The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='mykevermin']^ Bob only speaks in analogies, cinder. you should know that. He doesn't understand things, so he has to fabricate "something similar" to pretend he does. He's the political equivalent of that annoying person who has to relate every story, every incident you experience in life to a quote from "The Simpsons" or a scene from "Seinfeld."

It's hardly an issue of spending, seeing as how all but 16 Republicans were more than happy to allocate themselves billions in earmarks this week - not to mention that no Republican (Eric Cantor in particular, since he and Paul Ryan were the most sought-after 'fiscal hawks') has been willing to offer *any* substantial policy proposals to reign in spending, outside of a vague declaration to reduce discretionary spending to 2008 levels.

It is indeed your side's internal contradiction - a contradiction you are unwilling to consider resolving. That is why you have no respect among people here; you are as devoid of substance as your political peers.[/QUOTE]

It makes me sad that I get "no respect" from those who can barely communicate without cursing at people, insulting them and just honestly don't understand how people can see the world differently than they do. Let me tell you, I cry myself to sleep over it every night.

And you are 100% correct. The large majority of Republicans politicians don't see it as a spending problem. They ran on that platform, but they won't follow through with it. Which is one of the reasons why I didn't vote for very many Republicans and urged others not to as well.

As for your comment that I am "unwilling to consider resolving", that's a damn lie and you know it. For starters - and we've both agreed on (at least parts of) this - I strongly support recalling virtually every single troop home (with the exception of those providing emergency relief aid in places like, say, Haiti after their earthquake) and slashing the military/defense budget. But you'll ignore stuff like that because it doesn't fit into your narrative of me.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']...[/QUOTE]

Weird. I didn't know 100% of government spending was on "things that help the poor and middle class". I guess this means you can stop crying about corporate welfare - I mean, either you don't think it's something that should be cut or it doesn't exist in your world.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Weird. I didn't know 100% of government spending was on "things that help the poor and middle class". I guess this means you can stop crying about corporate welfare - I mean, either you don't think it's something that should be cut or it doesn't exist in your world.[/QUOTE]

Well, let's see. They aren't going to increase the government's income (aka raise taxes), they aren't going to put the squeeze on their corporate masters, they aren't going to cut farm subsidies, they aren't going cut defense spending, they aren't going to end the two wars we are currently in, they aren't going to vote to lower their pay/cut their healthcare...what's left?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I strongly support recalling virtually every single troop home (with the exception of those providing emergency relief aid in places like, say, Haiti after their earthquake) and slashing the military/defense budget. But you'll ignore stuff like that because it doesn't fit into your narrative of me.[/QUOTE]

Could you elaborate on what specific cuts to the military you would like to make? Perhaps decrease spending on our troops health (Although arguably this already happened with the advent of the reserves, which has caused a rise in suicide rates in the military due to decreased resources for those who served)? What about basing around the world? How many bases are you willing to slash in order to maintain the country's advance deterrence forces? Should we bring all troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan at the cost of their collapse? Or should we bring back attack and counter insurgency forces, and instead work towards strengthening the country and vetting it so that the US will have better diplomatic presence in the middle east as Iran continues along a path that might lead to proliferation? Should Iraq fall after we leave should we help allies in the area, especially those that have nuclear capabilities?

I don't know, I have yet to hear you provide any semblance of an argument on how and what should be cut from the military. Instead all you have stated it that we should pull our troops out, without thinking about the logistics nor effects of when we do it. You talk about cutting spending to the general defense budget. Does this include the medical areas of the military, which in recent years has pushed emergency care procedures in civilian hospitals forward, mental and physical health benefits to those who serve/d. Or is it aimed at wasteful projects like the b-52 bomber (or as it is sometimes referred, the gold plated bomber), which is not a problem of the military budget but congressional pork spending that required certain parts come from certain areas. Should congress dictate how military money is spent more or less going forward, or should more autonomy be given to the military to define its own budget.

How many of these issues have you mused on in your position about cutting spending?


BTW if you are interested in current military posture here is the Quadrennial Review from February.

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf
 
Everyone agrees on X. Not everyone agrees on Y.

But Republicans won't vote on X if it's not attached to Y. Even though X is extremely important and it could really hurt the majority of Americans if not voted on.

What's wrong with passing X by itself, which everyone agrees is extremely important and harmful if not voted on? If Republicans want to get Y later on, they can make that retroactive.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Everyone agrees on X. Not everyone agrees on Y.

