot soldiers for the rich... ask yourself why police in body armor with AR-15s driving armored vehicles are necessary to deliver a Wells Fargo eviction notice.

(Answer: Because Wells Fargo fucking OWNS them)



Good for you buddy.



Social mobility in (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)the United States is lower than in most of our peer countries... but good try.

How about because people being foreclosed on freak the eff out. Rightfully also, their house is being taken away. You buy a house, lose your job, you cant pay for house. What do you want the banks to do? Let you live in it for free? Its business. Its shitty, but its how life is. I'm scared of it. The wife and I just got approved for our first home loan. I'm terrified of that type of stuff. We PCS, cant find a renter, cant sell? Lots of money going down the crapper. I would want police with armored vehicles backing me up. The human race is bat shit crazy. Not just Americans either.

Lower here than in most countries. Lower, not impossible. You cant deny that its possible. Many people start their own businesses and succeed at it. Once again, nobody is acting like King John around here. Squashing the poor.

Its tough to get a jobs when you have illegals doing it for much less. Also, of course that source is NYT. More hearts a bleeding.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 08:18 PM
As I said, I see your point. Paying bills and paying mortgage payments should be completely optional. Additionally, there should be no penalties for those who don't pay their bills. We should do away with the foreclosure system entirely. It is the nice thing to do. Bankers don't need any stinking rights.



Robbing the poor is a waste of time. We'll make more money when we rob the rich.

Joe believes there is an evil conspiracy where rich folks are trying cleans the earth of the nasty dirty poor.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 08:34 PM
What do you want the banks to do? Let you live in it for free? Its business. .

The government should pay everyone's mortgage payment. A "single payer" system for all mortgage payments would be great as long as the "single payer" is the government. It is the humanitarian thing to do.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 08:38 PM
The government should pay everyone's mortgage payment. A "single payer" system for all mortgage payments would be great as long as the "single payer" is the government. It is the humanitarian thing to do.

Either that, or the banks (a business) shouldnt be allowed to make money. Just let you live there for free. Its the only way to do things. Give it away.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 08:52 PM
Joe believes there is an evil conspiracy where rich folks are trying cleans the earth of the nasty dirty poor.

The evil conspiracy stuff is all true. Michael Moore is a good example. He is a rich fat disgusting greedy capitalist who pretends to be a bleeding heart liberal left wing socialist so dimwitted poor people will buy his worthless books and watch his silly movies. He has made a fortune scamming poor people. Are you skeptical? Well, then... take a look at Michael Moore's house:

2975

Let's "occupy" Michael Moore's house!! Hey Joe Bonham... are you with us??

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 08:53 PM
Either that, or the banks (a business) shouldnt be allowed to make money. Just let you live there for free. Its the only way to do things. Give it away.

Of course. The government can always print some more money.

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 09:12 PM
The government should pay everyone's mortgage payment. A "single payer" system for all mortgage payments would be great as long as the "single payer" is the government. It is the humanitarian thing to do.

Perhaps if banks were finding a way to weasel out of letting you live in your house even after you made all your payments on time, this would be a fair analogy.

Banned
03-22-2013, 09:20 PM
How about because people being foreclosed on freak the eff out. Rightfully also, their house is being taken away. You buy a house, lose your job, you cant pay for house. What do you want the banks to do? Let you live in it for free? Its business. Its shitty, but its how life is. I'm scared of it. The wife and I just got approved for our first home loan. I'm terrified of that type of stuff. We PCS, cant find a renter, cant sell? Lots of money going down the crapper. I would want police with armored vehicles backing me up. The human race is bat shit crazy. Not just Americans either.

I really think I lost IQ points reading that... because in all honesty that was the dumbest shit I've read for a while. Really? So some bank needs an eviction notice delivered, so the taxpayers should have to spend their hard earned tax dollars to put together a team of police foot soldiers more heavily armed than seal team 6 to kick Americans out of their homes?

