PDA

View Full Version : Extended Unemployment a Civil Right?



Pullinteeth
07-01-2013, 04:53 PM
I get that a lot of people depend on that money but a Civil Right?

Changes in North Carolina's unemployment law are just the latest in a series of issues behind the "Moral Monday" protests, which have drawn hundreds of civil rights leaders, left-leaning clergy and citizens to the state Legislative Complex almost every week since April 29.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/01/north-carolina-first-state-to-cut-long-term-jobless-benefits-protesters-rally/?test=latestnews

Banned
07-01-2013, 05:22 PM
From the article:


The state's Republican-controlled legislature opted out of a Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare that would have extended coverage to 500,000 low-income people. GOP lawmakers have also proposed reductions in state income taxes while increasing sales taxes, as well as cuts in public school funding and restrictions on early voting.

Wow, so the NC Republicans aren't even trying to conceal it anymore... they're openly Fascist pricks now.

Rusty Jones
07-01-2013, 05:32 PM
Well... the question is; what has the state been doing in terms of legislation to conditions conducive for businesses to hire more people?

If a government can't see to it that its people prosper, or provide for its people when it fails to do that, then why is the government even there?

North Carolina is such an interesting state - by raising sales tax, they're putting the burden of the tax on the poor. If the CEO of BofA and I each buy a Coke, I'm losing a higher percentage of my income to sales tax than that CEO is.

They don't have the balls to raise actual income tax, do they?

Especially when so many big banks - the "too big to fail" banks - are headquartered in North Carolina. They're in so much debt, and those cowards won't go after the big businesses. They go after the poor and unemployed.

Banned
07-01-2013, 05:37 PM
From the article:


The state's Republican-controlled legislature opted out of a Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare that would have extended coverage to 500,000 low-income people. GOP lawmakers have also proposed reductions in state income taxes while increasing sales taxes, as well as cuts in public school funding and restrictions on early voting.

Wow, so the NC Republicans aren't even trying to conceal it anymore... they're openly Fascist pricks now. Tax cuts for the rich while increasing taxes for the poor, and cutting public education and unemployment benefits...

oh and just to add insult to injury, throw in some voter suppression. Is voter suppression now a standard part of all Republican legislation now? Did Republican Jesus come down and tell them that we need to keep the brown people from voting?

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 05:56 PM
Funny that my brother in law just pulled his fifth wheel down there to take a brick mason's job on Fort Bragg. When there is no work in MI for him, (which there has been very little in the last few years) He travels as a gysy brick mason. I believe there is always work if your willing, (to do it, travel for it)

Rusty Jones
07-01-2013, 05:59 PM
Funny that my brother in law just pulled his fifth wheel down there to take a brick mason's job on Fort Bragg. When there is no work in MI for him, (which there has been very little in the last few years) He travels as a gysy brick mason. I believe there is always work if your willing, (to do it, travel for it)

In other words, he found a job. Something that it takes some longer to do than others, regardless of the amount of effort that is put into it. So your brother's number came up. He's not special. He was simply an unemployed man whose time has come; while the rest fight for theirs.

Juggs
07-01-2013, 06:01 PM
From the article:



Wow, so the NC Republicans aren't even trying to conceal it anymore... they're openly Fascist pricks now.

How does this equate to racism?

Rusty Jones
07-01-2013, 06:13 PM
Funny that my brother in law just pulled his fifth wheel down there to take a brick mason's job on Fort Bragg. When there is no work in MI for him, (which there has been very little in the last few years) He travels as a gysy brick mason. I believe there is always work if your willing, (to do it, travel for it)

In other words, he found a job. Something that it takes some longer to do than others, regardless of the amount of effort that is put into it. So your brother's number came up. He's not special. He was simply an unemployed man whose time has come; while the rest fight for theirs.

Banned
07-01-2013, 06:21 PM
How does this equate to racism?

What....?

Banned
07-01-2013, 06:26 PM
Never mind upon further review the ruling on the field is over turned. He didnt say racist. he said fascist.

My bad.

No worries. ;)

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 06:27 PM
In other words, he found a job. Something that it takes some longer to do than others, regardless of the amount of effort that is put into it. So your brother's number came up. He's not special. He was simply an unemployed man whose time has come; while the rest fight for theirs.

Nope, He was home for less than a week from a job that just finished in New Orleans. Contacted his network of Brick Masons and he was off to Fort Bragg. He would preferr to be working in his home state but he does what he has to.

Banned
07-01-2013, 06:27 PM
Never mind upon further review the ruling on the field is over turned. He didnt say racist. he said fascist.

My bad.

No worries. ;)

Banned
07-01-2013, 06:31 PM
I am assuming you "missed" this part?

"Republicans, who control North Carolina's governorship and both chambers of the legislature for the first time in more than a century, say they have a mandate to restore financial stability to a state that nearly went bankrupt under Democrat leadership."

I know you think that everything is solved by raising taxes but the fact of the matter is that the states (unlike the Fed) are required to balance their budgets every year and when you have to eliminate $11.1 BILLION, there are VERY few options other than cutting the programs that cost the most to the bone..... Why you would think that is Facist? That I don't know.

They're cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor... and also slashing services for the poor. This is class warfare, pure and simple.

Rusty Jones
07-01-2013, 06:33 PM
Nope, He was home for less than a week from a job that just finished in New Orleans. Contacted his network of Brick Masons and he was off to Fort Bragg. He would preferr to be working in his home state but he does what he has to.

In other words... he found a job. Something that it takes some longer to do than others, regardless of the amount of effort that is put into it. So your brother's number came up. He's not special. He was simply an unemployed man whose time has come; while the rest fight for theirs.

Juggs
07-01-2013, 06:36 PM
What....?


Never mind upon further review the ruling on the field is over turned. He didnt say racist. he said fascist.

My bad.

Banned
07-01-2013, 06:42 PM
I don't believe the governement should have to take care of anyone. People should take care of themselves and thier family. Everybody wants something for nothing.

Ah yes survival of the fittest... exactly what Jesus wanted.

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 06:42 PM
In other words... he found a job. Something that it takes some longer to do than others, regardless of the amount of effort that is put into it. So your brother's number came up. He's not special. He was simply an unemployed man whose time has come; while the rest fight for theirs.

I think this guy is special. He could be home collecting unemployment, but he chooses to work. He didn't wait for his time to come up. He made it happen. Some sit and wait for a job to drop in their lap, others make it happen.

Pullinteeth
07-01-2013, 06:43 PM
From the article:



Wow, so the NC Republicans aren't even trying to conceal it anymore... they're openly Fascist pricks now.

I am assuming you "missed" this part?

"Republicans, who control North Carolina's governorship and both chambers of the legislature for the first time in more than a century, say they have a mandate to restore financial stability to a state that nearly went bankrupt under Democrat leadership."

I know you think that everything is solved by raising taxes but the fact of the matter is that the states (unlike the Fed) are required to balance their budgets every year and when you have to eliminate $11.1 BILLION, there are VERY few options other than cutting the programs that cost the most to the bone..... Why you would think that is Facist? That I don't know.

Banned
07-01-2013, 06:46 PM
I am assuming you "missed" this part?

"Republicans, who control North Carolina's governorship and both chambers of the legislature for the first time in more than a century, say they have a mandate to restore financial stability to a state that nearly went bankrupt under Democrat leadership."

I know you think that everything is solved by raising taxes but the fact of the matter is that the states (unlike the Fed) are required to balance their budgets every year and when you have to eliminate $11.1 BILLION, there are VERY few options other than cutting the programs that cost the most to the bone..... Why you would think that is Facist? That I don't know.

They're cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor... and also slashing services for the poor. And also, on top of all that, attempting naked voter surppression. This is class warfare, pure and simple.

You're so eager to defend the Christian Taliban at every opportunity, no matter what. Explain to me how the fuck ending early voting is going to reduce the deficit. How the fuck is cutting taxes on the rich and raising taxes on the poor going to fix the deficit? How the fuck is cutting education going to reduce the deficit? In the long run, wouldn't all these things actually RAISE the deficit? Obviously yes, but you don't care, you're just in to defend the "right" party, no matter what crimes against humanity they commit.

Pullinteeth
07-01-2013, 06:54 PM
They're cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor... and also slashing services for the poor. And also, on top of all that, attempting naked voter surppression. This is class warfare, pure and simple.

You're so eager to defend the Christian Taliban at every opportunity, no matter what. Explain to me how the fuck ending early voting is going to reduce the deficit. How the fuck is cutting taxes on the rich and raising taxes on the poor going to fix the deficit? How the fuck is cutting education going to reduce the deficit? In the long run, wouldn't all these things actually RAISE the deficit? Obviously yes, but you don't care, you're just in to defend the "right" party, no matter what crimes against humanity they commit.

Apparently reading isn't your strong suit...I get it... The portion YOU quoted stated;

The state's Republican-controlled legislature opted out of a Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare that would have extended coverage to 500,000 low-income people. GOP lawmakers have also proposed reductions in state income taxes while increasing sales taxes, as well as cuts in public school funding and restrictions on early voting.

It says nothing about ending early voting-depending on how you read it, they are either proposing restrictions on early voting OR cutting restrictions on early voting.

The PROPOSED tax restructuring doesn't have anything to do with last year's deficit and based off the portion YOU quoted, doesn't favor the rich OR the poor. In fact, it appears to be more along the lines with what states like FL have done-eliminate income tax and tax simply on what you buy-instead of doing both. A rational person might argue that this method is MORE fair because the rich can't weasel their way out of sales taxes as easily as they do income taxes.

The fact that they opted out of the Medicaid expansion makes sound fiscal sense as well since the state would be responsible for funding it. Are YOU going to write the check to pay for it?

Some of these cuts to public schools? They proposed increasing the mileage limit for school buses from 200,000 to 250,000 miles-reduced the replacement costs by 42% (but keep the 20 year limit).... THE HORROR!!! Yeah HUGE attack on the poor... A diesel engine that is properly maintained can run for a LONG time... How does that save money? It saves $28 million next year....

I get it, you don't let the facts get in your way but c'mon! You are just spewing forth your venom with NOTHING to back it up...I get it you just love to attack everything done by anyone even slightly conservative....that is just that well known liberal tolerance and strict adhereance to REALITY right? No wait....

20+Years
07-01-2013, 06:54 PM
I don't believe the governement should have to take care of anyone. People should take care of themselves and thier family. Everybody wants something for nothing.

Banned
07-01-2013, 06:56 PM
I don't believe the governement should have to take care of anyone. People should take care of themselves and thier family. Everybody wants something for nothing.

Ah yes survival of the fittest... exactly what Jesus wanted.

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 07:00 PM
Rusty, The gov does not require a person to travel a thousand plus miles to obtain employment to be eligible for unemployment. My brother "chooses" to work. Maybe they should. He could be sitting in his home state on unemployment, but that does not put points in his retirement system. He does not want to on the dole. He has plans to retire someday and unemployment is not going to make that happen for him.

Sock Puppet
07-01-2013, 07:01 PM
They're cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor... and also slashing services for the poor. This is class warfare, pure and simple.

Such a one trick pony.

Rusty Jones
07-01-2013, 07:02 PM
I think this guy is special. He could be home collecting unemployment, but he chooses to work.

Your brother didn't make that choice. He was simply lucky enough get hired.


He didn't wait for his time to come up. He made it happen. Some sit and wait for a job to drop in their lap, others make it happen.

What, you mean your brother "applied" for jobs; just like everyone on unemployment is required to do in order to keep their benefits?


I don't believe the governement should have to take care of anyone. People should take care of themselves and thier family. Everybody wants something for nothing.

Why even have a government then?

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 07:14 PM
Rusty, The gov does not require a person to travel a thousand plus miles to obtain employment to be eligible for unemployment. My brother "chooses" to work. Maybe they should. He could be sitting in his home state on unemployment, but that does not put points in his retirement system. He does not want to on the dole. He has plans to retire someday and unemployment is not going to make that happen for him.

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 07:20 PM
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
Annnnd, You too can get a Free Obama Phone, Bridge Card, Wic Card, Free Health care, Goverment Subsidized Housing...................etc

Call before midnight tonight.

I tell people how a brother of mine makes the job market work for him and get attacked. Just Wow!

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 07:28 PM
Jesus was employed as a carpenter and community organizer.

And a Shepherd, lamb chops, yum.

20+Years
07-01-2013, 07:28 PM
Ah yes survival of the fittest... exactly what Jesus wanted.

By your point of view, Jesus would have never made it farther than breaking bread for the masses. He would have had to be there day after day after day to keep providing for others.

20+Years
07-01-2013, 07:32 PM
Why even have a government then?

Why of course, to guide the direction of the country as a whole. To take care of issues that require attention at a national level, aka foriegn relations.

Not to get into our daily lives and NOT to provide for those people who do not provide for themselves. There is a HUGE difference from providing for the truly needy and providing for those who find it easier living off the government than doing for themselves.

Pullinteeth
07-01-2013, 07:38 PM
I don't believe the governement should have to take care of anyone. People should take care of themselves and thier family. Everybody wants something for nothing.

I disagree. There are circumstances in which the Gov SHOULD support people. My objection is simply when people expect the gov to support them. Do I feel bad for the 100,000+ that are losing their unemploymnet bennies? Absolutely. However, if they are capable of work, there is employment out there. Will they be underemployed? Highly likely. I just don't see how a reasonable person can expect a nearly bankrupt state to continue to support people that are able to work when they have other people that can't work that they have to support. There HAVE to be priorities and IMO, the handicaped, kids, etc have to be a higher priority than someone that can work and just can't find a job that pays what they are used to... The state shouldn't support your standard of living, they should support your survival...

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 07:49 PM
The state shouldn't support your standard of living, they should support your survival...

I agree with this.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

Banned
07-01-2013, 08:01 PM
Rusty, The gov does not require a person to travel a thousand plus miles to obtain employment to be eligible for unemployment. My brother "chooses" to work. Maybe they should. He could be sitting in his home state on unemployment, but that does not put points in his retirement system. He does not want to on the dole. He has plans to retire someday and unemployment is not going to make that happen for him.


"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
Annnnd, You too can get a Free Obama Phone, Bridge Card, Wic Card, Free Health care, Goverment Subsidized Housing...................etc

Call before midnight tonight.

I tell people how a brother of mine makes the job market work for him and get attacked. Just Wow!

You got "attacked" because your post was arrogant and naive. Your brother got lucky. Also, not everyone can travel a thousand miles for a job.


By your point of view, Jesus would have never made it farther than breaking bread for the masses. He would have had to be there day after day after day to keep providing for others.

"Made it farther"? Such as what? To me, feeding the poor and healing the sick was the greatest part of the Jesus fable.


Why of course, to guide the direction of the country as a whole. To take care of issues that require attention at a national level, aka foriegn relations.

Not to get into our daily lives and NOT to provide for those people who do not provide for themselves. There is a HUGE difference from providing for the truly needy and providing for those who find it easier living off the government than doing for themselves.

So every single person who becomes unemployed is just "finding it easier to live off the government"?

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 08:02 PM
[QUOTE=Joe Bonham;637114]You got "attacked" because your post was arrogant and naive. Your brother got lucky. Also, not everyone can travel a thousand miles for a job.

Disagree Joe, you can call it luck, but he got on the phone and found this job....it didn't find him. I do understand that not all can do what he does. (travel whenever, whereever for work, much less lay brick for a living) but in this ecomnomy its what life has become for him.

Banned
07-01-2013, 08:05 PM
[QUOTE=Joe Bonham;637114]
Disagree Joe, you can call it luck, but he got on the phone and found this job....it didn't find him. I do understand that not all can do what he does. (travel whenever, whereever for work, much less lay brick for a living) but in this ecomnomy its what life has become for him.

Applying for work doesn't mean you're going to get it.

Greg
07-01-2013, 08:10 PM
You got "attacked" because your post was arrogant and naive. Your brother got lucky. Also, not everyone can travel a thousand miles for a job.


Lucky? Hardly, preparedness intersecting with opportunity.

It's funny, how certain individuals come up with excuses to try to explain their own inadequacies.

Just because someone has a good work ethic, and is very determined you shouldn't hold it against them.

Rusty Jones
07-01-2013, 08:21 PM
Rusty, The gov does not require a person to travel a thousand plus miles to obtain employment to be eligible for unemployment. My brother "chooses" to work. Maybe they should. He could be sitting in his home state on unemployment, but that does not put points in his retirement system. He does not want to on the dole. He has plans to retire someday and unemployment is not going to make that happen for him.

Good for your brother. It takes money to be able to travel "a thousand plus miles" out of state. Not just for transportation, but for the lodging and other required expenses. Most people on unemployment aren't going to have that kind of money; and even if they did, it's not a responsible risk to take when it may not work out, and now they don't have the money that they could have saved.


"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
Annnnd, You too can get a Free Obama Phone, Bridge Card, Wic Card, Free Health care, Goverment Subsidized Housing...................etc

Call before midnight tonight.

I tell people how a brother of mine makes the job market work for him and get attacked. Just Wow!

No one is attacking your brother. I'm just saying that he's a lucky man. Not a special one.


Why of course, to guide the direction of the country as a whole. To take care of issues that require attention at a national level, aka foriegn relations.

You have foreign relations because you have a government, not the other way around. Try again.


Not to get into our daily lives and NOT to provide for those people who do not provide for themselves. There is a HUGE difference from providing for the truly needy and providing for those who find it easier living off the government than doing for themselves.

See, there you go, accusing the poor of being lazy. That's what it always comes down to.


I disagree. There are circumstances in which the Gov SHOULD support people. My objection is simply when people expect the gov to support them. Do I feel bad for the 100,000+ that are losing their unemploymnet bennies? Absolutely. However, if they are capable of work, there is employment out there. Will they be underemployed? Highly likely. I just don't see how a reasonable person can expect a nearly bankrupt state to continue to support people that are able to work when they have other people that can't work that they have to support. There HAVE to be priorities and IMO, the handicaped, kids, etc have to be a higher priority than someone that can work and just can't find a job that pays what they are used to... The state shouldn't support your standard of living, they should support your survival...

There's a reason why unemployment is higher depending on how much you've made - it's because they want you to seek work in your field. I've got an MBA. If I lose my job, and I stock shelves at Walmart; I'm taking away from someone who only qualifies for that and nothing else. Why should some schmuck with a GED have to compete with someone with MBA and 13 years of white collar work experience to stock shelves at Walmart?

TJMAC77SP
07-01-2013, 08:22 PM
They're cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor... and also slashing services for the poor. And also, on top of all that, attempting naked voter surppression. This is class warfare, pure and simple.

You're so eager to defend the Christian Taliban at every opportunity, no matter what. Explain to me how the fuck ending early voting is going to reduce the deficit. How the fuck is cutting taxes on the rich and raising taxes on the poor going to fix the deficit? How the fuck is cutting education going to reduce the deficit? In the long run, wouldn't all these things actually RAISE the deficit? Obviously yes, but you don't care, you're just in to defend the "right" party, no matter what crimes against humanity they commit.

Well, ignoring as usual your blatent hyperbole, early voting costs money...................................

Pullinteeth
07-01-2013, 08:23 PM
Applying for work doesn't mean you're going to get it.

Agree 100% but you and I both know that applying for work also doesn't mean you are trying to get work. I also agree that requiring people to travel 1,000s of miles for work is absurd. People have family AND in most cases, work is availible locally.

DDGX300
07-01-2013, 08:35 PM
Your brother didn't make that choice. He was simply lucky enough get hired.