But Republicans won't vote on X if it's not attached to Y. Even though X is extremely important and it could really hurt the majority of Americans if not voted on.

What's wrong with passing X by itself, which everyone agrees is extremely important and harmful if not voted on? If Republicans want to get Y later on, they can make that retroactive.[/QUOTE]

Well like I said Republicans have already said they nuke every future bill unless they get what they want.

So how is that for negotiations?

Has anyone attempted to explain why cutting deal with terrorists makes good sense?
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Could you elaborate on what specific cuts to the military you would like to make? Perhaps decrease spending on our troops health (Although arguably this already happened with the advent of the reserves, which has caused a rise in suicide rates in the military due to decreased resources for those who served)? What about basing around the world? How many bases are you willing to slash in order to maintain the country's advance deterrence forces? Should we bring all troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan at the cost of their collapse? Or should we bring back attack and counter insurgency forces, and instead work towards strengthening the country and vetting it so that the US will have better diplomatic presence in the middle east as Iran continues along a path that might lead to proliferation? Should Iraq fall after we leave should we help allies in the area, especially those that have nuclear capabilities?

I don't know, I have yet to hear you provide any semblance of an argument on how and what should be cut from the military. Instead all you have stated it that we should pull our troops out, without thinking about the logistics nor effects of when we do it. You talk about cutting spending to the general defense budget. Does this include the medical areas of the military, which in recent years has pushed emergency care procedures in civilian hospitals forward, mental and physical health benefits to those who serve/d. Or is it aimed at wasteful projects like the b-52 bomber (or as it is sometimes referred, the gold plated bomber), which is not a problem of the military budget but congressional pork spending that required certain parts come from certain areas. Should congress dictate how military money is spent more or less going forward, or should more autonomy be given to the military to define its own budget.

How many of these issues have you mused on in your position about cutting spending?


BTW if you are interested in current military posture here is the Quadrennial Review from February.

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf[/QUOTE]


I'll be 100% honest, no I cannot provide a line-by-line list of items from the military/defense budget that I'd cut. But, here's the deal - the US is not only number one when it comes to military/defense spending, we actually spend more than numbers 2-16 COMBINED.

Something about that tells me there's a whole lot of room for cutting - and my gut instinct tells me that a lot of those cuts would come into play once we stop being Team America: World Police.

[quote name='IRHari']Everyone agrees on X. Not everyone agrees on Y.

But Republicans won't vote on X if it's not attached to Y. Even though X is extremely important and it could really hurt the majority of Americans if not voted on.

What's wrong with passing X by itself, which everyone agrees is extremely important and harmful if not voted on? If Republicans want to get Y later on, they can make that retroactive.[/QUOTE]

Why couldn't we have done this with the health care bill? Why did it have to be a 2,000+ page monstrosity that included such gems as the 1099 provision that doesn't even make sense and is completely unrelated to health care?
 
I'm curious. I'd actually start a poll, but I'm not sure it's worthy of another topic. Someone else can steal the idea if they want.

If it came down to it and *you* were the deciding vote and you had to pick, which would you pick:
Tax Cats for Everyone.
Tax Cuts for No one.
 
Hey, false options! Let's talk about only a portion of our overall choices!

What's the point of that exercise? It's not an all or nothing debate.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hey, false options! Let's talk about only a portion of our overall choices!

What's the point of that exercise? It's not an all or nothing debate.[/QUOTE]

As I said, *if* it came down to it - which would you pick?
I'm interested in seeing who's willing to make the personal sacrifice.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Everyone agrees on X. Not everyone agrees on Y.

But Republicans won't vote on X if it's not attached to Y. Even though X is extremely important and it could really hurt the majority of Americans if not voted on.

What's wrong with passing X by itself, which everyone agrees is extremely important and harmful if not voted on? If Republicans want to get Y later on, they can make that retroactive.[/QUOTE]
The fucking pubs don't give a shit about most of the country. They only care about enriching the top 1% of this country. This is painfully obvious in not voting for the 9/11 responders healthcare act and postponing extending unemployment benefits. fuck all those assholes and those that support them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If it came down to it and *you* were the deciding vote and you had to pick, which would you pick:
Tax Cats for Everyone.
Tax Cuts for No one.[/QUOTE]
If the budget deficit is an issue, there's no choice. No tax cuts. Personally, I would choose no tax cuts because I think between Bush's $1.3 trillion and Obama's $300 billion cuts and the capital gains cuts and the estate cuts, it's probably time to go back to where we were for a couple of years.
[quote name='dohdough']The fucking pubs don't give a shit about most of the country. They only care about enriching the top 1% of this country. This is painfully obvious in not voting for the 9/11 responders healthcare act and postponing extending unemployment benefits. fuck all those assholes and those that support them.[/QUOTE]
And they're sitting on START II until Senator Kyl gets a promise of a couple of hundred billion in military earmarks. I still haven't figured out how that's good for anyone anywhere and why no one seems to give a shit.