If that's what America has come to... that's a very sad thing, especially hearing folks like you bending over backwards to justify every injustice that happens here.


Lower here than in most countries. Lower, not impossible. You cant deny that its possible. Many people start their own businesses and succeed at it. Once again, nobody is acting like King John around here. Squashing the poor.

Its tough to get a jobs when you have illegals doing it for much less. Also, of course that source is NYT. More hearts a bleeding.

BS flag waving. Looks like you just ignored an article with actual facts and statistics and rambled for a couple paragraphs...

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 09:21 PM
Yea all rich people are bad and are out squash the lower forms of life. Sorry I dont believe the police to be the foot soldiers of the rich.

I don't believe the wealthy meet in smoke filled rooms and toast to the death of the middle class, but I do think they are indifferent to the growing wealth inequalities in the world in general, and America in particular (even though it's detrimental to their own interests). And I'm unaware of anyone who has done any worthwhile level of research into the financial collapse who doesn't know it was caused by wealthy bankers doling out incredibly risky mortgages to the poor, then profiting from their defaults in the derivatives market. I believe in capitalism, but not the brand of "Fuck you, read the fine print" capitalism that would've mortified Adam Smith, yet still permeates our culture.

Banned
03-22-2013, 09:22 PM
The government should pay everyone's mortgage payment. A "single payer" system for all mortgage payments would be great as long as the "single payer" is the government. It is the humanitarian thing to do.

And I suppose in your mind it makes perfect sense that the number of decaying vacant housing units in the United States outnumbers the homeless.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 09:28 PM
And I suppose in your mind it makes perfect sense that the number of decaying vacant housing units in the United States outnumbers the homeless.

The homeless should go live with Michael Moore. Michael Moore has a nice house.... a really nice house.

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 09:32 PM
How about because people being foreclosed on freak the eff out. Rightfully also, their house is being taken away. You buy a house, lose your job, you cant pay for house. What do you want the banks to do? Let you live in it for free? Its business. Its shitty, but its how life is.

I would accept this argument if not for the trail of fraud that led banks to give out toxic loans to begin with. These are not the practices of an honest business, and they did not approach these agreement with homeowners honorably nor with integrity. I believe the solution starts with regulations that would prevent the financial sector from repeating its deviance as we saw it in the 2000s.


Its tough to get a jobs when you have illegals doing it for much less. Also, of course that source is NYT. More hearts a bleeding.

It's unfortunate we're so far apart when it comes to the New York Times. I'd hate to speculate on why it falls below your barometer for reliable news, but whatever your reasons are, I would hope we can agree that it's leaps and bounds above virtually every other daily publication in America. Certainly from the standpoint of pure journalism and hard news, the only paper I can think of with a right of center editorial board and a standard that even approaches the New York Times would be the Wall Street Journal.

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 09:37 PM
The homeless should go live with Michael Moore. Michael Moore has a nice house.... a really nice house.

Regardless of what kind of house Michael Moore has, no matter how tenuous you may feel the arguments made in his films are, he is in no position to remedy, nor is he personally responsible for, the cultural ills described in this thread. Wouldn't you agree?

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 09:42 PM
who doesn't know it was caused by wealthy bankers doling out incredibly risky mortgages to the poor, .

That's why the government should just give a lot of money to the poor people. Then the poor people won't be poor anymore. They'd be rich. Problem solved.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 09:44 PM
Regardless of what kind of house Michael Moore has, no matter how tenuous you may feel the arguments made in his films are, he is in no position to remedy, nor is he personally responsible for, the cultural ills described in this thread. Wouldn't you agree?

No.

Michael Moore should let poor people move into his house. He has plenty of room in his house.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 09:47 PM
Regardless of what kind of house Michael Moore has, no matter how tenuous you may feel the arguments made in his films are, he is in no position to remedy, nor is he personally responsible for, the cultural ills described in this thread. Wouldn't you agree?