What, you mean your brother "applied" for jobs; just like everyone on unemployment is required to do in order to keep their benefits?



Why even have a government then?

The government is not here to hold your hand. That is why the nation is falling behind. Your destiny is in your hands. YOu have to go out there and make things happen for you. If you sit at home and play with your balls or va jay jay all day waiting on someoneles to make it happen for you then you will fail.

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 08:51 PM
I wouldn't have given this thead a second look except that it involved NC where my brother-in-law found work within a week of being laid off in New Orleans. Traveling is nothing new in the building trades. If your in the union there is a network for this. You have to work X amount of time during the year to earn your retirement points. He could have ended up out in TAK land with the boom out there. I apologize if I got too shitty with anyone. But my point is sometimes you have to make your own luck, its not going to drop out of the sky, or be provided by the government.

Rusty Jones
07-01-2013, 09:03 PM
The government is not here to hold your hand. That is why the nation is falling behind. Your destiny is in your hands. YOu have to go out there and make things happen for you. If you sit at home and play with your balls or va jay jay all day waiting on someoneles to make it happen for you then you will fail.

Ah, I guess so many people were jobless in the 1930's because a big masturbation craze swept the nation. Same thing now, huh? Well then, I guess I'd better only shake once after taking a piss. Otherwise, I might lose my job.


I wouldn't have given this thead a second look except that it involved NC where my brother-in-law found work within a week of being laid off in New Orleans. Traveling is nothing new in the building trades. If your in the union there is a network for this. You have to work X amount of time during the year to earn your retirement points. He could have ended up out in TAK land with the boom out there. I apologize if I got too shitty with anyone. But my point is sometimes you have to make your own luck, its not going to drop out of the sky, or be provided by the government.

So now you're leaking your brother's circumstances - ones that do not apply to everyone - that allowed him to do what he did? Nice...

Banned
07-01-2013, 09:33 PM
Ah, I guess so many people were jobless in the 1930's because a big masturbation craze swept the nation. Same thing now, huh? Well then, I guess I'd better only shake once after taking a piss. Otherwise, I might lose my job.

Ya know, once upon a time when Americans got fucked over by the rich, they would actually take to the streets and fight with armed soldiers and police. Not so much anymore. Now if you protest you're just a "freeloader" and despised by the people in your own social class who are lucky enough to still be employed. Amazing.

TSgt"M"
07-01-2013, 10:10 PM
Ok, I take back my apology. Rusty, you and Joe, can be real antagonists. If the people of NC are too efing lazy to take a hard core job of laying block, so be it. Some one from out of state is ready step up and do it. So keep crying how the state is cancelling their exxxxxxtended unemployments benefits. My brother-in-law even took his son with him and he is working as a mason's tender. They had to pass drug test and background checks to work on base, Ft Bragg if you have lost tract. Work is out there, again if your willing. My brother did not anticipate this at his age, (57) but is willing to do it. Now you can start the argument how out of state workers are taking jobs away from the people of NC. To all others: TSgt "M" admits to being trolled by Rusty and Joe. I'll try to not let these a$$holes do it to me again.

Banned
07-01-2013, 10:14 PM
Ok, I take back my apology. Rusty, you and Joe, can be real antagonists. If the people of NC are too efing lazy to take a hard core job of laying block, so be it. Some one from out of state is ready step up and do it. So keep crying how the state is cancelling their exxxxxxtended unemployments benefits. My brother-in-law even took his son with him and he is working as a mason's tender. They had to pass drug test and background checks to work on base, Ft Bragg if you have lost tract. Work is out there, again if your willing. My brother did not anticipate this at his age, (57) but is willing to do it. Now you can start the argument how out of state workers are taking jobs away from the people of NC. To all others: TSgt "M" admits to being trolled by Rusty and Joe. I'll try to not let these a$$holes do it to me again.

57 year old man... how much is that job offering him? I'm going to take a leap here and guess that I probably make more than him as a single 24 year old E-5 in the military. And that by no means is bashing on him - that's just a sad statement about what the private sector is like. The private sector is garbage, and pays shit - but has somehow misled us all into thinking its great, and being so thankful when we're given peanuts.

CYBERFX1024
07-01-2013, 10:26 PM
oh and just to add insult to injury, throw in some voter suppression. Is voter suppression now a standard part of all Republican legislation now? Did Republican Jesus come down and tell them that we need to keep the brown people from voting?

How is making sure to sure ID to verify who you are when voting, voter suppression?

20+Years
07-01-2013, 10:41 PM
You have foreign relations because you have a government, not the other way around. Try again.

See, there you go, accusing the poor of being lazy. That's what it always comes down to.


Ummmm... ok. I know you have a need to disagree, but I don't care which order creates what, that is the type of thing I want the government working on, not free hand-outs for votes.

That was also a good stretch since I never used "lazy", but I won't disagree some poor people are poor because they are lazy. Others are unfortunate, diseased, or possibly just had a run of bad luck. But heres a fact, everyday I can find people in the unemployment line, and every day I pass help wanted signs. I come from a family where mom worked 2 jobs, and part time cleaning for others to make due. There are too many people in the "line" who would say that is to hard of work. I call B.S.

CYBERFX1024
07-01-2013, 10:42 PM
I am born and raised in NC, and I still own a house there. I did vote for the new governor McCory, because the previous one drove our finances almost to ruins. She was trying to live by Obama'a principles and give everything she could free out. I am all for helping people when they are down, but quite frankly it has become a epidemic of people wanting to use and abuse the system just because they don't have to work. I KNOW alot of people in NC are not like that, but the few that are give the rest a bad name.

For the record he is cutting EXTENDED Unemployment, which is anything past 26 weeks. Which is about 7 months altogether. I, myself have been on unemployment for 6 months in NC until I found a job in Afghanistan. What alot of companies are doing now are sitting back and waiting to see what Obamacare fully looks like. Before they invest there time and money into hiring new people.

Also NC is not trying to implement new jim crow laws for voting. We are just stating that it is only right that person who wants to vote show a Legitimate ID or a voter id card. A voter id card is free in NC, a state issued id is only $10.

TSgt"M"
07-02-2013, 12:26 AM
57 year old man... how much is that job offering him? I'm going to take a leap here and guess that I probably make more than him as a single 24 year old E-5 in the military. And that by no means is bashing on him - that's just a sad statement about what the private sector is like. The private sector is garbage, and pays shit - but has somehow misled us all into thinking its great, and being so thankful when we're given peanuts.

Ha Ha, not biting.

TSgt"M"
07-02-2013, 12:42 AM
57 year old man... how much is that job offering him? I'm going to take a leap here and guess that I probably make more than him as a single 24 year old E-5 in the military. And that by no means is bashing on him - that's just a sad statement about what the private sector is like. The private sector is garbage, and pays shit - but has somehow misled us all into thinking its great, and being so thankful when we're given peanuts.

I said I wasn't going to get trolled again but I get it now.
Over and Out

Banned
07-02-2013, 01:48 AM
Ha Ha, not biting.


I said I wasn't going to get trolled again but I get it now.
Over and Out

Looks like I've uncovered the truth, or at least am very close to it.

I make $60 thousand a year, incidentally. At 24 years old. And I'm not rich by no means, that's enough money for me, a single person with no kids, to live comfortably. If I was married and with kids I would be barely making ends meet right now.

Banned
07-02-2013, 01:53 AM
According to your posting history:

Worked in an amusement park, while in high school, for three, or four days.
Enlisted in the US Marine Corp.
Joined the Army National Guard, after separation from active duty.
Worked in a VAMC, at first claimed to be a social worker until another poster asked where you received your degree. Then back tracked to say you worked for a social worker.
Worked in a public affairs office, slinging a Nikon/Canon.
Now claims to be a GS, but complaining about 9-5 hours.

All correct, except:

1) I worked at an amusement park after the Corps.

2) Not sure where you got the "backtracked" thing. I was a GS-5. My immediate supervisor was a GS-9.

3) I'm not "complaining" about 9-5 hours surrounded by brass, its just going to be a culture shock for me.

4) I still "sling a Nikon". I will always sling a Nikon. ;)

Greg
07-02-2013, 01:57 AM
57 year old man... how much is that job offering him? I'm going to take a leap here and guess that I probably make more than him as a single 24 year old E-5 in the military. And that by no means is bashing on him - that's just a sad statement about what the private sector is like. The private sector is garbage, and pays shit - but has somehow misled us all into thinking its great, and being so thankful when we're given peanuts.

According to your posting history:

Worked in an amusement park, while in high school, for three, or four days.
Enlisted in the US Marine Corp.
Joined the Army National Guard, after separation from active duty.
Worked in a VAMC, at first claimed to be a social worker until another poster asked where you received your degree. Then back tracked to say you worked for a social worker.
Worked in a public affairs office, slinging a Nikon/Canon.
Now claims to be a GS, but complaining about 9-5 hours.

Banned
07-02-2013, 02:07 AM
According to your posting history:

Worked in an amusement park, while in high school, for three, or four days.
Enlisted in the US Marine Corp.
Joined the Army National Guard, after separation from active duty.
Worked in a VAMC, at first claimed to be a social worker until another poster asked where you received your degree. Then back tracked to say you worked for a social worker.
Worked in a public affairs office, slinging a Nikon/Canon.
Now claims to be a GS, but complaining about 9-5 hours.

All correct, except:

1) I worked at an amusement park after the Corps, not before. http://www.kamansart.com/

2) Not sure where you got the "backtracked" thing. I was a GS-5. My immediate supervisor was a GS-9.

3) I'm not "complaining" about 9-5 hours surrounded by brass, its just going to be a culture shock for me.

4) I still "sling a Nikon". I will always sling a Nikon. ;)

I do have to congratulate your memory though - that's a lot of stuff that I must have mentioned fleetingly months ago!

TSgt"M"
07-02-2013, 02:13 AM
57 year old man... how much is that job offering him? I'm going to take a leap here and guess that I probably make more than him as a single 24 year old E-5 in the military.

Cover is blown. Go to bed, little boy

garhkal
07-02-2013, 06:00 AM
Wow, so the NC Republicans aren't even trying to conceal it anymore... they're openly Fascist pricks now.

You kind of missed this part

We owed $7.1 billion in state debt," said state Sen. Thom Goolsby. "And on top of all that, we owed the feds $3 billion in unemployment insurance. So, we have been trying to get our fiscal house in order


If they kept taking more money their debt level would go up..



oh and just to add insult to injury, throw in some voter suppression. Is voter suppression now a standard part of all Republican legislation now? Did Republican Jesus come down and tell them that we need to keep the brown people from voting?

How did you get that from the article?


Ah yes survival of the fittest... exactly what Jesus wanted.

Coming from someone who is continually bashing god/Christians etc, i don't see how you can claim to know what Jesus wants or not.


I am assuming you "missed" this part?

"Republicans, who control North Carolina's governorship and both chambers of the legislature for the first time in more than a century, say they have a mandate to restore financial stability to a state that nearly went bankrupt under Democrat leadership."

I know you think that everything is solved by raising taxes but the fact of the matter is that the states (unlike the Fed) are required to balance their budgets every year and when you have to eliminate $11.1 BILLION, there are VERY few options other than cutting the programs that cost the most to the bone..... Why you would think that is Facist? That I don't know.

Well said PT.


I disagree. There are circumstances in which the Gov SHOULD support people. My objection is simply when people expect the gov to support them. Do I feel bad for the 100,000+ that are losing their unemploymnet bennies?

And there should always be a time limit on how long those benefits DO go on for.


How is making sure to sure ID to verify who you are when voting, voter suppression?

Exactly. I have never understood the clamor from those on the left that requiring ID to prove you are you to being suppressing the vote? Now if somehow all those of a specific ethnicity do not have it i can see the arguments for it, but when id is required for so damn much these days i cannot see how ANY adult does not have one..

Banned
07-02-2013, 06:06 AM
Cover is blown. Go to bed, little boy

Oh wow, I must have really hit a sore spot with this one! You got butthurt pretty quick there buddy. Well pretty stupid to bring up your brother if you were going to get butthurt about being criticized. You deserved it.


You kind of missed this part

If they kept taking more money their debt level would go up..

I don't follow... so cutting taxes on the rich fixes this problem how? And gutting the public education system... making kids dumb, so they'll go on food stamps in higher numbers... this solves the deficit how?



How did you get that from the article?

They're cutting early voting. Voter suppression, under the guise of "saving money".


Coming from someone who is continually bashing god/Christians etc, i don't see how you can claim to know what Jesus wants or not.

As a former Christian who has probably read the bible more times than most people on this forum - absolutely.



And there should always be a time limit on how long those benefits DO go on for.

There is one, even with extended benefits. The issue here is that they are cutting the extended benefits, but have made zero effort to improve the job market. They don't give a shit if people starve or not, they're just hooking up their rich buddies who got them into office.

Pullinteeth
07-02-2013, 02:25 PM
I'm going to take a leap here and guess that I probably make more than him as a single 24 year old E-5 in the military.


Looks like I've uncovered the truth, or at least am very close to it.

I make $60 thousand a year, incidentally. At 24 years old. And I'm not rich by no means, that's enough money for me, a single person with no kids, to live comfortably. If I was married and with kids I would be barely making ends meet right now.

No...what you did was lie. As an E-5 in the ARNG you make $5,685.75 a year (not $60,000) so unless he makes less than that as a mason, you were WRONG, YOU do not make more as a 24 year old E-5 in the ARNG.

http://projects.militarytimes.com/pay-charts/2013/year_guard/

Banned
07-02-2013, 07:41 PM
No...what you did was lie. As an E-5 in the ARNG you make $5,685.75 a year (not $60,000) so unless he makes less than that as a mason, you were WRONG, YOU do not make more as a 24 year old E-5 in the ARNG.

http://projects.militarytimes.com/pay-charts/2013/year_guard/

You're looking at weekend M-Day pay. I am paid fulltime, which - including BAH, comes up to about 60 thousand before taxes.

Come on now dude. You were so eager to prove me "in a lie", that you didn't even think it through first. Did you really think I was surviving on less than six grand a year? Dude!

Pullinteeth
07-02-2013, 08:48 PM
You're looking at weekend M-Day pay. I am paid fulltime, which - including BAH, comes up to about 60 thousand before taxes.

Come on now dude. You were so eager to prove me "in a lie", that you didn't even think it through first. Did you really think I was surviving on less than six grand a year? Dude!

So you are an AGR? Or a manday whore? No I didn't but most Guardsmen/Reservists have civilian jobs...and if you are an ART, you do not make $60,000 as a 24YO E-5, you make the vast majority of it as a civilian....

Banned
07-02-2013, 09:17 PM
So you are an AGR? Or a manday whore? No I didn't but most Guardsmen/Reservists have civilian jobs...and if you are an ART, you do not make $60,000 as a 24YO E-5, you make the vast majority of it as a civilian....

I'm ADOS. I wish I was AGR...

E-5 with six years TOS isn't a lot, I do however have the highest BAH rate in the country.

garhkal
07-02-2013, 09:52 PM
I don't follow... so cutting taxes on the rich fixes this problem how? And gutting the public education system... making kids dumb, so they'll go on food stamps in higher numbers... this solves the deficit how?

I saw nothing in that article mentioning cutting taxes, especially only on the rich. Where you getting that from?




They're cutting early voting. Voter suppression, under the guise of "saving money".


It just says GOP lawmakers have also proposed reductions in state income taxes while increasing sales taxes, as well as cuts in public school funding and restrictions on early voting.
How you get that is just going to benefit the rich is beyond me.




There is one, even with extended benefits. The issue here is that they are cutting the extended benefits, but have made zero effort to improve the job market. They don't give a shit if people starve or not, they're just hooking up their rich buddies who got them into office.

And how is the Job market not being improved their fault?

sandsjames
07-02-2013, 11:10 PM
And how is the Job market not being improved their fault?

Because he feels that people are the responsibility of the government, not of themselves. So, obviously, if employment is low it must be the fault of the government. In the eyes of some, the government should force a creation of jobs (still not sure how you create jobs that aren't there) while, at the same time, mandating higher wages and healthcare. This way, the businesses owners lose money while the government becomes richer. It's the standard extreme liberal view.

By the way, retirement is awesome.

Mcjohn1118
07-02-2013, 11:30 PM
I'm ADOS. I wish I was AGR...

E-5 with six years TOS isn't a lot, I do however have the highest BAH rate in the country.

JB, not entirely true. I lived in Vacaville for four years and yes, the BAH rate was ridiculous. As an E-7, it was $1800/month for dep rate. Anyway a check of the BAH rates for E-5 with no deps for the Travis AFB area is about $1446/month. However, in Hancom AFB, MA, it's $1779. All in all, though, the BAH rates around the country is a wash unless you buy a house. For renters, the landlords know exactly what your BAH is and it's up to you to live within your allowance or pay out of pocket. As for the $60K per year, I'll back you up on that claim. Now, define "living comfortably?" I know how pricey it is to live in NorCal but even after taxes you got to be doing better than the average married E5 with kids and a stay at home mom, no?

Mcjohn1118
07-02-2013, 11:40 PM
Because he feels that people are the responsibility of the government, not of themselves. So, obviously, if employment is low it must be the fault of the government. In the eyes of some, the government should force a creation of jobs (still not sure how you create jobs that aren't there) while, at the same time, mandating higher wages and healthcare. This way, the businesses owners lose money while the government becomes richer. It's the standard extreme liberal view.

By the way, retirement is awesome.

SJ, I am not picking sides of Libs versus Conservatives, but there are ways in tough economic times the government can "create" jobs. From 1935-1943, the Works Progress Administration created about 8 million jobs. Infrastructure was built in/around all communities: bridges, roadways, etc. Now, we did try this a few years back with the stimulus and shovel ready projects. IMO, this failed due to implementation issues and states weren't ready. Now, of course is the huge question "Who should pay?" Do we, as a sovereign nation, just print more money and ensure the Feds keep the rates near zero so we don't have hyper inflation? We risk hyper deflation in the long run if the economy improves. Or do we squeeze more taxes? But neither side can agree on how much is "their fair share?" 1980s rates, 1990s? Or we could eliminate some tax provisions where we all pay taxes. I mean, money is taken from my check each month so I must pay federal taxes, right? Nope, not a dime since I get everything back and if you do too, plus some extra money for the EIC or child tax credit then you don't pay either. The answer is, I don't have a clue what we need to do to fix this but the recovery will not be some quick fix. OH and congrats on your retirement. Thank you for your 20 years of dedication.

Banned
07-02-2013, 11:57 PM
JB, not entirely true. I lived in Vacaville for four years and yes, the BAH rate was ridiculous. As an E-7, it was $1800/month for dep rate. Anyway a check of the BAH rates for E-5 with no deps for the Travis AFB area is about $1446/month. However, in Hancom AFB, MA, it's $1779. All in all, though, the BAH rates around the country is a wash unless you buy a house. For renters, the landlords know exactly what your BAH is and it's up to you to live within your allowance or pay out of pocket. As for the $60K per year, I'll back you up on that claim. Now, define "living comfortably?" I know how pricey it is to live in NorCal but even after taxes you got to be doing better than the average married E5 with kids and a stay at home mom, no?

Actually my home of record was in Hayward - a bit higher than Fairfield (I have Fairfield as my location because that's the city I drill at).

As for living comfortably... absolutely! Doing way better on that money than I would with a wife (who doesn't work) and three kids. Also, I'm willin to travel for work, which of course would be harder or impossible if I had a family.