But whatevs. It's what they do.
 
[quote name='dohdough']postponing extending unemployment benefits. fuck all those assholes and those that support them.[/QUOTE]

Seriously? 99 weeks of unemployment benefits isn't enough?

:bomb:
 
And to be fair, unemployment benefits had a 20 something week limit until W. extended them to the 9 month mark during his first term. Small govt my ass.

The best way to fix this country would be to set everything back to 1994 when things were getting good. Though instead of playing "hide the problem" by creating a tech stock and housing bubble (granted tech stocks were a complete out of the blue surprise for everyone when companies with no income failed!) maybe the housing market shouldn't have been propped up by Fanny & Freddie so much. Buy low, sell high and let someone else deal with the mess isn't a game of one political party or the other, it's seemingly human nature.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Cool article. Getting paid for two years of doing nothing is long enough.[/QUOTE]

I'm confident you read the article. Completely confident.

What do you propose as a solution, then? If people are not employed and have no access to funds or resources (and, most importantly, jobs), what do you think we should do about that?
 
I don't mind the concept of unemployment extended pay outs if somehow we can figure out if they are still actively seeking employment. Throw some stipulations on the unemployment, such as a mandatory 30-40 hours a week of community service in order to receive their unemployment checks, make them do some "shovel ready" jobs, just SOMETHING other then: stand in line, collect check, go home.

And why wouldn't I read the article, it was what, 15 paragraphs? Now if it was Krugman, then you could assume I didn't read it.
 
They should commit crimes in their desperation and end up getting their housing and food paid for by the govt through the prison system. I'm pretty sure this works out better for everyone. They get taken care of for doing nothing, but without people complaining about it being so.

Working to verify certain standards are nice, but no one wants to spend money on it.

From purely a stimulus perspective, it doesnt matter all that much if they are actually seeking employment or not.
 
It all makes so much sense now.

We need to increase taxes on anyone that might have the ability to create jobs, while also subsidizing millions of people, after 99 weeks of unemployment, that refuse to work for less money. It's the governments place to ensure nobody's standard of living drops or has to move where more jobs are available.

Now, if I can just find a way to get laid off....

Pure genius.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']They should commit crimes in their desperation and end up getting their housing and food paid for by the govt through the prison system. I'm pretty sure this works out better for everyone. They get taken care of for doing nothing, but without people complaining about it being so.

Working to verify certain standards are nice, but no one wants to spend money on it.

From purely a stimulus perspective, it doesnt matter all that much if they are actually seeking employment or not.[/QUOTE]

Common sense :"Sir, all of our money printing presses in all our mints are running steam ahead 24/7, perhaps we should look at other solutions?"

Progressive Hero: "Hell no! Use some of that freshly printed money and let's build more money printing machines and more mints. Think of all the jobs it will create!"

Common Sense: "But sir, we can't keep doing that, it isn't a long term solution and is only kicking the can."

Progressive Hero: "You greedy, selfish, right-wing prick! You don't care about your fellow man at all. People need jobs and money! As long as we can keep building money printers we'll give them both!"
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I don't mind the concept of unemployment extended pay outs if somehow we can figure out if they are still actively seeking employment. Throw some stipulations on the unemployment, such as a mandatory 30-40 hours a week of community service in order to receive their unemployment checks, make them do some "shovel ready" jobs, just SOMETHING other then: stand in line, collect check, go home.

And why wouldn't I read the article, it was what, 15 paragraphs? Now if it was Krugman, then you could assume I didn't read it.[/QUOTE]

Your stance on unemployment is so incorrect that it hurts.

  • Unemployment extension is for extensions past 26 weeks, not 99.
  • Individuals on Unemployment are required to seek work while collecting.
  • The above requirement includes a quota of jobs applied to and interviews attended.
  • JFS employees monitor the above, and even submit the resume themselves occasionally.
  • If you fail to demonstrate attempts to gain employment, you lose the benefits.
  • If you refuse a job offer, you lose the benefits.
  • If you are fired with cause in the first place, you are unable to collect benefits.