Michael Moore is a cultural ill because he is a greedy capitalist who exploits the poor.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 09:53 PM
I really think I lost IQ points reading that... because in all honesty that was the dumbest shit I've read for a while. Really? So some bank needs an eviction notice delivered, so the taxpayers should have to spend their hard earned tax dollars to put together a team of police foot soldiers more heavily armed than seal team 6 to kick Americans out of their homes?

If that's what America has come to... that's a very sad thing, especially hearing folks like you bending over backwards to justify every injustice that happens here.



BS flag waving. Looks like you just ignored an article with actual facts and statistics and rambled for a couple paragraphs...

Youre an amazing word smith. I didnt ignore it. I read it and laughed at it. Keep your berkley educated IQ points. Yes, the tax paying individual that serves the person with an eviction notice requires protection at times. I guess the world is full of rainbows in your world. Yea foot soldiers. Go give Michael Moore a blowjob.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 09:54 PM
Iit was caused by wealthy bankers doling out incredibly risky mortgages to the poor,

Putting the blame on the bankers makes perfect sense. We certainly can't blame the poor because poor people are too dim-witted to act responsibly.

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 09:55 PM
That's why the government should just give a lot of money to the poor people. Then the poor people won't be poor anymore. They'd be rich. Problem solved.

That's a silly solution, of course. A better solution would be to put the executives of banks on trial for the fraud they committed (and if you're asking for specifics, I suggest researching Hank Greenberg of AIG) and if guilty, give them harsh sentences. Such an act would have a chilling effect on the many many improprieties committed by banks against the average consumer in recent years. Additionally, regulations on lenders to prevent the sale of variable rate mortgages to those who can't afford them is an excellent jumping point as well. Another effective solution is to properly fund and man the SEC to empower it to properly regulate the derivatives market, which is devoid of any of the controls currently found in the trade of stocks, bonds, etc. Barring that, an SEC that is adequately funded to enforce the laws already on the books would suffice in the near term.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 10:04 PM
A better solution would be to put the executives of banks on trial for the fraud they committed (and if you're asking for specifics, I suggest researching Hank Greenberg of AIG) and if guilty, give them harsh sentences. Such an act would have a chilling effect on the many many improprieties committed by banks against the average consumer in recent years.

If they really committed a crime, then why haven't they been charged? Let me guess - a consipracy?


Additionally, regulations on lenders to prevent the sale of variable rate mortgages to those who can't afford them is an excellent jumping point as well.

So you believe that the poor should receive less financial support from the banks?


Another effective solution is to properly fund and man the SEC to empower it to properly regulate the derivatives market, which is devoid of any of the controls currently found in the trade of stocks, bonds, etc. Barring that, an SEC that is adequately funded to enforce the laws already on the books would suffice in the near term.

Go tell it to Congress.

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 10:08 PM
Putting the blame on the bankers makes perfect sense. We certainly can't blame the poor because poor people are too dim-witted to act responsibly.

If the question is who is more savvy; the laborer with a high school education or the Ivy-league educated mathematician or scientist in the employ of Citi who has devised an intricate formula to profit from foreclosures, then of course the latter would be the winner. And when these foreclosures are packaged as many, many assets and sold as commodities, it makes the market inherently volatile. If I were conditioned to believe nothing beyond "Regulations bad, handouts bad" as a formal economics education, the danger of this scenario would elude me as well.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 10:10 PM
If the question is who is more savvy; the laborer with a high school education or the Ivy-league educated mathematician or scientist in the employ of Citi who has devised an intricate formula to profit from foreclosures, then of course the latter would be the winner. And when these foreclosures are packaged as many, many assets and sold as commodities, it makes the market inherently volatile. If I were conditioned to believe nothing beyond "Regulations bad, handouts bad" as a formal economics education, the danger of this scenario would elude me as well.

you can also manage your own finance, and budget your own money to see what you can afford. Doesnt take a genius to look at what you make vs what you spend. If you're in the red you need to reduce something.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 10:15 PM
If the question is who is more savvy; the laborer with a high school education or the Ivy-league educated mathematician or scientist in the employ of Citi who has devised an intricate formula to profit from foreclosures, then of course the latter would be the winner. And when these foreclosures are packaged as many, many assets and sold as commodities, it makes the market inherently volatile. If I were conditioned to believe nothing beyond "Regulations bad, handouts bad" as a formal economics education, the danger of this scenario would elude me as well.