Banned
07-03-2013, 07:09 AM
http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/01a-political-cartoons-22-07-11.jpg?w=600&h=780

Banned
07-03-2013, 07:28 AM
Because he feels that people are the responsibility of the government, not of themselves. So, obviously, if employment is low it must be the fault of the government. In the eyes of some, the government should force a creation of jobs (still not sure how you create jobs that aren't there) while, at the same time, mandating higher wages and healthcare. This way, the businesses owners lose money while the government becomes richer. It's the standard extreme liberal view.

By the way, retirement is awesome.

Dude, are you on drugs? Private companies grew incredibly rich during the New Deal, and again got rich during war mobilization - when the government built entire factories and then gave them away. Business owners are given public money to build shit and hire people. That's how economies have worked for almost a hundred years now.

Its as if you never miss an opportunity to show hate and contempt for people less fortunate than you. Do you spit on them too?


I saw nothing in that article mentioning cutting taxes, especially only on the rich. Where you getting that from?

It just says GOP lawmakers have also proposed reductions in state income taxes while increasing sales taxes, as well as cuts in public school funding and restrictions on early voting.
How you get that is just going to benefit the rich is beyond me.

Income taxes are progressive, cutting them benefits rich people. Raising sales taxes affects poor people more, because I spend a much higher percentage of my income on substenance than Bill Gates. These religious evangelical republicans have literally taken a portion of the tax burden on the rich, and put it directly on the backs of the poor, while at the same time slashing programs which benefit the poor - jobless benefits, public education, etc.

How can you in good conscience continue defending and supporting these scum bags?



And how is the Job market not being improved their fault?

Its not a matter of "fault", they've destroyed people's means of staying alive without providing an alternative. Christian Republicans have basically taken a knife to the peoples' life raft, and not only didn't bother to find an alternative, but actually don't give a shit about finding an alternative. Many religious conservatives have developed a certain mean streak and hatred for their fellow humans that I cannot fully wrap my head around.

TJMAC77SP
07-03-2013, 12:21 PM
…………. Income taxes are progressive, cutting them benefits rich people. Raising sales taxes affects poor people more, because I spend a much higher percentage of my income on substenance than Bill Gates.. …….

Once again ignoring your irrelevant reference to religion in this matter…………

You didn't answer the question, merely repeated the assertion (of course in this rendition you didn’t add the “only rich people” codicil). If tax cuts are universal (across the entire tax table) how does a tax cut only help the rich?

Why does Bill Gates spend less on substenance (sic) than you? Do you eat more than him? Your claim is specious but I do agree that raising the sales tax rate in NC is not the answer. Between the state rate and local additions we already pay the highest in the region. We also pay sales tax (at a lower rate) on food and clothing. NC has a serious budget crisis going on but this bullshit about rich vs poor doesn’t help.

Banned
07-03-2013, 04:46 PM
Once again ignoring your irrelevant reference to religion in this matter…………

You didn't answer the question, merely repeated the assertion (of course in this rendition you didn’t add the “only rich people” codicil). If tax cuts are universal (across the entire tax table) how does a tax cut only help the rich?

Why does Bill Gates spend less on substenance (sic) than you? Do you eat more than him? Your claim is specious but I do agree that raising the sales tax rate in NC is not the answer. Between the state rate and local additions we already pay the highest in the region. We also pay sales tax (at a lower rate) on food and clothing. NC has a serious budget crisis going on but this bullshit about rich vs poor doesn’t help.

I'll reverse the question right on you. Does Gates eat more than I do? Sure he probably eats more luxury food than me - but odds are, I spend a much larger percentage of my income on food than he does - because $300-500 bucks on groceries is a much larger percentage of $4000 a month than whatever millions Gates is taking in a month.


Now here's a serious question for you TJ - WHY would Republicans slash down the income tax but raise the sales tax?

Pullinteeth
07-03-2013, 04:56 PM
I'll reverse the question right on you. Does Gates eat more than I do? Sure he probably eats more luxury food than me - but odds are, I spend a much larger percentage of my income on food than he does - because $300-500 bucks on groceries is a much larger percentage of $4000 a month than whatever millions Gates is taking in a month.


Now here's a serious question for you TJ - WHY would Republicans slash down the income tax but raise the sales tax?

For the same reason some favor a flat tax over the current tax laws we have now.... Have you READ the tax laws for CA? Nevermind the tax code for the U.S. as a whole...

Banned
07-03-2013, 05:06 PM
For the same reason some favor a flat tax over the current tax laws we have now.... Have you READ the tax laws for CA? Nevermind the tax code for the U.S. as a whole...

Yup - because it shifts the burden of taxation from the rich onto the shoulders of the poor. Its class warfare.

imported_WILDJOKER5
07-03-2013, 05:19 PM
Ah yes survival of the fittest... exactly what Jesus wanted.

Why do you make everything about Christian bashing when no one but you is bringing it up? It wasnt even in the article about Christians. You have a problem Joe, seek some anger management help. Or maybe this is what you become as an Atheist zealot, bitter.

imported_WILDJOKER5
07-03-2013, 05:22 PM
I'll reverse the question right on you. Does Gates eat more than I do? Sure he probably eats more luxury food than me - but odds are, I spend a much larger percentage of my income on food than he does - because $300-500 bucks on groceries is a much larger percentage of $4000 a month than whatever millions Gates is taking in a month.


Now here's a serious question for you TJ - WHY would Republicans slash down the income tax but raise the sales tax?

Funny thing about stats, if you try hard enough, you can always make them work to your advantage. Sad part is, you are actually arguing that you are taxed more on food essentials than Gates is taxed on luxury food items. That is funny since food essentials are typically tax free, there for, you dont.

Banned
07-03-2013, 05:22 PM
Why do you make everything about Christian bashing when no one but you is bringing it up? It wasnt even in the article about Christians. You have a problem Joe, seek some anger management help. Or maybe this is what you become as an Atheist zealot, bitter.

Because Christian zealots are the root cause of the problem. They literally believe its god's will that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

imported_WILDJOKER5
07-03-2013, 05:24 PM
Because Christian zealots are the root cause of the problem. They literally believe its god's will that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

But its the left that wants to print more money, which causes the rich to get richer. And I have yet to see the doctrine in any church that believes that.

Banned
07-03-2013, 05:26 PM
But its the left that wants to print more money, which causes the rich to get richer. And I have yet to see the doctrine in any church that believes that.

Wow, you really don't get how money works, do you?

TJMAC77SP
07-03-2013, 05:33 PM
I'll reverse the question right on you. Does Gates eat more than I do? Sure he probably eats more luxury food than me - but odds are, I spend a much larger percentage of my income on food than he does - because $300-500 bucks on groceries is a much larger percentage of $4000 a month than whatever millions Gates is taking in a month.


Now here's a serious question for you TJ - WHY would Republicans slash down the income tax but raise the sales tax?

Does Gates throw parties where he feeds people? You didn't really reverse the question Joe. This is a circular argument. Now we are going to focus on the quality of food Gates eat to make you point. Come on.

I don't know why they cut one and raise the other............except maybe that income tax is strictly paid for by residents yet sales tax is paid by anybody purchasing something within the state. Probably why Florida has no income tax but does have both a sales and use tax.

Bottom line is that the state has a huge (as in FUCKING ENORMOUSLY BIG) budget crisis which must be solved. As I said i don't agree with the solutions presented but am not sligning unsupported accusations

TJMAC77SP
07-03-2013, 05:35 PM
Yup - because it shifts the burden of taxation from the rich onto the shoulders of the poor. Its class warfare.

Wait a minute.

The current tax code favors the rich.


The proposed flat tax initiatives favor the rich.


Really? How about just saying the Christian Rich? That will make as much sense.

Banned
07-03-2013, 05:36 PM
Does Gates throw parties where he feeds people? You didn't really reverse the question Joe. This is a circular argument. Now we are going to focus on the quality of food Gates eat to make you point. Come on.

I don't know why they cut one and raise the other............except maybe that income tax is strictly paid for by residents yet sales tax is paid by anybody purchasing something within the state. Probably why Florida has no income tax but does have both a sales and use tax.

Bill Gates makes nearly 8 billion a year. Must be some awesome parties if he's spending a large percentage of his income on that.


Bottom line is that the state has a huge (as in FUCKING ENORMOUSLY BIG) budget crisis which must be solved. As I said i don't agree with the solutions presented but am not sligning unsupported accusations

Sure. We'll solve the deficit by requiring both Bob the janitor and Bill Gates to pay 15% tax for a diet coke.

TJMAC77SP
07-03-2013, 05:36 PM
Because Christian zealots are the root cause of the problem. They literally believe its god's will that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Can you cite proof of this? Proof that 'Christian zealots' are the root cause of the proposed tax cuts and sales tax increases in NC?

TJMAC77SP
07-03-2013, 05:37 PM
Bill Gates makes nearly 8 billion a year. But sure, keep telling yourself that he spends it all with "parties".



Sure. We'll solve the deficit by requiring both Bob the janitor and Bill Gates to pay 15% tax for a diet coke.

I didn't claim he 'spends it all on parties'. You are the only one who has stated that. I merely made a point of how specious your argument is that any tax reduction only favors the rich. It is preposterous and a complete logic fail.

imported_WILDJOKER5
07-03-2013, 05:38 PM
Wow, you really don't get how money works, do you?

You really dont know how a debate works do you? Nothing I said was refuted, you just tried to insult me.

imported_WILDJOKER5
07-03-2013, 05:40 PM
I didn't claim he 'spends it all on parties'. You are the only one who has stated that. I merely made a point of how specious your argument is that any tax reduction only favors the rich. It is preposterous and a complete logic fail.

Well, when the poor dont pay any income tax at all, its always going to favor those that pay the most. What is a 50% tax cut of -$400 tax liability. More money to those that didnt earn it?

Banned
07-03-2013, 06:13 PM
I didn't claim he 'spends it all on parties'. You are the only one who has stated that. I merely made a point of how specious your argument is that any tax reduction only favors the rich. It is preposterous and a complete logic fail.

So basically, you're going to ignore the actual argument presented? That's pretty desperate on your part.

TJMAC77SP
07-03-2013, 06:18 PM
So basically, you're going to ignore the actual argument presented? That's pretty desperate on your part.

Huh?

My point has been and continues to be that your lame brained and ill considered claim that any tax cut only favors the rich is......well, lame brained and ill considered. As well as unfounded.

(Edit: Unless of course you are stating that those that don't pay any tax at all in the first place will not benefit from this cut. Is THAT your point?)

imported_WILDJOKER5
07-03-2013, 06:27 PM
So basically, you're going to ignore the actual argument presented? That's pretty desperate on your part.

And you are going to ignore the part that I said you typicaly dont get taxed on your food essentials cause those are tax free or taxed lower. So your arguement is invalid. Since the poor should be making their own food as where Gates would typically have prepared, he is actually paying 8.25% tax while those that buy groceries and make food at home pay 2% in NC. Now, Gates is a very high end of the spectrum, so maybe you would like to get some more reasonable numbers. And try to get the low end above the EBT and WIC levels to be fair, since they arent paying sales tax either.

http://www.tax-rates.org/north_carolina/sales-tax

Banned
07-03-2013, 07:57 PM
Huh?

My point has been and continues to be that your lame brained and ill considered claim that any tax cut only favors the rich is......well, lame brained and ill considered. As well as unfounded.

(Edit: Unless of course you are stating that those that don't pay any tax at all in the first place will not benefit from this cut. Is THAT your point?)

Where did I say "any" tax cut only benefits the rich? I see you've given up even attempting to argue, only creating strawmen instead.

Try again.

Point is - reducing income taxes and raising sales taxes is shifting the tax burden from the rich and onto the poor. This is indisbutable fact - illustrated by your repeated and desperate attempts to deflect the point and change the subject.

garhkal
07-03-2013, 08:15 PM
Or we could eliminate some tax provisions where we all pay taxes. I mean, money is taken from my check each month so I must pay federal taxes, right? Nope, not a dime since I get everything back and if you do too, plus some extra money for the EIC or child tax credit then you don't pay either.

Well said Mcjohn. I know several families who cause of all the tax credits they get, wind up getting MORE back in their income tax returns than they ever paid in via income tax withholdings.. SO how exactly are they paying any tax?



Income taxes are progressive, cutting them benefits rich people. Raising sales taxes affects poor people more, because I spend a much higher percentage of my income on substenance than Bill Gates. These religious evangelical republicans have literally taken a portion of the tax burden on the rich, and put it directly on the backs of the poor, while at the same time slashing programs which benefit the poor - jobless benefits, public education, etc..

Joe, since most of the lower class get more back than they pay due to all the income tax credits, child credits, EIC credits etc, how is cutting the taxes benefiting rich only?


I'll reverse the question right on you. Does Gates eat more than I do? Sure he probably eats more luxury food than me - but odds are, I spend a much larger percentage of my income on food than he does - because $300-500 bucks on groceries is a much larger percentage of $4000 a month than whatever millions Gates is taking in a month.

More than likely not. BUT he is paying higher property taxes, and since you are lower income, you more than likely have many tax credits to claim than he does, so your effective burden is lessened..


Now here's a serious question for you TJ - WHY would Republicans slash down the income tax but raise the sales tax?

Maybe to try and make it flatter for all?


Yup - because it shifts the burden of taxation from the rich onto the shoulders of the poor. Its class warfare.

So i take it you favor only the rich having to pay any taxes, the poor never should.?

Banned
07-03-2013, 08:20 PM
Joe, since most of the lower class get more back than they pay due to all the income tax credits, child credits, EIC credits etc, how is cutting the taxes benefiting rich only?

You just answered your own question.


More than likely not. BUT he is paying higher property taxes,

Yes, a completely different matter - because he has PROPERTY.


and since you are lower income, you more than likely have many tax credits to claim than he does, so your effective burden is lessened..

Wrong. I got nothing back last year.


Maybe to try and make it flatter for all?

So you admit all this talk about "reducing the deficit" is actually compete bullshit?


So i take it you favor only the rich having to pay any taxes, the poor never should.?

You should pay what you can reasonably afford. If you're scraping by on $8.50 an hour, you probably shouldn't be paying taxes at all. If you're pulling in 5 billion a year, it wouldn't kill you to pay 50-60% taxes.

TJMAC77SP
07-03-2013, 10:47 PM
Where did I say "any" tax cut only benefits the rich? I see you've given up even attempting to argue, only creating strawmen instead.

Try again.

Point is - reducing income taxes and raising sales taxes is shifting the tax burden from the rich and onto the poor. This is indisbutable fact - illustrated by your repeated and desperate attempts to deflect the point and change the subject.

Joe, I don't think I used quotations.

Please explain to me how this DOESN'T say that only the rich will benefit from a tax cut? I added some bold text just so you don't miss the important words............


From the article:



Wow, so the NC Republicans aren't even trying to conceal it anymore... they're openly Fascist pricks now. Tax cuts for the rich while increasing taxes for the poor, and cutting public education and unemployment benefits...

oh and just to add insult to injury, throw in some voter suppression. Is voter suppression now a standard part of all Republican legislation now? Did Republican Jesus come down and tell them that we need to keep the brown people from voting?

So, if I read that verbatim...........income tax cuts will only apply to 'the rich' while increase in sales tax will only be paid by 'the poor'. Tell me how I am wrong in reading that.

I have said this many times and you have yet to learn the lesson...............the devil is in the details.

Rusty Jones
07-04-2013, 01:06 AM
So, if I read that verbatim...........income tax cuts will only apply to 'the rich' while increase in sales tax will only be paid by 'the poor'. Tell me how I am wrong in reading that.

Joe is right. Income tax is considered to be a progressive tax, while sales tax is regressive. That's basic microecon. With income tax, you pay more based on how much you make. With sales tax, the poor shoulder the burden. If Mitt Romney and I each buy a Coke, I just paid a higher percentage of my income in taxes than he did.

TJMAC77SP
07-04-2013, 01:14 AM
Joe is right. Income tax is considered to be a progressive tax, while sales tax is regressive. That's basic microecon. With income tax, you pay more based on how much you make. With sales tax, the poor shoulder the burden. If Mitt Romney and I each buy a Coke, I just paid a higher percentage of my income in taxes than he did.

That still doesn't prove Joe's assertion. Unless I am now to be considered rich.

It is a specious argument.

Banned
07-04-2013, 03:39 PM
Joe, I don't think I used quotations.

Please explain to me how this DOESN'T say that only the rich will benefit from a tax cut? I added some bold text just so you don't miss the important words............


So, if I read that verbatim...........income tax cuts will only apply to 'the rich' while increase in sales tax will only be paid by 'the poor'. Tell me how I am wrong in reading that.


Income tax is progressive - lowering a progressive tax and raising the flat tax transfers part of the burden from rich to poor.

This isn't even just basic economics... this is basic MATH.

Let's do a word problem:

Billy Bob makes $20000 a year, and pays no income tax (for simplicity's sake, we won't go into tax credits and all that). John Richbritches makes 1 million, and pays 25%, or 250k (again, for simplicity we'll say he gets no tax credits). Billy Bob spends 100% of his income on bills (he has no savings). John spends 10% of his income on bills, and saves the rest. Both Billy and John pay a 5% sales tax. Income tax is cut in half, sales tax is doubled.... who wins out? John or Billy?

A:Under the new tax system, Billy still pays no income tax. However, the money he pays in sales tax has doubled. John on the other hand now only pays 125k in the income tax... which is huge savings even with the income tax increase - as he was only spending 100k a year on bills - so his increase in expenses would be at most 5k.



I have said this many times and you have yet to learn the lesson...............the devil is in the details.


That still doesn't prove Joe's assertion. Unless I am now to be considered rich.

It is a specious argument.

You're rich?

TJMAC77SP
07-04-2013, 03:57 PM
Income tax is progressive - lowering a progressive tax and raising the flat tax transfers part of the burden from rich to poor.

This isn't even just basic economics... this is basic MATH.

Let's do a word problem:

Billy Bob makes $20000 a year, and pays no income tax (for simplicity's sake, we won't go into tax credits and all that). John Richbritches makes 1 million, and pays 25%, or 250k (again, for simplicity we'll say he gets no tax credits). Billy Bob spends 100% of his income on bills (he has no savings). John spends 10% of his income on bills, and saves the rest. Both Billy and John pay a 5% sales tax. Income tax is cut in half, sales tax is doubled.... who wins out? John or Billy?

A:Under the new tax system, Billy still pays no income tax. However, the money he pays in sales tax has doubled. John on the other hand now only pays 125k in the income tax... which is huge savings even with the income tax increase - as he was only spending 100k a year on bills - so his increase in expenses would be at most 5k.
Let’s do my word problem.
Tell me how this isn’t a pile of bullshit?


Wow, so the NC Republicans aren't even trying to conceal it anymore... they're openly Fascist pricks now.


From the article:
Wow, so the NC Republicans aren't even trying to conceal it anymore... they're openly Fascist pricks now. Tax cuts for the rich while increasing taxes for the poor, and cutting public education and unemployment benefits...
oh and just to add insult to injury, throw in some voter suppression. Is voter suppression now a standard part of all Republican legislation now? Did Republican Jesus come down and tell them that we need to keep the brown people from voting?


They're cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor... and also slashing services for the poor. This is class warfare, pure and simple.


They're cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor... and also slashing services for the poor. And also, on top of all that, attempting naked voter surppression. This is class warfare, pure and simple.

You're so eager to defend the Christian Taliban at every opportunity, no matter what. Explain to me how the fuck ending early voting is going to reduce the deficit. How the fuck is cutting taxes on the rich and raising taxes on the poor going to fix the deficit? How the fuck is cutting education going to reduce the deficit? In the long run, wouldn't all these things actually RAISE the deficit? Obviously yes, but you don't care, you're just in to defend the "right" party, no matter what crimes against humanity they commit.