How can you expect them to work for 40 hours a week and still search for a job? Job hunting is a full-time proposition. I understand giving welfare recipients a "workfare" requirement, but requiring the same from the unemployed seeking employment is ludicrous.

Secondarily. Arguing against extending benefits (for fiscal responsibility!) while arguing that the top tier tax-cuts should be extended (for many of the CEOs who are refusing to hire) is mind-boggling.

I'd be happiest if the tax cuts were not extended at all, and the folks who need the money most got support. I can afford to pay 2% more a year, and want that safety net in place for me if I need it.
 
thrust, not everyone that gets unemployment benefit falls into the category of gaming the system. I'd be willing to wager that at least 4/5 are there because they are truly between jobs and busting their ass trying to find something.
It's another fallacy of the right wing mouthpieces that the only people that are unemployed are those that don't bother trying.
 
Well, Quillion just killed anything I had to say in response to troy's "I got opinions on unemployment, but I don't really understand how it works - not that I'll let it get in the way of my opinion, of course" post.

I have an opinion, too; if the majority of the Senate votes in favor of a bill, it should pass and move on to the house and/or president.

:rofl:

[quote name='thrustbucket']It all makes so much sense now.

We need to increase taxes on anyone that might have the ability to create jobs, while also subsidizing millions of people, after 99 weeks of unemployment, that refuse to work for less money. It's the governments place to ensure nobody's standard of living drops or has to move where more jobs are available.

Now, if I can just find a way to get laid off....

Pure genius.[/QUOTE]

This opinion lies in the mythological notion that only wealthy people create jobs. If we put aside ideology for a moment and go back to 6th grade economics, we know that demand creates jobs. Guess what goes down when people don't have unemployment benefits?

demand!

...and then guess what happens next?
 
I've known two people in my life that have been on unemployment. One of them got off at is quick as he could into a pretty shit job, despite that he wouldve made more on unemployment, because he understands that even in that scenario, he's only treading water and not advancing. Super liberal. The other is near the maximum now, plays street fighter 50 hours a week. Ultra libertarian and is against unemployment, but doesnt think he is a hypocrite somehow. Classical, the system is broken, because I broke it! mentality.

Even with my knowing of a case of abuse by anecdote, I know its a statistical anomaly.
 
HAHAHA...all those lazy fucks need to get off the dole. I mean how can those CEO's make those millions with consumers only making unemployment? I mean it's not like all that money shoots straight up to the top or anything!!!! Those at the top worked the hardest!!!!1111ONEONETHREE!
 
One day I'll seriously have to figure out why people at or slightly above the poverty line think it's a great idea to let the people at the top who are gaming the system to actively prevent people from advancing upward have even more money.

A large percentage of jobs disappear in this country, and the guys at top RAKE it in. But let's not have them get taxed for it because they "deserve" it.

Of course they do. They just canned your ass on the street. Better throw them a party. Maybe they'll let you serve drinks for tips.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm confident you read the article. Completely confident.

What do you propose as a solution, then? If people are not employed and have no access to funds or resources (and, most importantly, jobs), what do you think we should do about that?[/QUOTE]

We should elminate the minimum wage and than Wal-Mart can hire all the slaves people they want!

The free market will determine what a livable wage is!

:whistle2:#
 
[quote name='nasum']thrust, not everyone that gets unemployment benefit falls into the category of gaming the system. I'd be willing to wager that at least 4/5 are there because they are truly between jobs and busting their ass trying to find something.
It's another fallacy of the right wing mouthpieces that the only people that are unemployed are those that don't bother trying.[/QUOTE]

I realize not everyone is gaming the system. I am not saying everyone is.

I have been on unemployment probably 5 times in my life, I am well aware of what it's like. Three of those times, I had to take jobs I hated (still have one), because unemployment was endeing before I could get the job I wanted.

One time I had to take a 70% pay cut to find a job 40 miles away. This last time I took a 20% pay cut to find a job. So I have no sympathy for people that say that they can't or it's not realistic.

In my state, unemployment pays out a maximum of what equates to working full time for $10 an hour. Last I checked (where I live) Wal-Mart is often hiring, and they start at about $10/hr. Fast food joints are always hiring as well. Why should the government keep paying them to look for something better?