So you believe that the government should regulate the average person more because the average person is just too dim-witted to make sound financial decisions?

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 10:21 PM
If they really committed a crime, then why haven't they been charged? Let me guess - a consipracy?

Your guess is incorrect. There are a number of factors. First, many thousands of mortgage lenders have been charged and convicted of fraud. Unfortunately, the other link in the chain; the banks who bought and incentivized these subprime loans have not faced prosecution. The main reason, in my opinion, is ego. Prosecutors by nature prefer not to take cases in which they are at risk of losing, as they are detrimental to one's career. Another factor is that if one case is lost, the defendants are protected by double jeopardy. Additionally, there is the influence of money in politics. Large banks donate to political campaigns in great numbers, and expect some tolerable degree of loyalty in return. So far they have it. And even if the public was actively demanding heads, the banks can always claim that the conviction of a CEO would be come at the detriment of the DJIA. So our government tolerates fraud, at least at the upper echelons of culpability.



So you believe that the poor should receive less financial support from the banks?

I don't understand the insinuation. Please help me with what you're calling the support they received previously.

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 10:23 PM
So you believe that the government should regulate the average person more because the average person is just too dim-witted to make sound financial decisions?

Unless we are in an alternate dimension in which multinational corporate banks are referred to as "average persons," then no, that is not what I believe.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 10:32 PM
Your guess is incorrect. There are a number of factors. First, many thousands of mortgage lenders have been charged and convicted of fraud. Unfortunately, the other link in the chain; the banks who bought and incentivized these subprime loans have not faced prosecution. The main reason, in my opinion, is ego. Prosecutors by nature prefer not to take cases in which they are at risk of losing, as they are detrimental to one's career. Another factor is that if one case is lost, the defendants are protected by double jeopardy. Additionally, there is the influence of money in politics. Large banks donate to political campaigns in great numbers, and expect some tolerable degree of loyalty in return. So far they have it. And even if the public was actively demanding heads, the banks can always claim that the conviction of a CEO would be come at the detriment of the DJIA. So our government tolerates fraud, at least at the upper echelons of culpability..

It sounds like my guess is correct. You are blaming a conspiracy.





I don't understand the insinuation. Please help me with what you're calling the support they received previously.

Well... you did say:


Additionally, regulations on lenders to prevent the sale of variable rate mortgages to those who can't afford them is an excellent jumping point as well. .

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 10:33 PM
you can also manage your own finance, and budget your own money to see what you can afford. Doesnt take a genius to look at what you make vs what you spend. If you're in the red you need to reduce something.

And I should've explained this part better; lenders advertised one rate, agreed to that same rate, and snuck in a variable rate mortgage on closing day. So it wasn't a matter of stupidity or budgeting, it was a matter of criminal fraud. Regardless of who signed what fine print, the agreement was fraudulent from the outset.

For those who are still under the impression that Wall Street was not to blame for the recession, I have a simple question: If the crisis was driven by the poor, why didn't banks stop the crisis by reducing loans before it reached critical mass? Why were these economic minds not responding to the steady increase in foreclosures throughout the 2000s?

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 10:34 PM
Unless we are in an alternate dimension in which multinational corporate banks are referred to as "average persons," then no, that is not what I believe.

But you said:



Additionally, regulations on lenders to prevent the sale of variable rate mortgages to those who can't afford them is an excellent jumping point as well. .

Are you saying "those who can't afford them" are not average persons?

When you regulate the banks, you are also regulating the customers of the banks.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 10:39 PM
And I should've explained this part better; lenders advertised one rate, agreed to that same rate, and snuck in a variable rate mortgage on closing day. So it wasn't a matter of stupidity or budgeting, it was a matter of criminal fraud. Regardless of who signed what fine print, the agreement was fraudulent from the outset.