You're rich?

Yeah, I’m rich. That is what I meant.

Oh wait……..there’s another possibility. I am not rich but would benefit from an income tax cut. But how could that be since your simple math (and bullshit hyperbole) says that I can’t possibly benefit from an income tax cut and ONLY will suffer because of the sales tax increase (which I agree I will….but my math….real world math….is a little more complex than sound bites and tripe)

Banned
07-04-2013, 04:09 PM
Let’s do my word problem.
Tell me how this isn’t a pile of bullshit?

Oh yes, a desperate attempt to change the subject. Big surprise there.

Its still plain and simple class warfare -especially when coupled with cuts in social programs used by the poor - even EDUCATION! And of course the usual republican contempt for voting rights.


Yeah, I’m rich. That is what I meant.

Oh wait……..there’s another possibility. I am not rich but would benefit from an income tax cut. But how could that be since your simple math (and bullshit hyperbole) says that I can’t possibly benefit from an income tax cut and ONLY will suffer because of the sales tax increase (which I agree I will….but my math….real world math….is a little more complex than sound bites and tripe)

Without seeing your income, and the exact numbers of the income tax cut/sales tax increase - no, I don't know if you would benefit or not. But I'm guessing you probably won't, as any money you got back from the cut you'd probably lose through the sales tax increase... as I pointed out in the word problem which you ignored.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-04-2013, 04:27 PM
This country borrows approx $.45 for each dollar it spends. Not enough "rich" people to solve this problem through an existing progressive tax system. The only FAIR system is a flat tax or national sales tax, which i prefer...and includes a prebate for low income. Read FairTax, by Neal Bortz. No more IRS, no more tax loopholes, no moving money to off-shore accounts. You get taxed on consumption, that's it. Doesn't get more fair than this.

Many of you will slam this concept without ever reading the book. That show's how pathetically ignorant you are, but it doesn't matter. The fact is, if you think we can indefinitely borrow up to half of what we actually need to pay today's bills then you are in for a very rude awakening. In fact, we all are. Big Daddy Gov will stop paying out the bennies, then everyone can comfortably blame the "other" party.

Rusty Jones
07-04-2013, 06:59 PM
This country borrows approx $.45 for each dollar it spends. Not enough "rich" people to solve this problem through an existing progressive tax system. The only FAIR system is a flat tax or national sales tax, which i prefer...and includes a prebate for low income. Read FairTax, by Neal Bortz. No more IRS, no more tax loopholes, no moving money to off-shore accounts. You get taxed on consumption, that's it. Doesn't get more fair than this.

Many of you will slam this concept without ever reading the book. That show's how pathetically ignorant you are, but it doesn't matter. The fact is, if you think we can indefinitely borrow up to half of what we actually need to pay today's bills then you are in for a very rude awakening. In fact, we all are. Big Daddy Gov will stop paying out the bennies, then everyone can comfortably blame the "other" party.

Neal Boortz is a cretin. I used to listen to his radio show while I was stationed in San Antonio just for laughs.

Anyone who thinks that Fair Tax would actually live up to its name is an even bigger fool than Neal Bortz.

First, only peoplewho are below the poverty line would get the prebate, and the check would be for the amount that would bring them to the poverty line. Second,the national sales tax would be 23 percent. This still shifts the burden of the tax away from the rich. It's still regressive.

In addition to all this, it would actually cripple the economy as demand for goods and services sold in the US would go down. People would just simply have things shipped in from overseas.

garhkal
07-04-2013, 08:57 PM
You should pay what you can reasonably afford. If you're scraping by on $8.50 an hour, you probably shouldn't be paying taxes at all. If you're pulling in 5 billion a year, it wouldn't kill you to pay 50-60% taxes.

So the poor pay nothing, the rich everything. Then what incentive is there for anyone to ever bother becoming rich?

imnohero
07-04-2013, 09:10 PM
So the poor pay nothing, the rich everything. Then what incentive is there for anyone to ever bother becoming rich?

Never been poor, have you?

BTW, it's not like there is a dividing line...poor make less than $xx, above that your are "rich."

Also, I would like to point out that the reason "poor people" in this country don't pay a lot of taxes is because they don't have any money to pay taxes with. For 2011, here are the mean income breakdown by Quintile:

Mean Income

Lowest.....$11,239
Second.....$29,204
Third.........$49,842
Fourth......$80,080
Top..........$178,020
Top 5%.....$311,444

Now, realistically, how much in taxes do you expect that lowest 20% to pay?

Banned
07-04-2013, 09:14 PM
So the poor pay nothing, the rich everything. Then what incentive is there for anyone to ever bother becoming rich?

You're acting like the helpless rich people have nothing left after paying taxes.


This country borrows approx $.45 for each dollar it spends. Not enough "rich" people to solve this problem through an existing progressive tax system. The only FAIR system is a flat tax or national sales tax, which i prefer...and includes a prebate for low income. Read FairTax, by Neal Bortz. No more IRS, no more tax loopholes, no moving money to off-shore accounts. You get taxed on consumption, that's it. Doesn't get more fair than this.

Many of you will slam this concept without ever reading the book. That show's how pathetically ignorant you are, but it doesn't matter. The fact is, if you think we can indefinitely borrow up to half of what we actually need to pay today's bills then you are in for a very rude awakening. In fact, we all are. Big Daddy Gov will stop paying out the bennies, then everyone can comfortably blame the "other" party.

So we've got such a huge problem with the deficit - so the solution is to give up a massive portion of our revenue through tax breaks... what?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-04-2013, 09:21 PM
Never been poor, have you?

BTW, it's not like there is a dividing line...poor make less than $xx, above that your are "rich."

Also, I would like to point out that the reason "poor people" in this country don't pay a lot of taxes is because they don't have any money to pay taxes with. For 2011, here are the mean income breakdown by Quintile:

Mean Income

Lowest.....$11,239
Second.....$29,204
Third.........$49,842
Fourth......$80,080
Top..........$178,020
Top 5%.....$311,444

Now, realistically, how much in taxes do you expect that lowest 20% to pay?

This is exactly why Obama is full of shit when he claims the amnesty bill will bring in all of this new revenue and actually reduce the deficit. The truth is, the POOR illegals will pay nothing in taxes. Thanks to the progressive tax system, not only will they pay nothing, but they'll receive a shit load of entitlements. Our country can't afford the welfare state that we've created, period!

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-04-2013, 09:26 PM
Neal Boortz is a cretin. I used to listen to his radio show while I was stationed in San Antonio just for laughs.

Anyone who thinks that Fair Tax would actually live up to its name is an even bigger fool than Neal Bortz.

First, only peoplewho are below the poverty line would get the prebate, and the check would be for the amount that would bring them to the poverty line. Second,the national sales tax would be 23 percent. This still shifts the burden of the tax away from the rich. It's still regressive.

In addition to all this, it would actually cripple the economy as demand for goods and services sold in the US would go down. People would just simply have things shipped in from overseas.

Name calling aside, I've read his book in its entirety and the FairTax makes sense. Have you read the book? I know, the answer is no. I just love hearing people defend this great deficit driven system we have. I promise you that the "borrowing our way to prosperity" system won't last.

Banned
07-04-2013, 09:39 PM
This is exactly why Obama is full of shit when he claims the amnesty bill will bring in all of this new revenue and actually reduce the deficit. The truth is, the POOR illegals will pay nothing in taxes. Thanks to the progressive tax system, not only will they pay nothing, but they'll receive a shit load of entitlements. Our country can't afford the welfare state that we've created, period!

The amount of bitterness and hatred some people have for folks less fortunate than themselves is amazing. Why are you so obsessed with making poor people suffer even more? Its a completely repulsive and disgusting trend I'm seeing in America today.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-04-2013, 09:50 PM
The amount of bitterness and hatred some people have for folks less fortunate than themselves is amazing. Why are you so obsessed with making poor people suffer even more? Its a completely repulsive and disgusting trend I'm seeing in America today.

Umm...when and where did I ever hint at hating poor people? I don't at all. In fact, I'd like to see everyone have the opportunity to become prosperous in this country. If anyone hates poor people, I'd point fingers at those who are deliberately bankrupting this country. That can't possibly be good for poor people at all, let alone the rest of us.

Now, as far as being less fortunate is concerned, to imply most poor people got that way as some result of being less fortunate is to imply I became successful as the result of being fortunate, as if luck, or winning some kind of lottery, vice hard work/initiative, etc got me to where I am. Sorry, but you have no fucking clue how I was raised, or what challenges I overcame to get to where I am. It sure as hell wasn't fortune, or welfare, or affirmative action...it was pure initiative and hard work.

People like you claim to care about the poor, when all you really care about is keeping systems in place that will destroy most people's chances to get ahead in this country.

imnohero
07-04-2013, 09:50 PM
This is exactly why Obama is full of shit when he claims the amnesty bill will bring in all of this new revenue and actually reduce the deficit. The truth is, the POOR illegals will pay nothing in taxes. Thanks to the progressive tax system, not only will they pay nothing, but they'll receive a shit load of entitlements. Our country can't afford the welfare state that we've created, period!

Actually it's the CBO that claims it will generate net revenue, not the president.

Banned
07-04-2013, 09:54 PM
If Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham were alive today, they'd be considered the good guys - heroes making sure the lazy poor pay "their fair share".

Hell, they'd probably be the Republican team for 2016!

Robin Hood, on the other hand, would be a socialist villain oppressing the defenseless rich people to pay off his freeloader friends.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-04-2013, 09:59 PM
Actually it's the CBO that claims it will generate net revenue, not the president.

You're right, he cited the CBO report, one which I don't believe. Never has any projected savings come close to the real costs. As for the illegals, after tax breaks, entitlements, etc we won't see a dime of revenue. I don't know why this is so hard to understand! It's absolute bs and smoke and mirrors.

Rusty Jones
07-04-2013, 10:41 PM
Name calling aside, I've read his book in its entirety and the FairTax makes sense. Have you read thand the effects of eache book? I know, the answer is no. I just love hearing people defend this great deficit driven system we have. I promise you that the "borrowing our way to prosperity" system won't last.

The likelihood of me buying a book by a conservative radio personalityis about the same as you buying a book authored buy a liberal one. By the way, where do you think I'm getting my information from that I posted on Fair Tax here? About three quarters of everyone of his radio shows consists of him talking about nothing but Fair Tax, it ending every other sentence with "it's in my book."

If you listen to Neal Bortz talking about fair tax without prior knowledge of which taxes progressive and which ones are regressive, and the affects of each, of course his proposals will make sense to you.

Banned
07-05-2013, 12:51 AM
You're right, he cited the CBO report, one which I don't believe. Never has any projected savings come close to the real costs. As for the illegals, after tax breaks, entitlements, etc we won't see a dime of revenue. I don't know why this is so hard to understand! It's absolute bs and smoke and mirrors.

Those damn illegals. They should be gassed.

RobotChicken
07-05-2013, 04:44 AM
"Good joe...pick your own lettuce and tomatoes then, and don't go to our VA with a claim of a 'bad back' because you stuffed your face with food all day either!" 'RobotChicken' says go ahead and 'Stuff IT!!'

garhkal
07-05-2013, 06:41 AM
Never been poor, have you?


When i lived in england, me and my mother lived on the British version of wefare, so yes. And we still paid taxes.



Now, realistically, how much in taxes do you expect that lowest 20% to pay?

What about "Their fair share". OR is the fair share for those who aer poor, nothing? Only those who are not poor have a "Fair share"?


If Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham were alive today, they'd be considered the good guys - heroes making sure the lazy poor pay "their fair share".

So only the rich should have a "Fair share?"

Banned
07-05-2013, 07:43 AM
When i lived in england, me and my mother lived on the British version of wefare, so yes. And we still paid taxes.

The poor in this country do as well - the sales tax.


What about "Their fair share". OR is the fair share for those who aer poor, nothing? Only those who are not poor have a "Fair share"?

Your fair share is what you can afford.


So only the rich should have a "Fair share?"

Again, your fair share is what you can afford.

imnohero
07-05-2013, 12:33 PM
When i lived in england, me and my mother lived on the British version of wefare, so yes. And we still paid taxes.



What about "Their fair share". OR is the fair share for those who aer poor, nothing? Only those who are not poor have a "Fair share"?



So only the rich should have a "Fair share?"

Good, having been poor, you know that it has it's own motivations to no longer be that have nothing to do with being "rich" and worrying about taxation.

As to "fair share"...that is a rather amorphous idea that depends on what philosophical approach is taken to civil society. My point of providing numbers is to demonstrate only that even a "fair share" for the bottom 20% is a very small number relative to federal income taxes. Though I would argue that those people pay their taxes through use taxes, rather than income taxes. Total tax burden, in my opinion, is the important point. Discussing only federal income tax relative to what is (or isn't) a "fair share" is basically a rhetorical argument.

A while back the GAO/CBO/letter alphabet agency came out with a report that considered all taxes across incomes and found that within a couple percentage points, every one pays about 20% across the board, regardless of income. I'll see if I can find it and post the link.

imnohero
07-05-2013, 12:47 PM
Here are a couple reports on taxation and income. The 1st is a non-profit study, the second is the CBO report I was thinking about.

A 2009 study of 2007 tax burden by state and income levels. http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

The CBO report on 2008-2009 taxation levels and income.
http://cbo.gov/publication/43373

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-05-2013, 02:06 PM
The poor in this country do as well - the sales tax.



Your fair share is what you can afford.


Again, your fair share is what you can afford.

If a system could be put in place to ensure higher income people paid more for a gallon of milk, gallon of gass, loaf of bread, etc, would you support it?

TJMAC77SP
07-05-2013, 02:51 PM
Oh yes, a desperate attempt to change the subject. Big surprise there.

Its still plain and simple class warfare -especially when coupled with cuts in social programs used by the poor - even EDUCATION! And of course the usual republican contempt for voting rights.



Without seeing your income, and the exact numbers of the income tax cut/sales tax increase - no, I don't know if you would benefit or not. But I'm guessing you probably won't, as any money you got back from the cut you'd probably lose through the sales tax increase... as I pointed out in the word problem which you ignored.

How is MY post changing the subject !?!?! That smell is back Joe. I have issue with your typical myopic hyperbole. This is the subject. Well, my subject at least. Yours is pretty obvious as well. I quoted your own words. Exactly what subject did I avoid?
Perhaps if you had stated (to begin with) that income tax cuts provide more benefit to people who make more money than those at the lower end of the tax table (often because they pay little to no net income taxes) and that increased sales taxes tend to have more effect on poorer people because it hits a higher percentage of their net income.
That is a more reasoned and true statement. But you didn’t say that did you? Instead we get your usual tripe. Even threw in an irrelevant hit at your favorite targets, Christians….


….Wow, so the NC Republicans aren't even trying to conceal it anymore... they're openly Fascist pricks now. Tax cuts for the rich while increasing taxes for the poor, and cutting public education and unemployment benefits...
oh and just to add insult to injury, throw in some voter suppression. Is voter suppression now a standard part of all Republican legislation now? Did Republican Jesus come down and tell them that we need to keep the brown people from voting?

They're cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor... and also slashing services for the poor. This is class warfare, pure and simple.

They're cutting taxes for the rich and raising taxes for the poor... and also slashing services for the poor. And also, on top of all that, attempting naked voter surppression. This is class warfare, pure and simple.
You're so eager to defend the Christian Taliban at every opportunity, no matter what. Explain to me how the fuck ending early voting is going to reduce the deficit. How the fuck is cutting taxes on the rich and raising taxes on the poor going to fix the deficit? How the fuck is cutting education going to reduce the deficit? In the long run, wouldn't all these things actually RAISE the deficit? Obviously yes, but you don't care, you're just in to defend the "right" party, no matter what crimes against humanity they commit.

BTW, glad you said you’d be ‘guessing’ because that is obviously what it would be and although this ‘guessing’ supports your assertion (imagine that?) it isn’t factual therefore let’s see it for what it is…desperation.
The simple truth is that any income tax cut will help me and any increase in sale tax will hurt me and since I already pay nearly 8% I am not too thrilled with that prospect but I cannot factually state whether it will be a wash since no actual numbers have been cited.

Banned
07-05-2013, 04:03 PM
How is MY post changing the subject !?!?! That smell is back Joe. I have issue with your typical myopic hyperbole. This is the subject. Well, my subject at least. Yours is pretty obvious as well. I quoted your own words. Exactly what subject did I avoid?
Perhaps if you had stated (to begin with) that income tax cuts provide more benefit to people who make more money than those at the lower end of the tax table (often because they pay little to no net income taxes) and that increased sales taxes tend to have more effect on poorer people because it hits a higher percentage of their net income.
That is a more reasoned and true statement. But you didn’t say that did you? Instead we get your usual tripe. Even threw in an irrelevant hit at your favorite targets, Christians….


BTW, glad you said you’d be ‘guessing’ because that is obviously what it would be and although this ‘guessing’ supports your assertion (imagine that?) it isn’t factual therefore let’s see it for what it is…desperation.
The simple truth is that any income tax cut will help me and any increase in sale tax will hurt me and since I already pay nearly 8% I am not too thrilled with that prospect but I cannot factually state whether it will be a wash since no actual numbers have been cited.
[/QUOTE]

So how is this not class warfare? Especially when coupled with the usual Republican assault on public education and voting rights. It seems to me you refuse to see the forest through the trees.


If a system could be put in place to ensure higher income people paid more for a gallon of milk, gallon of gass, loaf of bread, etc, would you support it?

That wouldn't be feasible or even remotely practical to enforce, so no. Taking 10%, 20%, 30%, or 60% of income off the top makes more sense than charging more for milk.

TJMAC77SP
07-05-2013, 05:58 PM
So how is this not class warfare? Especially when coupled with the usual Republican assault on public education and voting rights. It seems to me you refuse to see the forest through the trees.



That wouldn't be feasible or even remotely practical to enforce, so no. Taking 10%, 20%, 30%, or 60% of income off the top makes more sense than charging more for milk.


First of all, I am sorry to see Joe banned. I don't know which post caused this but Joe's anti-Christian rants are nothing new.

Joe, it just isn't class warfare. You tend to paint things in the extreme. In fact it isn't a trend it is an SOP. This is what I take exception to. I think you are smart enough to see that. In fact, at times you begrudgingly admit to this

garhkal
07-05-2013, 08:22 PM
Good, having been poor, you know that it has it's own motivations to no longer be that have nothing to do with being "rich" and worrying about taxation.

As to "fair share"...that is a rather amorphous idea that depends on what philosophical approach is taken to civil society. My point of providing numbers is to demonstrate only that even a "fair share" for the bottom 20% is a very small number relative to federal income taxes. Though I would argue that those people pay their taxes through use taxes, rather than income taxes. Total tax burden, in my opinion, is the important point. Discussing only federal income tax relative to what is (or isn't) a "fair share" is basically a rhetorical argument.

A while back the GAO/CBO/letter alphabet agency came out with a report that considered all taxes across incomes and found that within a couple percentage points, every one pays about 20% across the board, regardless of income. I'll see if I can find it and post the link.

SO unlike he who got banned, you actually do favor the poor also paying more than just sales tax.. Good.


If a system could be put in place to ensure higher income people paid more for a gallon of milk, gallon of gass, loaf of bread, etc, would you support it?