Jobs are out there. They may not be your dream job, and they may not be where you live, and they may pay shit compared to what you had. But it is not the governments job to eternally subsidize your search for your dream job. If it were, I'd probably still be a game designer.

The government would be better serving people by doing something like this: Put them on unemployment for 15-20 weeks while they look for a good job like they had before. At that point, start reducing unemployment while also showing the person "lesser" jobs available. Then, at a certain point you could also offer them positions working for the city doing low-skill labor to earn your unemployment if you still want to get it.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']We should elminate the minimum wage and than Wal-Mart can hire all the slaves people they want!

The free market will determine what a livable wage is!

:whistle2:#[/QUOTE]
Have you ever noticed how it mostly(all really) white conservative males that say this stupid shit? It's because they think everyone in the same job makes close to the same money, when in fact, they tend to make more than any other race/gender combo.
 
[quote name='dohdough']HAHAHA...all those lazy fucks need to get off the dole. I mean how can those CEO's make those millions with consumers only making unemployment? I mean it's not like all that money shoots straight up to the top or anything!!!! Those at the top worked the hardest!!!!1111ONEONETHREE![/QUOTE]

because any CEO that has a seven figure + income is obviously in charge of an enterprise which any Joe Shmoe can walk in off the street, fill out an application and run the whole joint with the greatest of ease.

Maybe the CEO doesn't work the hardest in terms of physical or mental labor, but to decry this person's success simply based on having gotten there?

Let's play a little game and say that you own a cafe. You started this business and it grew to the point that you now have 5 employees. Are you now walking on their backs due to your success? Now you've grown your one cafe into ten different locations, your original five employees manage some of those locations because they've grown with you and you're rewarding them. Quite some time later you've got a fairly large enterprise going and you're looking to either sell or go public so you can retire or whatever. You have 1,000+ employees making all different amounts because some are in management, some are just pushing sandwiches and others are coordinating operations between multiple locations. But, since you're going to retire someone else has to come in and do your work. Should that person be paid pretty well because they have the organizational knowledge and talent, or should some dude that makes sandwiches come in to run the whole thing on sandwich pay? Or should CEO get CEO pay, do CEO work and sandwich work as well?

This is your classic move dohdough. Point the finger and run away. As I've stated, the CEO doesn't get paid for their physical and mental labor, but for the process by which they got there. Sandwich dude probably works harder in your mind than the CEO, but CEO had to work harder to get to be CEO than sandwich dude did to be sandwich dude.
This isn't "bootstrappin" platitudes either.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I realize not everyone is gaming the system. I am not saying everyone is.

I have been on unemployment probably 5 times in my life, I am well aware of what it's like. Three of those times, I had to take jobs I hated (still have one), because unemployment was endeing before I could get the job I wanted.

One time I had to take a 70% pay cut to find a job 40 miles away. This last time I took a 20% pay cut to find a job. So I have no sympathy for people that say that they can't or it's not realistic.

In my state, unemployment pays out a maximum of what equates to working full time for $10 an hour. Last I checked (where I live) Wal-Mart is often hiring, and they start at about $10/hr. Fast food joints are always hiring as well. Why should the government keep paying them to look for something better?

Jobs are out there. They may not be your dream job, and they may not be where you live, and they may pay shit compared to what you had. But it is not the governments job to eternally subsidize your search for your dream job. If it were, I'd probably still be a game designer.

The government would be better serving people by doing something like this: Put them on unemployment for 15-20 weeks while they look for a good job like they had before. At that point, start reducing unemployment while also showing the person "lesser" jobs available. Then, at a certain point you could also offer them positions working for the city doing low-skill labor to earn your unemployment if you still want to get it.[/QUOTE]
You used to work in the gaming industry??? HAHAHHAHAHA

Then you should know that working hard doesn't mean shit and that if you don't kiss the right ass, you're gonna get canned. Not to mention uncompensated crunch time with that typical office political bullshit. Sounds like you were doing contracting too...AND you've been on the dole 5 fucking times...you know what would've helped you? If you joined that graphic design union...LOLOLZ
 
[quote name='nasum']because any CEO that has a seven figure + income is obviously in charge of an enterprise which any Joe Shmoe can walk in off the street, fill out an application and run the whole joint with the greatest of ease.

Maybe the CEO doesn't work the hardest in terms of physical or mental labor, but to decry this person's success simply based on having gotten there?[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...so do they earn it or did they earn it. See if you can spot the difference. Oh, and I guess you don't need to work hard in any capacity as an executive officer of any company....just sit back and let the dough roll in from the plebs below them. See if you can spot the hypocrisy here too.