I see that we are still working on the conspiracy theory.


For those who are still under the impression that Wall Street was not to blame for the recession, I have a simple question: If the crisis was driven by the poor, why didn't banks stop the crisis by reducing loans before it reached critical mass? Why were these economic minds not responding to the steady increase in foreclosures throughout the 2000s? Because those economic minds at the banks are also dim-witted.

But you can blame Wall Street if you like. It is certainly okay with me.

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 10:44 PM
It sounds like my guess is correct. You are blaming a conspiracy.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of a conspiracy. Conspiracy to me involves claims of one world government, 9/11 committed by the Illuminati, the Newtown shooter acting on behalf of those who want gun control, Area 51, etc.

I didn't for a single moment consider it controversial to assert that the presence of large financial institutions in political campaigns would come with the expectation of something in return. If something so basic can be so easily dismissed as "conspiracy," then everything is a conspiracy in your eyes.


Well... you did say:

I did advocate the regulation of lenders. And by no stretch of the imagination should lenders be confused with the "average person."

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 10:47 PM
When you regulate the banks, you are also regulating the customers of the banks.

I'm curious to know your knowledge of the economic collapse, its causes, and what ought to be done to prevent it from happening again in the future?

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 10:50 PM
Because those economic minds at the banks are also dim-witted.

But you can blame Wall Street if you like. It is certainly okay with me.

Have you ever, until this point in time, even heard of a credit default swap? Derivative? CDO? I suggest you conduct some research (or as you call it "wikipedia") before making sweeping claims of conspiracy theories.

Banned
03-22-2013, 10:56 PM
It's unfortunate we're so far apart when it comes to the New York Times. I'd hate to speculate on why it falls below your barometer for reliable news, but whatever your reasons are, I would hope we can agree that it's leaps and bounds above virtually every other daily publication in America. Certainly from the standpoint of pure journalism and hard news, the only paper I can think of with a right of center editorial board and a standard that even approaches the New York Times would be the Wall Street Journal.

NYT is part of the vast liberal conspiracy in the media to trick us.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 10:57 PM
Have you ever, until this point in time, even heard of a credit default swap? Derivative? CDO? I suggest you conduct some research (or as you call it "wikipedia") before making sweeping claims of conspiracy theories.

Actually, you are the one who made a sweeping claim of a conspiracy when you said:


...lenders advertised one rate, agreed to that same rate, and snuck in a variable rate mortgage on closing day.

USN - Retired
03-22-2013, 10:59 PM
the economic collapse, its causes, and what ought to be done to prevent it from happening again in the future?

That subject has already been extensively discussed in the general media.

Pueblo
03-22-2013, 11:17 PM
That subject has already been extensively discussed in the general media.

The time to admit you don't know was about 1.5 hours ago.

JD2780
03-23-2013, 01:16 AM
And I should've explained this part better; lenders advertised one rate, agreed to that same rate, and snuck in a variable rate mortgage on closing day. So it wasn't a matter of stupidity or budgeting, it was a matter of criminal fraud. Regardless of who signed what fine print, the agreement was fraudulent from the outset.

For those who are still under the impression that Wall Street was not to blame for the recession, I have a simple question: If the crisis was driven by the poor, why didn't banks stop the crisis by reducing loans before it reached critical mass? Why were these economic minds not responding to the steady increase in foreclosures throughout the 2000s?

Didnt say it was from the poor. Also, banks reducing loans would have them making less money. Now the banks were silly, but werent illegal. So that whole charged and on trial thing is out the window.

Oh, and as for the NYT JoeB. You would've shit your pants if I referenced Fox News in any of this discussion.

Pueblo
03-23-2013, 05:39 AM
Didnt say it was from the poor. Also, banks reducing loans would have them making less money. Now the banks were silly, but werent illegal. So that whole charged and on trial thing is out the window.