Since Joe got banned, he won't be able to answer. But for me, i say no. Just like i can't stand how the mil does day care pricing based on your rank, i don't agree how rich you are should determine what price you pay for something.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-05-2013, 08:42 PM
SO unlike he who got banned, you actually do favor the poor also paying more than just sales tax.. Good.



Since Joe got banned, he won't be able to answer. But for me, i say no. Just like i can't stand how the mil does day care pricing based on your rank, i don't agree how rich you are should determine what price you pay for something.

Or the golf course. There should be an incentive for those displaying initiative, innovation, hard work, additional school, starting a business, or any combination of the above that results in earning more income. Just because I earn more money doesn't mean I should be forced to pay MORE for the same level of service or quantity of goods than someone else. Instead, let me keep my extra HARD EARNED money to use for whatever I want...like purchasing other goods/services (helps the economy), investing (supports Business growth), or even charitable donations, etc.

Rusty Jones
07-05-2013, 08:43 PM
Since Joe got banned, he won't be able to answer. But for me, i say no. Just like i can't stand how the mil does day care pricing based on your rank, i don't agree how rich you are should determine what price you pay for something.

It's a benefit that your employer provides to you; so why does it upset you? Is the inability to do things the hard way an attack on your fragile manhood?

TJMAC77SP
07-05-2013, 09:38 PM
If child development centers and base golf courses receive any appropriated funding (I have heard conflicting statement regarding this) then the rank-based progressive fee schedule seems fair. Otherwise not so sure.

EDIT: Did a Google search and it seems that with few exceptions, appropriated funds are not used for golf courses but receive about 50% appropriated funds for CDC's. I suppose an argument could be made in the case of golf courses that the value of the land in itself is an appropriated contribution but that admittedly is a stretch.

And Rusty......."fragile manhood"...really ?!?!

Measure Man
07-05-2013, 09:41 PM
i don't agree how rich you are should determine what price you pay for something.

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains.

TJMAC77SP
07-05-2013, 09:47 PM
From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains.

You frapping pinko commie !!!!!!!!!!

Measure Man
07-05-2013, 09:49 PM
You frapping pinko commie !!!!!!!!!!

well since JB is banned, someone has to pick up the baton.

TJMAC77SP
07-05-2013, 10:05 PM
well since JB is banned, someone has to pick up the baton.

I was thinking the same thing....with the same humor.

Rusty Jones
07-05-2013, 11:29 PM
And Rusty......."fragile manhood"...really ?!?!

Yes, really. I could understand if he was a field grade officer, complaining that he had to spend more than those of lower rank. But then, I still have the other choice words for him.

However, it seems to me like he's insulted that he's receiving a benefit that is tailored to his financial situation.

I never thought I'd have to say this but... if someone doesn't like benefits, then why did they join the military?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-05-2013, 11:38 PM
Yes, really. I could understand if he was a field grade officer, complaining that he had to spend more than those of lower rank. But then, I still have the other choice words for him.

However, it seems to me like he's insulted that he's receiving a benefit that is tailored to his financial situation.

I never thought I'd have to say this but... if someone doesn't like benefits, then why did they join the military?

So, your pay grade is indicative of your "financial situation?" Your pay grade represents a base amount you are paid, that's it. Where the money goes after that is anybody's guess. Where it shouldn't go is for paying a higher amount than someone else for the same level of service or goods. It's not right, and it's not fair. Doesn't matter how little or how much you make.

Rusty Jones
07-06-2013, 12:14 AM
once pay grade is a part
So, your pay grade is indicative of your "financial situation?" Your pay grade represents a base amount you are paid, that's it. Where the money goes after that is anybody's guess.

Okay, bad choice of words. You know what I mean.


Where it shouldn't go is for paying a higher amount than someone else for the same level of service or goods. It's not right, and it's not fair. Doesn't matter how little or how much you make.

Dude, it's not a private business trying to earn a profit. It's a benefit provided by the military to its troops. That's it. They just make enough money to cover the cost of operations, and maybe to supplement the budget of the service involved - if that.

That's the difference. Man, it kills most of you to not see the less fortunate suffer in the name of unforgiving "fairness," doesn't it?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-06-2013, 03:14 AM
Man, it kills most of you to not see the less fortunate suffer in the name of unforgiving "fairness," doesn't it?

So, if someone CHOOSES a path in life that earns them a much lower income than me, then they're "less fortunate?" I don't buy it. I didn't get to where I am because I became "fortunate," but rather CHOICES I made earlier in life to EARN a higher standard of living. The position I PUT MYSELF IN has also enabled me to GIVE to those organizations that help people truly in need. Take note of how I stated "GIVE" rather than "GIVE BACK." I suppose I could have used this more PC term, but the fact is I never took anything from lower income people to begin with, so therefore I have nothing to give BACK.

imnohero
07-06-2013, 02:57 PM
SO unlike he who got banned, you actually do favor the poor also paying more than just sales tax.. Good.



It's not a matter of what I favor, but one of reality. The "poor" pay taxes, just not income taxes. It is factually incorrect, not to mention disingenuous, to argue about taxation based only on federal income taxes. Especially if that argument includes invectives regarding the character of entire group of people.

garhkal
07-07-2013, 06:51 AM
Just because I earn more money doesn't mean I should be forced to pay MORE for the same level of service or quantity of goods than someone else. Instead, let me keep my extra HARD EARNED money to use for whatever I want...like purchasing other goods/services (helps the economy), investing (supports Business growth), or even charitable donations, etc.

Exactly!


It's a benefit that your employer provides to you; so why does it upset you? Is the inability to do things the hard way an attack on your fragile manhood?

Cause like some other benefits, it seems to be focused to 'favor' only those with kids, with no comparative bonus or offset for those without.


From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains.

Should we start calling you comrade comisar!


Yes, really. I could understand if he was a field grade officer, complaining that he had to spend more than those of lower rank. But then, I still have the other choice words for him.

However, it seems to me like he's insulted that he's receiving a benefit that is tailored to his financial situation.

I never thought I'd have to say this but... if someone doesn't like benefits, then why did they join the military?

Actually i am Single with NO kids (or other dependants).. so it benefits me not.. But its like many of the 'tax credits out there' that seem to only benefit those with kids. Discriminatory towards single folk.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 02:11 AM
So, if someone CHOOSES a path in life that earns them a much lower income than me, then they're "less fortunate?" I don't buy it. I didn't get to where I am because I became "fortunate," but rather CHOICES I made earlier in life to EARN a higher standard of living.

And, not surprisingly, the conservative comes back with success and failure being determined by choices. Choices that are made in a vacuum. Pure ignorance. Or maybe not even ignorance in this case; just denial.

Life is like any card game - some people are dealt a better hand than others. A worthless piece of shit can be dealt the hand that guarantees the win, and someone with all of the sound decision-making ability in the world can find it impossible to win because of the hand that he was dealt.

That's how life works. If you think for one second that you alone were the sole determining factor in where you are right now; you're wrong.


The position I PUT MYSELF IN has also enabled me to GIVE to those organizations that help people truly in need. Take note of how I stated "GIVE" rather than "GIVE BACK." I suppose I could have used this more PC term, but the fact is I never took anything from lower income people to begin with, so therefore I have nothing to give BACK.

Something you brought up; not me... and is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 02:18 AM
Cause like some other benefits, it seems to be focused to 'favor' only those with kids, with no comparative bonus or offset for those without.

You do have a benefit. You don't have to shell out money at all for childcare.


Actually i am Single with NO kids (or other dependants).. so it benefits me not.. But its like many of the 'tax credits out there' that seem to only benefit those with kids. Discriminatory towards single folk.

And that's the whole point of this discussion, and why sales tax is a bad thing... because your tax is based on household size and income. Ability to pay.

If you're envious of those with a family, maybe you should find someone and start one.

RobotChicken
07-08-2013, 03:51 AM
"Yea..start a family with a 'Rusty Joint'! LOL!

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 04:03 AM
"Yea..start a family with a 'Rusty Joint'! LOL!

Uhhh.... what?

RobotChicken
07-08-2013, 04:06 AM
"Yea..start a family with a 'Rusty Joint'! LOL!

"What? No problem 'Reading' the quote author's handle??"

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2013, 11:40 AM
Yes, really. I could understand if he was a field grade officer, complaining that he had to spend more than those of lower rank. But then, I still have the other choice words for him.

However, it seems to me like he's insulted that he's receiving a benefit that is tailored to his financial situation.

I never thought I'd have to say this but... if someone doesn't like benefits, then why did they join the military?

Ok then of course your "fragile manhood" comment was complete necessary.

3194

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2013, 11:43 AM
And, not surprisingly, the conservative comes back with success and failure being determined by choices. Choices that are made in a vacuum. Pure ignorance. Or maybe not even ignorance in this case; just denial.

Life is like any card game - some people are dealt a better hand than others. A worthless piece of shit can be dealt the hand that guarantees the win, and someone with all of the sound decision-making ability in the world can find it impossible to win because of the hand that he was dealt.

That's how life works. If you think for one second that you alone were the sole determining factor in where you are right now; you're wrong.



Something you brought up; not me... and is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

And equally unsurprisingly, liberals don't seem to understand that many people, dealt a shit hand but given the pot anyway, don't have any motivation to stay in the game. I

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 01:15 PM
Ok then of course your "fragile manhood" comment was complete necessary.

And appropriate. What I saw there, as usual, was that conservative machismo being displayed.


And equally unsurprisingly, liberals don't seem to understand that many people, dealt a shit hand but given the pot anyway, don't have any motivation to stay in the game. I

What pot are you talking about? The same kind that people who were dealt the royal flush like the Waltons get?

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 02:21 PM
Damn you all!!! You put me in the untenable position of having to agree with Rusty... I don't LIKE paying more for the CDC than someone that is lower ranking but I get it. Wouldn't I be a hypocrite if I didn't want to help those parents (single or otherwise) that make less than I do that want to work? Would you rather they just went on welfare instead of working?

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2013, 02:41 PM
And appropriate. What I saw there, as usual, was that conservative machismo being displayed.

Ok


What pot are you talking about? The same kind that people who were dealt the royal flush like the Waltons get?

Do you view the Walton family fortune as an entitlement program?

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 02:46 PM
I also look at it like this: all military members who live in military housing give up their BAH to live there; which means that two people of different pay grades are paying different amounts of money to live in the same housing; in some cases, people are paying less for better housing than the next guy, if they have a larger family and/or were fortunate enough to be assigned to a newer or more recently renovated unit.

But at the same time... I really think that military housing should be for the junior troops with families anyway. I remember living a few doors down from a Senior Chief and thinking "WTF is he doing here?" when he could take that BAH and live some place far better, and let a junior guy have that unit he was hogging up.

Seems to me like the purpose of the requirement to give up all of your BAH, regardless of rank, is supposed to discourage those of higher rank from living in housing and encourage them to seek it out in town. I'm not sure if that's the intent but, regardless, it should be the result.

Same goes for childcare.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 02:47 PM
Do you view the Walton family fortune as an entitlement program?

They were born into money that they didn't earn, so what does it matter?

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2013, 02:53 PM
They were born into money that they didn't earn, so what does it matter?

Sam Walton was not born into money and you didn't answer the question.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 03:13 PM
Sam Walton was not born into money and you didn't answer the question.

I'm not talking about Sam. I'm talking about his children and grandchildren.

As far as whether or not they're on an entitlement program, it really doesn't have a clear yes or no answer.

I think it's analogous to SAHMs and welfare moms. What's the difference between the two? One married well, and the other didn't. That's it.

The welfare mom is receiving an "entitlement," and the SAHM is receiving money from her husband. The only differences between the money in their purses is the amount and where it came from (this is why it kills me to see SAHMs talking about welfare moms - when my wife was pregnant with our youngest daughter, she had no problem putting them in their places on a message board that she was a member of at the time).

So, I'm looking at the Waltons and seeing people on "entitlement" programs as something similar. Sure, inherited wealth may not be an "entitlement" in the sense that it came from the government; but it is in the sense that they didn't earn that money.

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 03:20 PM
I also look at it like this: all military members who live in military housing give up their BAH to live there; which means that two people of different pay grades are paying different amounts of money to live in the same housing; in some cases, people are paying less for better housing than the next guy, if they have a larger family and/or were fortunate enough to be assigned to a newer or more recently renovated unit.

But at the same time... I really think that military housing should be for the junior troops with families anyway. I remember living a few doors down from a Senior Chief and thinking "WTF is he doing here?" when he could take that BAH and live some place far better, and let a junior guy have that unit he was hogging up.

Seems to me like the purpose of the requirement to give up all of your BAH, regardless of rank, is supposed to discourage those of higher rank from living in housing and encourage them to seek it out in town. I'm not sure if that's the intent but, regardless, it should be the result.

Same goes for childcare.

You would be wrong. In some cases, it is financially advantageous to live in housing regardless of rank. In other cases, living off base is actually discouraged....look at your base commanders. You would be hard pressed to find one that lived off base.

To say that childcare should just be for junior enlisted-you are dumb as a stick if you think that. Do you think if they eliminated the stratification and only allowed junior enlisted to use the CDC and pay full price, that they would be able to afford it? If that is true, then they need to lower the price for everyone right now because they are overcharging...

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 03:30 PM
You would be wrong. In some cases, it is financially advantageous to live in housing regardless of rank.

For example?


In other cases, living off base is actually discouraged....look at your base commanders. You would be hard pressed to find one that lived off base.

That would be due to mission requirements. Unfortunately, there are higher ranking people actually making the CHOICE to live on base.


To say that childcare should just be for junior enlisted-you are dumb as a stick if you think that. Do you think if they eliminated the stratification and only allowed junior enlisted to use the CDC and pay full price, that they would be able to afford it? If that is true, then they need to lower the price for everyone right now because they are overcharging...

Think about this for a second: who mostly uses CDC? I've only used it once for about a year while I was stationed on Fort Sam Houston; and I didn't see any SNCOs/CPOs using it. Hell, I even stopped using it a year before I made PO1; because I was able to find something much better out in town for similar to what I was paying for on base.

Think about it - with rank-based childcare fees, do you honestly think that the CDC isn't fully aware that they are pricing away the higher ranking troops?

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 03:47 PM
For example?

That would be due to mission requirements. Unfortunately, there are higher ranking people actually making the CHOICE to live on base.

Think about this for a second: who mostly uses CDC? I've only used it once for about a year while I was stationed on Fort Sam Houston; and I didn't see any SNCOs/CPOs using it. Hell, I even stopped using it a year before I made PO1; because I was able to find something much better out in town for similar to what I was paying for on base.

Think about it - with rank-based childcare fees, do you honestly think that the CDC isn't fully aware that they are pricing away the higher ranking troops?

Say you own a house in one location, PCS and are unable or unwilling to sell. Rather than enter a contract to purchase, lease, or rent another one, you can move into housing with no contract so if you are able to locate a cheaper house/apartment at a later date, you can move. I made the choice to live in housing twice. Both times it was financially advantageous to do so. Once there just wasn't anything comperable off base and the other because didn't want to enter into a contract.

You think about it. I go to the CDC every day. There are officers, NCOs, SNCOs, and jr enlisted. Guess what? The former three outnumber the latter 10 to 1....

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2013, 03:47 PM
I'm not talking about Sam. I'm talking about his children and grandchildren.

As far as whether or not they're on an entitlement program, it really doesn't have a clear yes or no answer.

I think it's analogous to SAHMs and welfare moms. What's the difference between the two? One married well, and the other didn't. That's it.

The welfare mom is receiving an "entitlement," and the SAHM is receiving money from her husband. The only differences between the money in their purses is the amount and where it came from (this is why it kills me to see SAHMs talking about welfare moms - when my wife was pregnant with our youngest daughter, she had no problem putting them in their places on a message board that she was a member of at the time).

So, I'm looking at the Waltons and seeing people on "entitlement" programs as something similar. Sure, inherited wealth may not be an "entitlement" in the sense that it came from the government; but it is in the sense that they didn't earn that money.

Actually I think we both know it is a clear "no, the Walton fortune is not an entitlement program" but that would be an inconvenient truth. You can color it any way you want in an attempt to support your point but the fact is it is unsupportable and the argument specious.

Let's be clear here. Regardless of the sound bites and concerted effort of some in this country, it is not a bad thing to be rich (whether you earned your money the hard way or inherited it). Rich people are not, by nature bad people or undeserving of their money. Some of course are but not BECAUSE they are rich.

In the same light, not everyone on an entitlement program has “been dealt a bad hand” or has even attempted to better their position if they were so. Of course some have been born or placed into a position where the entitlement payments are necessary and some do indeed attempt to better their position. Again, not BECAUSE they are poor but because they see that multi-generational entitlement saps the soul (to engage in my own bit of hyperbole)

And this of course was my original point which you never addressed btw, Walton deflection notwithstanding.

I do give you credit for carrying Joe B’s hyperbole flag.

“And, not surprisingly, the conservative comes back with success and failure being determined by choices.”

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 04:07 PM
Say you own a house in one location, PCS and are unable or unwilling to sell. Rather than enter a contract to purchase, lease, or rent another one, you can move into housing with no contract so if you are able to locate a cheaper house/apartment at a later date, you can move. I made the choice to live in housing twice. Both times it was financially advantageous to do so. Once there just wasn't anything comperable off base and the other because didn't want to enter into a contract.

I don't know where you stationed, but every base I've been to... there's a awaiting list to get into housing; so military housing first until something better came along just wasn't an option at any place I've been to.

That said, I still don't see where it's financially advantageous; as there are things far cheaper than your BAH to be found out in town.


You think about it. I go to the CDC every day. There are officers, NCOs, SNCOs, and jr enlisted. Guess what? The former three outnumber the latter 10 to 1....

Yeah, because you separated the NCOs from the junior enlisted; and when you add the former three up together, the sheer numbers say that that's going to happen.

I have to question why the higher ranking would choose the CDC when they can find something out in town that would cost the same as, or even less than, the CDC.

Logic dictates that the make up would be totally different if everyone had to pay what an E7 has to pay.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 04:26 PM
Actually I think we both know it is a clear "no, the Walton fortune is not an entitlement program" but that would be an inconvenient truth. You can color it any way you want in an attempt to support your point but the fact is it is unsupportable and the argument specious...

...And this of course was my original point which you never addressed btw, Walton deflection notwithstanding.

I do give you credit for carrying Joe B’s hyperbole flag.

I distinquished it from an entitlement program, but I just pointed out the similarities. That's all I did. Is the desire to dispute I said that bad of an itch to scratch?


Let's be clear here. Regardless of the sound bites and concerted effort of some in this country, it is not a bad thing to be rich (whether you earned your money the hard way or inherited it). Rich people are not, by nature bad people or undeserving of their money. Some of course are but not BECAUSE they are rich.

If you didn't earn the money then you're no different than someone on an entitlement program. The only difference between the two is the amount of the money and its source.


In the same light, not everyone on an entitlement program has “been dealt a bad hand” or has even attempted to better their position if they were so. Of course some have been born or placed into a position where the entitlement payments are necessary and some do indeed attempt to better their position. Again, not BECAUSE they are poor but because they see that multi-generational entitlement saps the soul (to engage in my own bit of hyperbole)


“And, not surprisingly, the conservative comes back with success and failure being determined by choices.”

You're right. The majority of us were neither dealt the best hand nor the worst, but somewhere in between. The original point that I was trying to make is that where you go in life is not a result of choices that are made in a vacuum. If that was the case, then everyone would be content with their lives.

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 04:38 PM
I don't know where you stationed, but every base I've been to... there's a awaiting list to get into housing; so military housing first until something better came along just wasn't an option at any place I've been to.

That said, I still don't see where it's financially advantageous; as there are things far cheaper than your BAH to be found out in town.

Yeah, because you separated the NCOs from the junior enlisted; and when you add the former three up together, the sheer numbers say that that's going to happen.

I have to question why the higher ranking would choose the CDC when they can find something out in town that would cost the same as, or even less than, the CDC.

Logic dictates that the make up would be totally different if everyone had to pay what an E7 has to pay.

Haven't been to a base that had a waiting list in years... Go to a base that has a sudden increase in personnel and tell me there are opportunities off base...

Not here. At this base, there are more officers than there are enlisted. Why do I go to the CDC? Convenience. It is blocks from my office. I needed it with short notice...

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2013, 04:51 PM
I distinquished it from an entitlement program, but I just pointed out the similarities. That's all I did. Is the desire to dispute I said that bad of an itch to scratch?
If you didn't earn the money then you're no different than someone on an entitlement program. The only difference between the two is the amount of the money and its source.

The only difference between you receiving oral sex from a man and woman is the source…..does that matter?


You're right. The majority of us were neither dealt the best hand nor the worst, but somewhere in between. The original point that I was trying to make is that where you go in life is not a result of choices that are made in a vacuum. If that was the case, then everyone would be content with their lives.

If that were truly your original and only point why mention conservatives?

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 05:12 PM
The only difference between you receiving oral sex from a man and woman is the source…..does that matter?

In terms of the recipient of one being a better or more respectable person than the other (since that IS the context of this discussion), no.


If that were truly your original and only point why mention conservatives?

The because the belief - or rather the expression - that hard work always equals money, or that money always comes from hard work, is a conservative one. The conservative stance on "entitlement programs" says enough.

TJMAC77SP
07-08-2013, 06:06 PM
In terms of the recipient of one being a better or more respectable person than the other (since that IS the context of this discussion), no..

Really?!?! THAT is the context? Can you point out the assertion where someone stated the belief that one is better or more respectable than the other (other than your words)?

I thought I made it clear; the context is your inaccurate, irrelevant and unnecessary citation of ‘conservative’ stances.


The because the belief - or rather the expression - that hard work always equals money, or that money always comes from hard work, is a conservative one. The conservative stance on "entitlement programs" says enough.

I believe it better stated that money should not come from the lack of hard work.

Exactly what do you see as the’ conservative stance on entitlement programs’?

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 06:43 PM
Exactly what do you see as the’ conservative stance on entitlement programs’?

Oh I don't know...I personally know someone that worked as a DoD contractor for a big name computer company. He now makes more money on unemployment and food stamps than he did as a computer guy.... Doesn't actually have to apply for any jobs. Just has to tell them he is applying for jobs-5 a week. I guess I can see why people wouldn't want to work...

USN - Retired
07-08-2013, 07:33 PM
They were born into money that they didn't earn, so what does it matter?

Well,... it does matter and here's why...

The Walton family lives the good life. That's their good luck. I don't have a problem with their good luck because my tax dollars don't support their lavish lifestyle. The lazy people on welfare are a different story though. My tax dollars are used to support those lazy people on welfare. My tax dollars are used to provide those lazy people with a free ride through life. I really don't want to see my tax dollars used to financially support some lazy and obese 19 year old single mother of four children, and I really don't want to see my tax dollars used to financially support the meth addiction of the four men who fathered her children. Welfare in our country today is not a safety net. Welfare in our country today is a comfy hammock.

That's the problem. The taxpayers are the source of money for the lazy people on welfare.

Let me guess. You probably think that the amount of taxes paid by the Walton family is too low. Before you starting whining about the amount of taxes paid by the Walton family, keep this thought in mind: The average member of the Walton family probably pays more money in taxes in one year (federal, state, property, sales) than you will earn in your entire lifetime.

ThaBufe
07-08-2013, 07:34 PM
If you didn't earn the money then you're no different than someone on an entitlement program. The only difference between the two is the amount of the money and its source.



Really? So I guess the fact that one was given willingly (usually through a will) and the other was taken without the consent of the original owner through threat of imprisonment or violence doesn't count. So by your logic there's absolutely no difference if I give a poor person 5 bucks or if he takes it from me at gun point.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 07:43 PM
Really?!?! THAT is the context? Can you point out the assertion where someone stated the belief that one is better or more respectable than the other (other than your words)?

Oh, quit acting like you don't know. The very reason we're having this discussion in the first place is because people who are on entitlement programs are trashed by people on MTF at every opportunity.

Do you deny this?


I thought I made it clear; the context is your inaccurate, irrelevant and unnecessary citation of ‘conservative’ stances...

...Exactly what do you see as the’ conservative stance on entitlement programs’?


Do you have WJ5 and USN-Retired blocked or something? You might wanna unblock them. You'll find some interesting stuff.

I only know that you yourself are conservative, because you've stated it. Other than, you've been pretty good at leaving your own stances on things out - and just simply challenge those who challenge conservatives. Others around here are a little more transparent.

I'll give Pullinteeth credit, as he doesn't seem anywhere near as ruthless as most of MTF.


I believe it better stated that money should not come from the lack of hard work.

Do you go back on your word then, that people who inherited their money are not undeserving of it? Because that's what it sounds like to me.



Oh I don't know...I personally know someone that worked as a DoD contractor for a big name computer company. He now makes more money on unemployment and food stamps than he did as a computer guy.... Doesn't actually have to apply for any jobs. Just has to tell them he is applying for jobs-5 a week. I guess I can see why people wouldn't want to work...

I don't know what state you live in, but I've lived in three where the most you can get is 2/3 of what you made while you were employed; and only UP TO a certain amount - an amount whose income basis most active duty members make more than; and that the addition of food stamps will wouldn't make the total equal to what they made as a full-time employee.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 07:44 PM
Well,... it does matter and here's why...

The Walton family lives the good life. That's their good luck. I don't have a problem with their good luck because my tax dollars don't support their lavish lifestyle. The lazy people on welfare are a different story though. My tax dollars are used to support those lazy people on welfare. My tax dollars are used to provide those lazy people with a free ride through life. I really don't want to see my tax dollars used to financially support some lazy and obese 19 year old single mother of four children, and I really don't want to see my tax dollars used to financially support the meth addiction of the four men who fathered her children. Welfare in our country today is not a safety net. Welfare in our country today is a comfy hammock.

That's the problem. The taxpayers are the source of money for the lazy people on welfare.

Let me guess. You probably think that the amount of taxes paid by the Walton family is too low. Before you starting whining about the amount of taxes paid by the Walton family, keep this thought in mind: The average member of the Walton family probably pays more money in taxes in one year (federal, state, property, sales) than you will earn in your entire lifetime.

TJ, do you see what I'm talking about?

USN - Retired
07-08-2013, 07:53 PM
is because people who are on entitlement programs are trashed by people on MTF at every opportunity.

We're trashing the entitlement programs, not the people on the entitlement programs.

I don't care that some lazy and obese 19 year old single woman has four children, and I don't care that each child of hers has a different father. I don't even care that all the fathers of her children are meth addicts. I just don't want to see my tax dollars support them.

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 07:54 PM
Oh, quit acting like you don't know. The very reason we're having this discussion in the first place is because people who are on entitlement programs are trashed by people on MTF at every opportunity.

Do you deny this?

I only know that you yourself are conservative, because you've stated it. Other than, you've been pretty good at leaving your own stances on things out - and just simply challenge those who challenge conservatives. Others around here are a little more transparent.

I'll give Pullinteeth credit, as he doesn't seem anywhere near as ruthless as most of MTF.

Do you go back on your word then, that people who inherited their money are not undeserving of it? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

I don't know what state you live in, but I've lived in three where the most you can get is 2/3 of what you made while you were employed; and only UP TO a certain amount - an amount whose income basis most active duty members make more than; and that the addition of food stamps will wouldn't make the total equal to what they made as a full-time employee.

To be perfectly fair, there are also liberals that don't think people should have to work... I am conservative but also (I think) reasonable. I don't LIKE affirmative action but I get it. I like the fact that the standard for affirmative action may have changed so those trust fund kids that you seem to hate so much won't get a leg up just because they have a better tan than an equally qualified applicant that has less pigmentation. I don't like paying for people that don't work and have no intention of working. I don't like paying for people that are "disabled" but are perfectly capable of holding down a job-they just don't want to. However, I am willing to pay for those that work the system to make sure those that REALLY need it are taken care of. If caught, I would like to think the frauds are hammered to set an example but we both know they aren't.

Do trust fund babies DESERVE it? Some probably do but either way it isn't our call. A more appropriate question might be did they EARN it?

It isn't the state that I live in but.... There are of course other factors involved and possibly some exaggeration but IMO someone that is able bodied should HAVE to get a friggin job-I have no problem with helping them make ends meet while looking for a job that meets their standard of living but they should be doing SOMETHING while looking...

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 08:02 PM
We're trashing the entitlement programs, not the people on the entitlement programs.

You need to go back and re-read what you wrote. I quoted you. You, by far, exhibit the most vile hatred of the poor and people on assistance than anyone on MTF.

USN - Retired
07-08-2013, 08:09 PM
You need to go back and re-read what you wrote. I quoted you. You, by far, exhibit the most vile hatred of the poor and people on assistance than anyone on MTF.

I don't care that some lazy and obese 19 year old single woman has four children, and I don't care that each child of hers has a different father. I don't even care that all the fathers of her children are meth addicts. I just don't want to see my tax dollars support them. I don't hate them. I just don't want to give them any money.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 08:14 PM
I don't care that some lazy and obese 19 year old single woman has four children, and I don't care that each child of hers has a different father. I don't even care that all the fathers of her children are meth addicts. I just don't want to see my tax dollars support them. I don't hate them. I just don't want to give them any money.

You can't be serious...

Anyway, TJ... USN-Retired has just saved me the legwork that you otherwise would have tasked me with.

garhkal
07-08-2013, 08:30 PM
I also look at it like this: all military members who live in military housing give up their BAH to live there; which means that two people of different pay grades are paying different amounts of money to live in the same housing; in some cases, people are paying less for better housing than the next guy, if they have a larger family and/or were fortunate enough to be assigned to a newer or more recently renovated unit.

While true to an extent, it also applies to single folk who are to junior a rank to live off base.. they also get no bah living in the barracks.
But maybe its a branch thing, but i have always seen the higher ups living in base housing, get larger places than the junior troops even if that higher up has less bodies to house than the junior troop.


I'm not talking about Sam. I'm talking about his children and grandchildren.

As far as whether or not they're on an entitlement program, it really doesn't have a clear yes or no answer.

I think it's analogous to SAHMs and welfare moms. What's the difference between the two? One married well, and the other didn't. That's it.

Maybe my anacronym function is not working.. what the heck is a SAHM?



Think about this for a second: who mostly uses CDC? I've only used it once for about a year while I was stationed on Fort Sam Houston; and I didn't see any SNCOs/CPOs using it. Hell, I even stopped using it a year before I made PO1; because I was able to find something much better out in town for similar to what I was paying for on base.

Think about it - with rank-based childcare fees, do you honestly think that the CDC isn't fully aware that they are pricing away the higher ranking troops?

Exactly.. It's almost like they are telling the senior folk, "You make too much, go away we don't want to serve you".



You think about it. I go to the CDC every day. There are officers, NCOs, SNCOs, and jr enlisted. Guess what? The former three outnumber the latter 10 to 1....

Not from my experience.. Gulfport (seabees).. Most of those i saw going to/from the CDC were junior troops, or junior officers. Rare was the chief or O3+ going there.
Guam, again mostly junior troops were what i saw there.
Bahrain before 9/11, most of the officers didn't HAVE kids (from what i saw), and only a trio of Warrants had any, and their spouses kept the kids, not CDC.
Not sure what happened in london as the CDC was out at West ruyslip. Didn't even see a CDC in St Mawgan.
Prior to that i was on ship, so had no CDC.


If you didn't earn the money then you're no different than someone on an entitlement program. The only difference between the two is the amount of the money and its source.

So you equate mom/dad making a fortune and leaving it to you the same as a program where the govt TAKES from everyone else to give to others? Interesting.


Oh I don't know...I personally know someone that worked as a DoD contractor for a big name computer company. He now makes more money on unemployment and food stamps than he did as a computer guy.... Doesn't actually have to apply for any jobs. Just has to tell them he is applying for jobs-5 a week. I guess I can see why people wouldn't want to work...

Exactly. One of the single mothers who lived near me in Gulfport, said she would have to get two jobs at roughly 8 bucks an hour with 70 hrs a week or more of work, to just break EVEN compared to what she rakes in on food stamps/welfare/child credits..


Well,... it does matter and here's why...

The Walton family lives the good life. That's their good luck. I don't have a problem with their good luck because my tax dollars don't support their lavish lifestyle. The lazy people on welfare are a different story though. My tax dollars are used to support those lazy people on welfare. My tax dollars are used to provide those lazy people with a free ride through life. I really don't want to see my tax dollars used to financially support some lazy and obese 19 year old single mother of four children, and I really don't want to see my tax dollars used to financially support the meth addiction of the four men who fathered her children. Welfare in our country today is not a safety net. Welfare in our country today is a comfy hammock.

Which is my argument as well USN.


We're trashing the entitlement programs, not the people on the entitlement programs.

I don't care that some lazy and obese 19 year old single woman has four children, and I don't care that each child of hers has a different father. I don't even care that all the fathers of her children are meth addicts. I just don't want to see my tax dollars support them.

I do care. Personally i feel in said above situation, ALL 4 of her baby daddies should be forking out child support to take care of those kids, not everyone else via welfare/food stamps..


To be perfectly fair, there are also liberals that don't think people should have to work... I am conservative but also (I think) reasonable. I don't LIKE affirmative action but I get it. I like the fact that the standard for affirmative action may have changed so those trust fund kids that you seem to hate so much won't get a leg up just because they have a better tan than an equally qualified applicant that has less pigmentation. I don't like paying for people that don't work and have no intention of working. I don't like paying for people that are "disabled" but are perfectly capable of holding down a job-they just don't want to. However, I am willing to pay for those that work the system to make sure those that REALLY need it are taken care of. If caught, I would like to think the frauds are hammered to set an example but we both know they aren't.

I disagree PT. CAuse we know the fraudsters are not hammered, to me allowing all the fraudsters to keep defrauding us, just cause we don't want to hurt the real needy is why our damn welfare state is so much more than our national defense budget.

Mcjohn1118
07-08-2013, 08:48 PM
RJ - What is your opinion on how much time a person should be able to receive unemployment insurance or welfare benefits? It varies by state now from anywhere from 19 weeks to 73 for unemployment insurance. Remember at one time it was up to 99 weeks for those high unemployment states. Also, Welfare is state run, but there are many programs that "welfare" covers from food-stamps, utility assistance, temporary assistance (cash to bring people up to the poverty level), medical assistance etc.

I found the information on welfare from welfare.org and unemployment insurace from cbpp.org (center for budget and policy). It was during a google search so I don't know if these orgs have any left or right leanings.

Honestly, I am on the fence on this one since I've had family members receive unemployment insurance and welfare in the past. My parents had to sell their wedding bands when I was young to provide food for us so I know poor...not poverty, but poor. These programs are their to assist those who need it but there has got to be some sort of limit; it can't be sustained forever. Can you agree with that?

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 08:51 PM
While true to an extent, it also applies to single folk who are to junior a rank to live off base.. they also get no bah living in the barracks.
But maybe its a branch thing, but i have always seen the higher ups living in base housing, get larger places than the junior troops even if that higher up has less bodies to house than the junior troop.

I haven't seen this. With the exception of Ft. Sam Houston; no base I was stationed at had special housing for CPOs and officers. In fact, the barracks for single CPOs and officers at NSB New London are shit; while the ones for E6 and below were awesome. I was told then, that the purpose was to encourage them to seek quarters out in town.


Maybe my anacronym function is not working.. what the heck is a SAHM?

Stay at home mom.


So you equate mom/dad making a fortune and leaving it to you the same as a program where the govt TAKES from everyone else to give to others? Interesting.

The end result is the same type of person, is it not? If one guy was born not having to work and still have money, why should someone else not have the right to do so? Because the other guy was born to the right parents? Sorry man, that doesn't cut it.

I'm not saying that Joe Schmoe shouldn't have to work; I'm just saying that if he chooses not to, his character is no less flawed than the man with the inheritance who chooses not to work. How it affects taxpayers isn't the issue, it's that individual person's character.


Exactly. One of the single mothers who lived near me in Gulfport, said she would have to get two jobs at roughly 8 bucks an hour with 70 hrs a week or more of work, to just break EVEN compared to what she rakes in on food stamps/welfare/child credits..

I seriously doubt that, and if I had the time, I'd do the research and post my findings. Seeing what kind of state Mississippi is, it's probably one of the least generous of the 50 states when it comes to public assistance.

ThaBufe
07-08-2013, 09:02 PM
I'm not saying that Joe Schmoe shouldn't have to work; I'm just saying that if he chooses not to, his character is no less flawed than the man with the inheritance who chooses not to work. How it affects taxpayers isn't the issue, it's that individual person's character.

Except that one is perfectly willing to steal from the public and the other is not (or at least has not demonstrated that they are). To me that says a great deal about that person’s character.

USN - Retired
07-08-2013, 09:04 PM
If one guy was born not having to work and still have money, why should someone else not have the right to do so? Because the other guy was born to the right parents? Sorry man, that doesn't cut it.

It sounds like you have some unresolved issues regarding jealously and/or envy.


How it affects taxpayers isn't the issue,...

That's the problem. It should be the issue. Are you saying that taxpayers shouldn't have a say in the welfare system?

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 09:06 PM
RJ - What is your opinion on how much time a person should be able to receive unemployment insurance or welfare benefits? It varies by state now from anywhere from 19 weeks to 73 for unemployment insurance. Remember at one time it was up to 99 weeks for those high unemployment states. Also, Welfare is state run, but there are many programs that "welfare" covers from food-stamps, utility assistance, temporary assistance (cash to bring people up to the poverty level), medical assistance etc.

I received unemployment in Virginia. This was me getting out as an E6, and then collecting unemployment at around $350 a week. My unemployment alone rendered me ineligible for food stamps, or free lunch at school for my daughter - but Virginia is a real bitch when it comes to food stamps. I think you have to make less than 1K a month for a family of four in order to qualify for food stamps. And I had a family of three at the time.


Honestly, I am on the fence on this one since I've had family members receive unemployment insurance and welfare in the past. My parents had to sell their wedding bands when I was young to provide food for us so I know poor...not poverty, but poor. These programs are their to assist those who need it but there has got to be some sort of limit; it can't be sustained forever. Can you agree with that?

If someone is making a reasonable effort to find work - actually applying for jobs that they qualify for, and can show proof - why shouldn't they be able to keep it? What about employers who are discriminating against the unemployed? That's something that hasn't been discussed here in awhile. I remember the controversy about a year ago; where ads even said "the unemployed need not apply." Now the government stepped in and did something about this; but we know that it really doesn't help. All this did was move the weeding out process from the ad to the resume review software. If it was up to me, I'd have made a law that allows the unemployed to list their last employer as their current, as long as they left in good standing; with the requirement that the last employer comply with this when the prospective employer does the reference check.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 09:08 PM
It sounds like you have some unresolved issues regarding jealously and/or envy.

No, because if that was the case; I'd easily park my ass on the couch and collect public assistance.