Oh, and as for the NYT JoeB. You would've shit your pants if I referenced Fox News in any of this discussion.

Here's a pretty good explanation (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&) of the collapse and the subsequent lack of prosecutions. I think you'll find it takes no sides.

Banned
03-23-2013, 04:43 PM
Didnt say it was from the poor. Also, banks reducing loans would have them making less money. Now the banks were silly, but werent illegal. So that whole charged and on trial thing is out the window.

Oh, and as for the NYT JoeB. You would've shit your pants if I referenced Fox News in any of this discussion.

If you think Fox and the NYT are equivalent and equal news sources, I question your reasoning. Also, I don't recall ever claiming that something didn't happen just because it was reported by Fox. Is Fox biased? Absolutely, but I'm not the one wearing the tin foil hat claiming a news event was just manufactored out of thin air by a vast conspiracy.

JD2780
03-24-2013, 12:27 AM
If you think Fox and the NYT are equivalent and equal news sources, I question your reasoning. Also, I don't recall ever claiming that something didn't happen just because it was reported by Fox. Is Fox biased? Absolutely, but I'm not the one wearing the tin foil hat claiming a news event was just manufactored out of thin air by a vast conspiracy.

Maybe your not, but most liberals are wearing the hats because they think the gov is watching them.

Banned
03-24-2013, 02:35 AM
Maybe your not, but most liberals are wearing the hats because they think the gov is watching them.

I find it hilarious you're totally okay with big government assassinating people, but don't trust news outlets owned by private companies.

JD2780
03-24-2013, 03:21 AM
I find it hilarious you're totally okay with big government assassinating people, but don't trust news outlets owned by private companies.

I trust the NYT as much as you trust Fox News. Its that simple. Also, I believe I did say I was ok with it. You're right. I'll expand on that. I'm actually conflicted with it. While I feel the guy had obvious contacts with terrorist networks, I do feel he was still a US citizen and had certain rights. Now if they're not a US citizen and finance, or recruit for the terror groups then it could be different. Only if the country allows us to operate in the area. Still conflicted.

I think its hilarious that your able to sit there and be so hypocritical of the other side of the isle while you're as fanatical as they are.

giggawatt
03-25-2013, 12:46 PM
Youre an amazing word smith. I didnt ignore it. I read it and laughed at it. Keep your berkley educated IQ points. Yes, the tax paying individual that serves the person with an eviction notice requires protection at times. I guess the world is full of rainbows in your world. Yea foot soldiers. Go give Michael Moore a blowjob.
JD reminded me.

Let me tell you folks something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life.

But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!

Now if you know what you're worth then go out and get what you're worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that!

sandsjames
03-25-2013, 02:45 PM
Oh, and as for the NYT JoeB. You would've shit your pants if I referenced Fox News in any of this discussion.

Actually saw a commercial this morning on Fox News supporting gay marriage. Damn one sided ultra conservative channel!!

JD2780
03-25-2013, 02:59 PM
Actually saw a commercial this morning on Fox News supporting gay marriage. Damn one sided ultra conservative channel!!

Joe certainly believes that's Fox News is a neocon dem hating news channel.

sandsjames
03-25-2013, 03:38 PM
Joe certainly believes that's Fox News is a neocon dem hating news channel.

I'm sure he'll make some claim to discount the fact they are actually airing these commercials.

Banned
03-25-2013, 03:44 PM
I'm sure he'll make some claim to discount the fact they are actually airing these commercials.

I see it as a failing party desperately trying to become relevant in an increasingly liberal world...

what's YOUR explanation?

JD2780
03-25-2013, 03:50 PM
I see it as a failing party desperately trying to become relevant in an increasingly liberal world...

what's YOUR explanation?

They have been there the whole time, the libs haven't noticed because it wasn't 100%. Nice one by the trog. Acting tough on the Internet. Ok if that's what you think. I'm not the one calling somebody a whiny ass pussy on the Internet. Another keyboard tough guy. Typical lib Joe.