That's the problem. It should be the issue. Are you saying that taxpayers shouldn't have a say in the welfare system?

If people like you are among them, then no.

USN - Retired
07-08-2013, 09:56 PM
I received unemployment in Virginia. This was me getting out as an E6, and then collecting unemployment at around $350 a week. My unemployment alone rendered me ineligible for food stamps, or free lunch at school for my daughter - but Virginia is a real bitch when it comes to food stamps. I think you have to make less than 1K a month for a family of four in order to qualify for food stamps. And I had a family of three at the time..

So let's see if I got this straight. You were an E-6. You voluntarily left the military, and you had dependants when you left the military. You soon found yourself collecting public assistance. That means:

(a) You did a terrible job managing your finances and totally mismanaged your professional life. You left the military with no real plan to financially support yourself or your family.

-or-

(b) You were thrown out of the military. Since you were an E-6, HYT shouldn't have been an issue. Why were you dismissed from the military? ERB? PFA failure? BCD? Pop positive on urinalysis?

It has to be either (a) or (b).

Your credibility is in free fall.


If people like you are among them, then no.
So only people who agree with you should have a say in our government?

Your credibility is falling faster and faster....


No, because if that was the case; I'd easily park my ass on the couch and collect public assistance.
Given the amount of time that you spend on this forum, I seriously doubt that you have a job. I am full time retired with no children, and I can't find as much time to spend on this forum as you do. I'm sure that you are sitting at home now and smoking some weed that you bought with your welfare check.

Your credibility just crashed and is now just a ball of flames.

Rusty Jones
07-08-2013, 10:57 PM
So let's see if I got this straight. You were an E-6. You voluntarily left the military, and you had dependants when you left the military. You soon found yourself collecting public assistance. That means:

(a) You did a terrible job managing your finances and totally mismanaged your professional life. You left the military with no real plan to financially support yourself or your family.

-or-

(b) You were thrown out of the military. Since you were an E-6, HYT shouldn't have been an issue. Why were you dismissed from the military? ERB? PFA failure? BCD? Pop positive on urinalysis?

It has to be either (a) or (b).

Your credibility is in free fall.

Tsk, tsk. Another one of your slippery slope fallacies. You do this a lot, so this isn't at all shocking.

But I'll be honest with you: I did 11 years, and I really wanted to get out after four. Of course when the opportunities arose, I couldn't because I didn't have a job lined up.

Unfortunately, reenlistment is a minimum of two years; so reenlisting because you don't have a job is a long term solution to a short term problem. Eventually, I realized that if I was going to get out... I had to do so, regardless of whether or not I had a job waiting for me. Worrying about a job was no longer worth a two year commitment from me.


So only people who agree with you should have a say in our government?

Your credibility is falling faster and faster....

No, what I'm saying is that sometimes the people are wrong the government needs to know when that is. Gay marriage is just now being legalized in some states, because the people were against it for so long. The people were wrong. It should have been legalized a long time ago, without regard for what people thought. The same goes for taking care of our poor and needy. It needs to happen without regard for what people like you think.

And you want to talk about credibility. Bitch, please.


Given the amount of time that you spend on this forum, I seriously doubt that you have a job. I am full time retired with no children, and I can't find as much time to spend on this forum as you do. I'm sure that you are sitting at home now and smoking some weed that you bought with your welfare check.

Your credibility just crashed and is now just a ball of flames.

I average less than 3 posts per day. What it sounds like to me, is that you want the last word and that you're frustrated I keep coming back. FYI, I work two jobs. I guess I'm just better at managing my time than you are.

USN - Retired
07-08-2013, 11:23 PM
I had to do so, regardless of whether or not I had a job waiting for me. Worrying about a job was no longer worth a two year commitment from me.

And financially providing for your family was not worth the two year commitment?? So you're saying that your own interests and desires are more important than the financial needs of your children??


No, what I'm saying is that sometimes the people are wrong the government needs to know when that is. .

...The pseudo-logic used by all dictators....


What it sounds like to me, is that you want the last word and that you're frustrated I keep coming back. .

No. I just enjoy watching you make an ass out of yourself.

imnohero
07-08-2013, 11:34 PM
Not only are you all way off topic, but are tossing about stereotypes and are being insulting. I see you all learned nothing from the "lesson learned by JB permanent ban" thread.

Sperry1989
07-08-2013, 11:39 PM
Not only are you all way off topic, but are tossing about stereotypes and are being insulting. I see you all learned nothing from the "lesson learned by JB permanent ban" thread.

Agree. I disagree with 99% of Rusty's posts but I respect him for standing up for what he believes in and I would never put him down for seeking employment outside the armed services. He served his time honorably (most Americans do not serve at all) and his viewpoint has merit in my book.

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 11:51 PM
I'm not saying that Joe Schmoe shouldn't have to work; I'm just saying that if he chooses not to, his character is no less flawed than the man with the inheritance who chooses not to work. How it affects taxpayers isn't the issue, it's that individual person's character.

And how it effects taxpayers IS a reflection of that person's character. I too was on unemployment and actually looked for a job. Unfortunately, I have some moral fiber unlike this hypothetical person you propose so I actually took a job-several actually, so I could pay my bills. If I had been lacking in moral fiber like your friend, then I could have stayed on the gov dole. You saying that taking money from taxpayers lacks no more moral fiber than someone with a bajillion dollars deciding not to work is akin to saying that someone that euthanizes animals at a shelter has the same moral fiber as someone that kills pets in a neighborhood-after all, the fact that they are someone's pets doesn't have anything to do with anything right?

Pullinteeth
07-08-2013, 11:53 PM
Unfortunately, reenlistment is a minimum of two years; so reenlisting because you don't have a job is a long term solution to a short term problem. Eventually, I realized that if I was going to get out... I had to do so, regardless of whether or not I had a job waiting for me. Worrying about a job was no longer worth a two year commitment from me.

FYI, the minimum enlistment term after you have completed your 8 year MSO is 1 year (you can only enlist for 1 year one time in your career)...

imnohero
07-09-2013, 12:28 AM
And how it effects taxpayers IS a reflection of that person's character.

Your prepared to make a judgement about another person's character absent any other information about them other than whether they are receiving unemployment? Really? And not just one person, based on your prior statements, but about an entire group of people regardless of any of their individual circumstances.

You wonder why Rusty is objecting to your point of view. And have the nerve to call yourself a person of "moral fiber"?

Rusty Jones
07-09-2013, 12:50 AM
And financially providing for your family was not worth the two year commitment?? So you're saying that your own interests and desires are more important than the financial needs of your children??

My daughter was taken care of. Things had to change a bit until I found permanent employment, but we pulled through.


...The pseudo-logic used by all dictators....

So people in power should do the popular thing instead of the right thing? And you want to question the credibility of others?


No. I just enjoy watching you make an ass out of yourself.

You are probably the reason why TJ stopped responding. He was trying to tell me that conservatives are not a certain way, and then you came in here and fucked it up for him.

And I look like the ass? Bitch, please.


Not only are you all way off topic, but are tossing about stereotypes and are being insulting. I see you all learned nothing from the "lesson learned by JB permanent ban" thread.

Yep. Lazy, fat, multiple kids each with a different father... yep.


And how it effects taxpayers IS a reflection of that person's character. I too was on unemployment and actually looked for a job. Unfortunately, I have some moral fiber unlike this hypothetical person you propose so I actually took a job-several actually, so I could pay my bills. If I had been lacking in moral fiber like your friend, then I could have stayed on the gov dole. You saying that taking money from taxpayers lacks no more moral fiber than someone with a bajillion dollars deciding not to work is akin to saying that someone that euthanizes animals at a shelter has the same moral fiber as someone that kills pets in a neighborhood-after all, the fact that they are someone's pets doesn't have anything to do with anything right?

I don't believe that who you are born to should dictate whether or not an action, or inaction, is moral. Like it or not, someone born into money who doesn't work is LAZY, just like the person who wasn't born into money. No definition of laziness in any dictionary will make reference to someone's net worth.


FYI, the minimum enlistment term after you have completed your 8 year MSO is 1 year (you can only enlist for 1 year one time in your career)...

That must be an option that individual services can use at their discretion. It's not used in the Navy.

USN - Retired
07-09-2013, 01:49 AM
My daughter was taken care of. .

With the public assistance, aka the dole, that you received from the government.

Or did you not use any of that dole money to provide for your daughter? The problem RJ is that you quit the military even though you didn't have a civilian job offer waiting for you, and you then had to go on the government dole in order to provide for your family. That shows a lack of planning, a lack of responsibility, and a lack of maturity on your part. A previous post of yours actually makes it appear that you just decided to quit the military so that you could go find yourself, and it also sounds like you weren't really too worried about your family because you knew that the government would provide for them. And now you are trying to compensate for your lack of responsibility in life by attacking people who do have responsibility.


No, what I'm saying is that sometimes the people are wrong the government needs to know when that is. .

If we accept your pseudo-logic, then we must also accept that everything George W Bush did as President was right because he was the government. If we accept your pseudo-logic, then the bill of rights should be considered optional for the government since the government knows what is best for us. (unfortunately, the bill of rights probably already is optional for the government)


You are probably the reason why TJ stopped responding. He was trying to tell me that conservatives are not a certain way, and then you came in here and fucked it up for him..

I'm Libertarian, not conservative. There's a difference. A big difference.


I don't believe that who you are born to should dictate whether or not an action, or inaction, is moral. Like it or not, someone born into money who doesn't work is LAZY, just like the person who wasn't born into money. No definition of laziness in any dictionary will make reference to someone's net worth.

But taxpayers don't have to financially support the rich lazy person. And the rich lazy person pays taxes. The rich lazy person probably pays more taxes than you and I do. The taxpayers do often have to financially support the poor lazy person with welfare and other forms of public assistance. You need to get over the envy and jealously that you have for the rich.

USN - Retired
07-09-2013, 01:59 AM
That's the problem. It should be the issue. Are you saying that taxpayers shouldn't have a say in the welfare system?


If people like you are among them, then no.

So are you saying that Conservatives and Libertarians should have less rights in our country. Should the government censor any comments from Conservatives and Libertarians that have not been approved by the Socialists? Perhaps the Socialists should round up all the Conservatives and Libertarians and place them into concentration camps. Joseph Stalin did just that and it worked out well for him. You can also round up all the rich people, take all their money and then send them to into your concentration camps also.

imnohero
07-09-2013, 02:12 AM
But taxpayers don't have to financially support the rich lazy person. And the rich lazy person pays taxes. The rich lazy person probably pays more taxes than you and I do. The taxpayers do often have to financially support the poor lazy person with welfare and other forms of public assistance. You need to get over the envy and jealously that you have for the rich.

This is an interesting argument. For clarity's sake, is it the use of government (i.e. taxpayer) dollar to which you object? Or is it the combination of "lazy" and receiving tax dollars? Or maybe it's being poor and using tax dollars? Or maybe it's all three? Poor + Lazy + Tax Dollars = bad?

Just curious, I'm wondering how far you are willing to take this argument?

One other question: You are aware that Libertarianism is a philosophy of government and economic justice, not a comprehensive system of morality, right?

Rusty Jones
07-09-2013, 02:29 AM
With the public assistance, aka the dole, that you received from the government.

Or did you not use any of that dole money to provide for your daughter? The problem RJ is that you quit the military even though you didn't have a civilian job offer waiting for you, and you then had to go on the government dole in order to provide for your family. That shows a lack of planning, a lack of responsibility, and a lack of maturity on your part. A previous post of yours actually makes it appear that you just decided to quit the military so that you could go find yourself, and it also sounds like you weren't really too worried about your family because you knew that the government would provide for them. And now you are trying to compensate for your lack of responsibility in life by attacking people who do have responsibility.

That's where you're wrong, buddy. I knew that I would get unemployment until I found a job; so getting unemployment was part of my plan. You don't like it? I don't give a shit.

By the way, I ate ribeye steaks and king crab legs at least once a week on your tax dollars. And I washed it all down with some Sam Adams.


If we accept your pseudo-logic, then we must also accept that everything George W Bush did as President was right because he was the government. If we accept your pseudo-logic, then the bill of rights should be considered optional for the government since the government knows what is best for us. (unfortunately, the bill of rights probably already is optional for the government)

Straw man. What I'm saying is that the popular thing and the right thing is not always one and the same. People in a position of power need to know this, and make decisions accordingly.


I'm Libertarian, not conservative. There's a difference. A big difference.

This is easily goes into the top ten dumbest things I've ever read on MTF. Someone not knowing the difference between a political leaning, and a political party. Why am I even talking to you?


But taxpayers don't have to financially support the rich lazy person. And the rich lazy person pays taxes. The rich lazy person probably pays more taxes than you and I do.

Not percentage wise.


The taxpayers do often have to financially support the poor lazy person with welfare and other forms of public assistance. You need to get over the envy and jealously that you have for the rich.

Again, if I wanted to sit on my ass and get paid; I'd quit my jobs and file for TANF and SNAP. Is this a deal where you think that by saying something enough times, it becomes true?

USN - Retired
07-09-2013, 02:33 AM
This is an interesting argument.

Or is it the combination of "lazy" and receiving tax dollars?

Yes. That one.


One other question: You are aware that Libertarianism is a philosophy of government and economic justice, not a comprehensive system of morality, right?


Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. It is so much more than just a political party.

imnohero
07-09-2013, 02:46 AM
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Right, that's what I said, government and economic justice.


Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.


The key word in that sentence is TEND. The reason that there isn't consistency is because there is no underlying moral system which unifies the interpretations of what is or isn't a civil liberty, how the free market should operate to be just, how diverse lifestyles are allowed to be, etc. Libertarianism, as a philosophy, ASSUMES that all participants are rational moral agents. Of course, in reality, not all people are. But Libertarianism has no methodology to address this.



Yes. That one.

So then it's lazy people you object to, primarily, not that they receive tax dollars, since the logical extension of your statement is that it's OK with you if active people receive tax dollars, or rich people do, presumably whether they need them or not. Interesting, also not a particularly libertarian position.

USN - Retired
07-09-2013, 03:23 AM
Right, that's what I said, government and economic justice. .

That's not exactly what I said though.


The key word in that sentence is TEND. The reason that there isn't consistency is because there is no underlying moral system which unifies the interpretations of what is or isn't a civil liberty, how the free market should operate to be just, how diverse lifestyles are allowed to be, etc. Libertarianism, as a philosophy, ASSUMES that all participants are rational moral agents. Of course, in reality, not all people are. But Libertarianism has no methodology to address this.

US Libertarians start with the US Constitution, especially the bill of rights, for their guidance. If you are really interested in Libertarianism, then you may want to google the term. Also check Libertarianism on wikipedia. I don't want to take the subject of this thread too far off topic. I have been scolded in the past for taking thread discussions on this forum off topic. If you are really interested in discussing Libertarianism, then let me know and I'll start a thread for us on that subject if you like.


So then it's lazy people you object to, primarily, not that they receive tax dollars, since the logical extension of your statement is that it's OK with you if active people receive tax dollars, or rich people do, presumably whether they need them or not. Interesting, also not a particularly libertarian position.

I'm not sure that I follow your point. Your logical extension seems to be faulty because I didn't say "just" lazy people or "only" lazy people. I object to lazy people who receive public assistance. Why would a rich person receive public assistance?


, since the logical extension of your statement is that it's OK with you if active people receive tax dollars, or rich people do, presumably whether they need them or not.

That is certainly not what I meant. I'm glad that we clarified that point.

imnohero
07-09-2013, 03:36 AM
I'm not sure that I follow your point. Your logical extension seems to be faulty because I didn't say "just" lazy people or "only" lazy people. I object to lazy people who receive public assistance. Why would a rich person receive public assistance?


Ah, so it's not just any tax dollars, it's "public assistance". A rich person probably wouldn't. But they receive all sorts of benefits from the government from loan guarantees to tax credits to grants. Just wanting to make sure I understand your position.

Which, if I understand correctly, is that lazy people, because of an unstate objection to laziness, should not receive public assistance because it is:
a) an illicit government use of tax dollars?
b)...?

USN - Retired
07-09-2013, 04:00 AM
so getting unemployment was part of my plan.

I'm sure that it was.


By the way, I ate ribeye steaks and king crab legs at least once a week on your tax dollars. And I washed it all down with some Sam Adams.

I'm sure that you did.


You don't like it? I don't give a shit.

I'm sure that you don't.

Thank you and have a good night.

USN - Retired
07-09-2013, 04:09 AM
Ah, so it's not just any tax dollars, it's "public assistance". A rich person probably wouldn't. But they receive all sorts of benefits from the government from loan guarantees to tax credits to grants. Just wanting to make sure I understand your position.

Which, if I understand correctly, is that lazy people, because of an unstate objection to laziness, should not receive public assistance because it is:
a) an illicit government use of tax dollars?
b)...?

Hopefully, this information will answer your questions about my positions...

From wikipedia article: Libertarian Party (United States)

The Libertarian Party's platform opposes government intervention in the economy. According to the party platform "The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected." – Libertarian Party Platform.

The Libertarian Party opposes all government intervention and regulation on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates and advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System. The party does not feel that government should incur debt and supports the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced preferably by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. Libertarians favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. The party also wants a halt to inflationary monetary policies and legal tender laws. While the party defends the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies, it opposes government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest.

imnohero
07-09-2013, 04:41 AM
Hopefully, this information will answer your questions about my positions...

From wikipedia article: Libertarian Party (United States)

The Libertarian Party's platform opposes government intervention in the economy. According to the party platform "The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected." – Libertarian Party Platform.

The Libertarian Party opposes all government intervention and regulation on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates and advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. The party's recent platform calls for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services, such as the Federal Reserve System. The party does not feel that government should incur debt and supports the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced preferably by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. Libertarians favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. The party also wants a halt to inflationary monetary policies and legal tender laws. While the party defends the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies, it opposes government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest.

Hmm, not a word in there about "lazy people" or public assistance. So do they fall under things that are not part of the "proper role of government?"

Of course, posting this doesn't really explain Libertarianism as a philosophy, it is only the political party's position platform. Not exactly a detailed explanation. And quite frankly, I'm less interested in Libertarianism than in your stated objection to "lazy people" receiving public assistance. Some combination of these two things is what you object to, and I'm trying to figure out what it is.

I suspect that it's not "laziness", but rather illegitimate claims to public assistance. E.g. Fraudulent welfare claims. Since laziness and public assistance are not conjoined, logically or legally.

garhkal
07-09-2013, 06:29 AM
RJ - What is your opinion on how much time a person should be able to receive unemployment insurance or welfare benefits? It varies by state now from anywhere from 19 weeks to 73 for unemployment insurance. Remember at one time it was up to 99 weeks for those high unemployment states. Also, Welfare is state run, but there are many programs that "welfare" covers from food-stamps, utility assistance, temporary assistance (cash to bring people up to the poverty level), medical assistance etc.

Honestly, I am on the fence on this one since I've had family members receive unemployment insurance and welfare in the past. My parents had to sell their wedding bands when I was young to provide food for us so I know poor...not poverty, but poor. These programs are their to assist those who need it but there has got to be some sort of limit; it can't be sustained forever. Can you agree with that?[/QUOTE]

For me, i honestly can't say what should the limits be, but i do agree, there HAS to be some..


I haven't seen this. With the exception of Ft. Sam Houston; no base I was stationed at had special housing for CPOs and officers. In fact, the barracks for single CPOs and officers at NSB New London are shit; while the ones for E6 and below were awesome. I was told then, that the purpose was to encourage them to seek quarters out in town.

Maybe its our different branches.. Also it might be since i am single, i have never actually physically seen the paperwork/requirements for base housing, but i know barracks are bigger/better for officers/chiefs than enlisted.


Stay at home mom.

Should have figured...


The end result is the same type of person, is it not? If one guy was born not having to work and still have money, why should someone else not have the right to do so? Because the other guy was born to the right parents? Sorry man, that doesn't cut it.

Maybe i am just not understanding what you are tying to say here...


I seriously doubt that, and if I had the time, I'd do the research and post my findings. Seeing what kind of state Mississippi is, it's probably one of the least generous of the 50 states when it comes to public assistance.

True, i myself have never looked into what they make, so she MAY have been bamboozling me.


I received unemployment in Virginia. This was me getting out as an E6, and then collecting unemployment at around $350 a week. My unemployment alone rendered me ineligible for food stamps, or free lunch at school for my daughter - but Virginia is a real bitch when it comes to food stamps. I think you have to make less than 1K a month for a family of four in order to qualify for food stamps. And I had a family of three at the time.

I was told by our VA rep that military getting out don't qualify for unemployment. How did you?


If someone is making a reasonable effort to find work - actually applying for jobs that they qualify for, and can show proof - why shouldn't they be able to keep it?

For how long though? 1 year? 3? 10??



But taxpayers don't have to financially support the rich lazy person. And the rich lazy person pays taxes. The rich lazy person probably pays more taxes than you and I do. The taxpayers do often have to financially support the poor lazy person with welfare and other forms of public assistance..

Very true. Also that rich lazy person who inherited money more than likely spends a lot more than the poor lazy person, ergo is helping the economy more..




And? So to your pov, its ok for me to pay 10x what someone who is 'poor' is cause for me that may only be 10% of my wealth but for him it might be 30%?

[QUOTE=imnohero;638731]Ah, so it's not just any tax dollars, it's "public assistance". A rich person probably wouldn't. But they receive all sorts of benefits from the government from loan guarantees to tax credits to grants. Just wanting to make sure I understand your position.

Exactly what tax credits/loan guarantees etc are rich people getting that poor people are not?

Rusty Jones
07-09-2013, 11:56 AM
Should have figured...

Okay, now what?


Maybe i am just not understanding what you are tying to say here...

I've already had this conversation with USN-Retired and Pullinteeth on this thread.


I was told by our VA rep that military getting out don't qualify for unemployment. How did you?

Your VA rep is lying to you. Your unemployment is offset by any other compensation you receive, so if you got something else, he may have been right. Other than that, it's sounds like he was trying to scare you into reenlisting.

Not only do separating military qualify, but they qualify for a whole YEAR; regardless of your state's limitations.

Eisenhower signed that into law back in the 50's.


For how long though? 1 year? 3? 10??

For as long as they can show that they're making a legitimate effort.


Very true. Also that rich lazy person who inherited money more than likely spends a lot more than the poor lazy person, ergo is helping the economy more..

But there's less of them. The poor having more money to spend is what will get the economy moving.


And? So to your pov, its ok for me to pay 10x what someone who is 'poor' is cause for me that may only be 10% of my wealth but for him it might be 30%?

You're damned right it is; and that's what needs to happen.

TJMAC77SP
07-09-2013, 02:29 PM
Oh, quit acting like you don't know. The very reason we're having this discussion in the first place is because people who are on entitlement programs are trashed by people on MTF at every opportunity.

Do you deny this?

No, YOU might be having this discussion NOW for that reason but WE are having this discussion because you AGAIN chose to insert an irrelevant and baseless statement into a post and I called you on it. You still haven’t stated what you believe the conservative position on entitlement programs to be.

Deny that like you people on the MTF post irrelevant and ludicrous things? No I don’t deny that.


Do you have WJ5 and USN-Retired blocked or something? You might wanna unblock them. You'll find some interesting stuff.

So…………my point is moot because I don’t challenge every missive with hyperbole and rhetoric? That is your argument? Your hyperbole and rhetoric is unchallengeable because all such nonsense is not challenged? If you get stopped for speeding is your defense that you aren’t the only speeder?


I only know that you yourself are conservative, because you've stated it. Other than, you've been pretty good at leaving your own stances on things out - and just simply challenge those who challenge conservatives. Others around here are a little more transparent.

I often state my ‘stances’ on many things. Was there something specific you were attempting to make a point about?


Do you go back on your word then, that people who inherited their money are not undeserving of it? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

I am going to assume you meant ‘deserving’ not ‘undeserving’ because undeserving would seem to be your position.

So, you are going to stick with your comparison of inheritance and entitlement programs? Sounds like you pick and choose context relation when convenient.

You state that “the belief - or rather the expression - that hard work always equals money, or that money always comes from hard work, is a conservative one.” And yet many of these conservatives have inherited wealth so wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

My rewording of your ill-stated belief was just that, a more accurate reading. I don’t know if that would actually be a conservative belief or just a universally held American belief but the road to success is certainly through hard work and should not be through the lack of hard work and unless you want to count tax payers as the source I would say the origins of wealth among the rich was hard work and that is the key fallacy in your comparison.

TJMAC77SP
07-09-2013, 02:33 PM
You are probably the reason why TJ stopped responding. He was trying to tell me that conservatives are not a certain way, and then you came in here and fucked it up for him.



"TJ" stopped responding because he had to work. What were you alluding to?

TJMAC77SP
07-09-2013, 02:38 PM
I'm not saying that Joe Schmoe shouldn't have to work; I'm just saying that if he chooses not to, his character is no less flawed than the man with the inheritance who chooses not to work. How it affects taxpayers isn't the issue, it's that individual person's character.

This is where your flawed comparison breaks down. If Joe Schmoe CHOOSES not to work and DOESN'T take public assistance then yes, his character is not flawed. But that isn't really what you are saying is it?

Rusty Jones
07-09-2013, 03:07 PM
No, YOU might be having this discussion NOW for that reason but WE are having this discussion because you AGAIN chose to insert an irrelevant and baseless statement into a post and I called you on it. You still haven’t stated what you believe the conservative position on entitlement programs to be.

Oh, but I did. I referenced USN-Retired's rants. You need not even look beyond this thread.


Deny that like you people on the MTF post irrelevant and ludicrous things? No I don’t deny that.

No, I asked if you denied that the poor get trashed on MTF. Before you answer that question, be sure to read USN-Retired's posts.


So…………my point is moot because I don’t challenge every missive with hyperbole and rhetoric? That is your argument? Your hyperbole and rhetoric is unchallengeable because all such nonsense is not challenged? If you get stopped for speeding is your defense that you aren’t the only speeder?

No, you wanted examples of what I'm talking about. These two posters, as well as a few others, post exactly what I'm talking about. I have no clue how missed them. I'm simply trying to give you what you asked for.


I often state my ‘stances’ on many things. Was there something specific you were attempting to make a point about?

I don't know your feelings toward the poor, because you've never stated it. Or, if you did, I missed it. I'm contrasting you with people like USN-Retired.


I am going to assume you meant ‘deserving’ not ‘undeserving’ because undeserving would seem to be your position.

So, you are going to stick with your comparison of inheritance and entitlement programs? Sounds like you pick and choose context relation when convenient.

You state that “the belief - or rather the expression - that hard work always equals money, or that money always comes from hard work, is a conservative one.” And yet many of these conservatives have inherited wealth so wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

Didn't you say that the conservative belief is that money shouldn't come from a lack of hard work? Wouldn't your position contradict that?

Anyway, that would be a contradiction. The lazy calling the lazy lazy. Strange how that works, isn't?


My rewording of your ill-stated belief was just that, a more accurate reading. I don’t know if that would actually be a conservative belief or just a universally held American belief but the road to success is certainly through hard work and should not be through the lack of hard work and unless you want to count tax payers as the source I would say the origins of wealth among the rich was hard work and that is the key fallacy in your comparison.

So no you're ignoring the people who were born into wealth.


"TJ" stopped responding because he had to work. What were you alluding to?

The fact that USN-Retired confirmed exactly what I said, and screwed up the picture of conservatives that you were trying to pain.


This is where your flawed comparison breaks down. If Joe Schmoe CHOOSES not to work and DOESN'T take public assistance then yes, his character is not flawed. But that isn't really what you are saying is it?

Nope.

TJMAC77SP
07-09-2013, 04:33 PM
Oh, but I did. I referenced USN-Retired's rants. You need not even look beyond this thread.

Is it your position that USN’s statements are the conservative position? If so, what besides him and his MTF posts do you base this on.


No, I asked if you denied that the poor get trashed on MTF. Before you answer that question, be sure to read USN-Retired's posts.

I thought I was pretty clear.


No, YOU might be having this discussion NOW for that reason but WE are having this discussion because you AGAIN chose to insert an irrelevant and baseless statement into a post and I called you on it. You still haven’t stated what you believe the conservative position on entitlement programs to be.

Deny that like you people on the MTF post irrelevant and ludicrous things? No I don’t deny that.

Let me be clearer. Bashing the poor for being poor would indeed fall into the category of irrelevant and ludicrous. As would defending the poor regardless of actions and facts because they are poor.

Both ice cream, different flavor.



No, you wanted examples of what I'm talking about. These two posters, as well as a few others, post exactly what I'm talking about. I have no clue how missed them. I'm simply trying to give you what you asked for.

The only thing I believe I have ‘asked’ you for is your understanding of the conservative position on entitlement programs. Again, is it your position that USN’s statements are that position? If so, what besides him and his MTF posts do you base this on.



I don't know your feelings toward the poor, because you've never stated it. Or, if you did, I missed it. I'm contrasting you with people like USN-Retired.

So in order for my argument over your hyperbole to have weight I have to tell you my opinion of the poor? I am really missing the logic here.



Didn't you say that the conservative belief is that money shouldn't come from a lack of hard work? Wouldn't your position contradict that?

Anyway, that would be a contradiction. The lazy calling the lazy lazy. Strange how that works, isn't?


So no you're ignoring the people who were born into wealth.

So people born into wealth are all lazy? Is that your position?

You seem to have forgotten part of my response. I am sure it was an oversight.


My rewording of your ill-stated belief was just that, a more accurate reading. I don’t know if that would actually be a conservative belief or just a universally held American belief but the road to success is certainly through hard work and should not be through the lack of hard work and unless you want to count tax payers as the source I would say the origins of wealth among the rich was hard work and that is the key fallacy in your comparison.




The fact that USN-Retired confirmed exactly what I said, and screwed up the picture of conservatives that you were trying to pain.


What has my not posting have to do with anything USN says?


Nope.

So we agree the comparison is flawed.

garhkal
07-09-2013, 08:17 PM
Okay, now what?

That there would be yet another acronym i didn't know what it meant.




Your VA rep is lying to you. Your unemployment is offset by any other compensation you receive, so if you got something else, he may have been right. Other than that, it's sounds like he was trying to scare you into reenlisting.

What of us retirees? Is that different? If that's the case i have been screwed royally.



For as long as they can show that they're making a legitimate effort.

So IYO someone can claim unemployment for 10+ years as long as they show they have 'made an effort' to get a job.. sorry bub, but i disagree. Also what constitutes a "legitimate effort'? Who decides that? Who checks on it? What punishment (If any) will get levied on those who are NOT making it??


But there's less of them. The poor having more money to spend is what will get the economy moving.

How so? Lets say that for every rich person (say half a mil or more), there are 500 poor folk. Each poor person lets say has what, 200 bucks a month spending money (after bills), while each rich person has 10k to spend a month.. That is the same amount of money by ratio.
Or do you feel there is more than 500 poor people to each rich person??


You're damned right it is; and that's what needs to happen.

Sorry, but that sounds wayyy to socialist to me. If i wanted to live in that sort of society i would move my ass to russia.

Sounds like you are Sauna re-imagined.

Rusty Jones
07-09-2013, 08:54 PM
Is it your position that USN’s statements are the conservative position? If so, what besides him and his MTF posts do you base this on...

... The only thing I believe I have ‘asked’ you for is your understanding of the conservative position on entitlement programs. Again, is it your position that USN’s statements are that position? If so, what besides him and his MTF posts do you base this on.

USN isn't the only one. There are others, though they're not as bad as he is. Like WJ5. Then we've got Mitt Romney's speech on the 47%, we've got Laura Ingram, Mancow, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh... I mean, please, show me a conservative who is well known to the public that DOESN'T think like the people I've mentioned!

Of those on MTF, at least the ones who are more outspoken on their political belief; Pullinteeth is really the only saving grace for the conservatives here.

Like I said, I really don't know much of your stances on things - you could be more like Pullinteeth, you could be more like USN... I honestly don't know which.


I thought I was pretty clear.

Let me be clearer. Bashing the poor for being poor would indeed fall into the category of irrelevant and ludicrous. As would defending the poor regardless of actions and facts because they are poor.

Both ice cream, different flavor.

The basis that I have for defending the poor for it's own sake - and I haven't mentioned it on this thread, but I have elsewhere in the past - is that they have no power to write bills, or sign or veto anything into law. They can't hire or fire anyone; nor are they in positions to influence those in power. Just like us, they're playing the game that they didn't make the rules to. You want to be pissed at someone, get pissed at the people who make the rules; and those with the power to influence them.


So in order for my argument over your hyperbole to have weight I have to tell you my opinion of the poor? I am really missing the logic here.

Forget it.


So people born into wealth are all lazy? Is that your position?

If they're not working, they are. Unless you can show me a definition of the word "lazy," where not being rich is part of the definition.


You seem to have forgotten part of my response. I am sure it was an oversight.

What has my not posting have to do with anything USN says?

Looks like these issues are resolved.


So we agree the comparison is flawed.

Yeah...


That there would be yet another acronym i didn't know what it meant.

Okay.


What of us retirees? Is that different? If that's the case i have been screwed royally.

Like I said before, unemployment is offset by any other compensation that you receive. I know that in Virginia, 20-year E6 retirement pay is higher than the maximum unemployment; which means that you're not getting a dime in unemployment.


So IYO someone can claim unemployment for 10+ years as long as they show they have 'made an effort' to get a job.. sorry bub, but i disagree. Also what constitutes a "legitimate effort'? Who decides that? Who checks on it? What punishment (If any) will get levied on those who are NOT making it??

Have you ever collected unemployment before? You have to apply for at least two jobs per week, and be able to show that. Do I believe that the requirements should be more stringent here in Virginia? Of course; I can understand two applications per week before everyone had the internet, so that needs to be updated; and they also need to specifically require you to apply for jobs you qualify for, so that you don't someone with only a high school diploma applying to be a dentist or other jobs that they know they're not going to get.

Other than that, what's really the likelihood that someone who's making a legitimate effort to find a job isn't going to be able to in ten years?


How so? Lets say that for every rich person (say half a mil or more), there are 500 poor folk. Each poor person lets say has what, 200 bucks a month spending money (after bills), while each rich person has 10k to spend a month.. That is the same amount of money by ratio.
Or do you feel there is more than 500 poor people to each rich person??

...and I'm saying that, percentage wise, no one should be paying a lower percentage in taxes than someone who makes less money.


Sorry, but that sounds wayyy to socialist to me. If i wanted to live in that sort of society i would move my ass to russia.

Sounds like you are Sauna re-imagined.

Oh, brother. It's the "but... but... that's SOCIALIST" argument. I think it's time we look past the fear of a word.

TJMAC77SP
07-10-2013, 11:52 AM
So we agree the comparison is flawed.


Yeah...

Thus the only issue my posts have addressed is settled. All that other stuff was distraction.

Pullinteeth
07-10-2013, 02:34 PM
I don't believe that who you are born to should dictate whether or not an action, or inaction, is moral. Like it or not, someone born into money who doesn't work is LAZY, just like the person who wasn't born into money. No definition of laziness in any dictionary will make reference to someone's net worth.

Who said anything about laziness? If you can AFFORD to be lazy, go right ahead. That doesn't mean you have strong moral fiber. With that, i agree. However, to say that someone being lazy when they know that it means someone else will have to support them, THAT does reflect poor character. Does it mean they are the worst person in the world? Absolutely not but it is a character flaw.


Your prepared to make a judgement about another person's character absent any other information about them other than whether they are receiving unemployment? Really? And not just one person, based on your prior statements, but about an entire group of people regardless of any of their individual circumstances.

You wonder why Rusty is objecting to your point of view. And have the nerve to call yourself a person of "moral fiber"?

Apparently you can't read. Rusty said the person CHOOSES not to work and wants the taxpayer to support them...

garhkal
07-10-2013, 08:33 PM
Have you ever collected unemployment before? You have to apply for at least two jobs per week, and be able to show that. Do I believe that the requirements should be more stringent here in Virginia? Of course; I can understand two applications per week before everyone had the internet, so that needs to be updated; and they also need to specifically require you to apply for jobs you qualify for, so that you don't someone with only a high school diploma applying to be a dentist or other jobs that they know they're not going to get.

Not yet. Left schooling in England before i got to 'working age' and came stateside to do 1 yr of high school before i joined up. Did my 20 and am now out. So not had any time to be 'unemployed' (well other than now i am retired)
As for the requirements, how do they 'ensure that those people ARE making those applications? Since most everything these days has gone ot only on line applications, how is that checked?




Other than that, what's really the likelihood that someone who's making a legitimate effort to find a job isn't going to be able to in ten years?

That's why i was asking what is legitimate?



...and I'm saying that, percentage wise, no one should be paying a lower percentage in taxes than someone who makes less money.

So make the percentage the same across the board.. Period. No deductions, no credits, no havens.

Rusty Jones
07-10-2013, 08:50 PM
Not yet. Left schooling in England before i got to 'working age' and came stateside to do 1 yr of high school before i joined up. Did my 20 and am now out. So not had any time to be 'unemployed' (well other than now i am retired)

As for the requirements, how do they 'ensure that those people ARE making those applications? Since most everything these days has gone ot only on line applications, how is that checked?

That's why i was asking what is legitimate?

That's easy.

First, require them to keep a log of the jobs they've applied to. For each line on the log, you have the name of the company, the title of the position, the website URL, and the the username. In fact, I did this myself while I was unemployed - even though I didn't have to - just to keep track of the statuses of all of my applications.

Since it would be cost prohibitive to check on everyone every week, you simply do a surprise spot check on each person at random intervals. You check their log, you pick out a week, and you have them sign into the websites that they logged and show you their submitted applications.

If they didn't apply for the minimum number of jobs for which they are qualified, then unemployment stops.



So make the percentage the same across the board.. Period. No deductions, no credits, no havens.

No. I said no one who makes more should be paying a lower percentage than someone who makes less.

When you get below a certain income level... say, the poverty line or maybe a level that's a few brackets above that... then, yes, the percentages should go down. I can afford, say, 25%; a billionaire can afford it; but someone jocking a cash register at Walmart probably won't be able to.

imnohero
07-11-2013, 12:26 AM
Apparently you can't read. Rusty said the person CHOOSES not to work and wants the taxpayer to support them...

I can read, including the things you write, which is what I was commenting on. If I want to comment on what rusty wrote, I would direct my comment at him.

TJMAC77SP
07-11-2013, 12:11 PM
I can read, including the things you write, which is what I was commenting on. If I want to comment on what rusty wrote, I would direct my comment at him.

His comments were in direct response to YOUR words. You cited Rusty in your post and he clarified why what Rusty wrote would open someone up to be judged for being on unemployment. Not the mere fact of being on unemployment but the the hypothetical person Rusty cited CHOSE not to seek employment.

I understood that. Perhaps you should reread the discussion.