JD2780
03-25-2013, 04:40 PM
Yup. You're always the first one to throw out silly things like "give Moore a blowjob".... then when I fire back you start crying like a little bitch about how hard your life is and how everyone should be extra nice to you so we don't hurt your precious little feelings.

Give it a break dude.

Where have I asked for a break and said my life is hard? Once again Joe, get new material. I'll say it, I wish PYB was so you could get new material. With all that education you claim I'd think you so would be able to get better material. Oh well, I'll prepare for more dog slayer comments and claims that I'm asking for people to feel sorry for me. Joe the Keyboard Tough guy.

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 05:17 PM
Wow...sandsjames banned for "name calling"? Pretty impressive. I guess if I'd been around I could have kept things straight.

JD2780
03-25-2013, 05:18 PM
Wow...sandsjames banned for "name calling"? Pretty impressive. I guess if I'd been around I could have kept things straight.

Weird. Name calling gets you the boot eh?

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 05:21 PM
Weird. Name calling gets you the boot eh?

Don't ask me. I have no idea. It seems so. I'd be curious to know what name "he" used. It must have been pretty bad to get put on the banned wagon. Must have been racist or something. As a good thread cop, I will investigate further.

thread_cop
03-25-2013, 05:32 PM
Don't ask me. I have no idea. It seems so. I'd be curious to know what name "he" used. It must have been pretty bad to get put on the banned wagon. Must have been racist or something. As a good thread cop, I will investigate further.

Interesting. Can't find name calling. I did see him say "Fuck you" to JB, but no name calling (consequently that post was removed and only shows up in a JB quote). If they are going to ban "him" I wish they'd get the reason right.

Shrike
03-25-2013, 06:53 PM
Interesting. Can't find name calling. I did see him say "Fuck you" to JB, but no name calling (consequently that post was removed and only shows up in a JB quote). If they are going to ban "him" I wish they'd get the reason right.

I think that's the one that did it.

JD2780
03-25-2013, 06:54 PM
I think that's the one that did it.

And JB was simply being himself.

Shrike
03-25-2013, 07:11 PM
And JB was simply being himself.

I'm just amazed that people still try and have "discussions" with him. TJMAC must have the patience of a saint as he's been doing it for years.

JD2780
03-25-2013, 11:09 PM
I'm just amazed that people still try and have "discussions" with him. TJMAC must have the patience of a saint as he's been doing it for years.

I still get roped into it as well. I don't know why.

thread_cop
03-26-2013, 01:40 PM
I still get roped into it as well. I don't know why.

I'm pretty new here, but from browsing some of his posts, I think somewhere deep down there is hope that at some point he will give up his standard rhetoric and actually make a point that isn't based solely on disagreeing with people like you, sandsjames, and a couple others. There's hope that he might actually have an iota of intelligence.

JD2780
03-26-2013, 01:42 PM
I'm pretty new here, but from browsing some of his posts, I think somewhere deep down there is hope that at some point he will give up his standard rhetoric and actually make a point that isn't based solely on disagreeing with people like you, sandsjames, and a couple others. There's hope that he might actually have an iota of intelligence.

Perhaps. Either that or I'm just an asshole.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-26-2013, 02:34 PM
I'm pretty new here, but from browsing some of his posts, I think somewhere deep down there is hope that at some point he will give up his standard rhetoric and actually make a point that isn't based solely on disagreeing with people like you, sandsjames, and a couple others. There's hope that he might actually have an iota of intelligence.

Oh, you missed the fun him and I had going back and forth a year ago. I had other personal issues come up and didnt get on here much, but glad to see other people have stepped up and argued with him passionately.

TJMAC77SP
03-26-2013, 03:19 PM
I'm just amazed that people still try and have "discussions" with him. TJMAC must have the patience of a saint as he's been doing it for years.

Well, I also enjoy sticking hot embers in my eyes.

And we all know how I love to "tilt at windmills"