Let's play a little game and say that you own a cafe. You started this business and it grew to the point that you now have 5 employees. Are you now walking on their backs due to your success? Now you've grown your one cafe into ten different locations, your original five employees manage some of those locations because they've grown with you and you're rewarding them. Quite some time later you've got a fairly large enterprise going and you're looking to either sell or go public so you can retire or whatever. You have 1,000+ employees making all different amounts because some are in management, some are just pushing sandwiches and others are coordinating operations between multiple locations. But, since you're going to retire someone else has to come in and do your work. Should that person be paid pretty well because they have the organizational knowledge and talent, or should some dude that makes sandwiches come in to run the whole thing on sandwich pay? Or should CEO get CEO pay, do CEO work and sandwich work as well?
Click to expand...
Yes, lets "reward" those 5 employees with managerial jobs while the owner sits back and chillaxes eventhough those employees were integral to that success. Giving them higher paying jobs does not equal equity.

This is your classic move dohdough. Point the finger and run away. As I've stated, the CEO doesn't get paid for their physical and mental labor, but for the process by which they got there. Sandwich dude probably works harder in your mind than the CEO, but CEO had to work harder to get to be CEO than sandwich dude did to be sandwich dude.
This isn't "bootstrappin" platitudes either.
Click to expand...
When did I ever point and run? That's your MO jerky.

Btw, almost every single CEO didn't come from the bottom and work their way from the mailroom you deluded fool.

If hard work=success, then all those janitors should be CEO's by now according to your non-existant logic. But oh wait, it has nothing to do with hard work or what someone "deserves."
 
Unemployment gets better at least in New York. They send you a debit card in the mail and direct deposit it into your account every two weeks. You do not even have to go into the office to pretend you are looking for a job. I also know a few people who have quit their jobs thinking they would get unemployment because they just don't want to work.

The abuse of the system is out there, now all I am asking is that they close these loopholes if they are going to hand out free money. It is becoming popular with the younger people now as they are finding out that unemployment is possible with little to no judgement by society they ask why not get it?
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...so do they earn it or did they earn it. See if you can spot the difference. Oh, and I guess you don't need to work hard in any capacity as an executive officer of any company....just sit back and let the dough roll in from the plebs below them. See if you can spot the hypocrisy here too.


Yes, lets "reward" those 5 employees with managerial jobs while the owner sits back and chillaxes eventhough those employees were integral to that success. Giving them higher paying jobs does not equal equity.


When did I ever point and run? That's your MO jerky.

Btw, almost every single CEO didn't come from the bottom and work their way from the mailroom you deluded fool.

If hard work=success, then all those janitors should be CEO's by now according to your non-existant logic. But oh wait, it has nothing to do with hard work or what someone "deserves."[/QUOTE]

Again the owner sits back and chilaxes? you fool, please TRY to visit your local business owners around you and just take a look and talk with them and see if they are just "chilaxin"

My god you really do not understand. It blows my mind....but here is where you are going to pull the whole "i am just talking about the super companies" as if you weren't just talking about a 6 person company.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...so do they earn it or did they earn it. See if you can spot the difference. Oh, and I guess you don't need to work hard in any capacity as an executive officer of any company....just sit back and let the dough roll in from the plebs below them. See if you can spot the hypocrisy here too.


Yes, lets "reward" those 5 employees with managerial jobs while the owner sits back and chillaxes eventhough those employees were integral to that success. Giving them higher paying jobs does not equal equity.


When did I ever point and run? That's your MO jerky.

Btw, almost every single CEO didn't come from the bottom and work their way from the mailroom you deluded fool.

If hard work=success, then all those janitors should be CEO's by now according to your non-existant logic. But oh wait, it has nothing to do with hard work or what someone "deserves."[/QUOTE]


Which hypocrisy? Mine or yours?

Why on earth would a small business owner reward their first employees with equity for just having worked there? If they chipped in with capital, then hell yes they deserve equity, but nor just for having been there.

I realize that 99.99% of CEO's from current large companies come from outside the business. That's not what I pointed out in my example, though I did try to get to it towards the end with the selling or going public of your cafe.

I'm not pointing out that janitors can or cannot become CEOs, it's not even remotely what I'm getting at. However, maybe someone that is a janitor decides to create a janitor service for companies that want to farm out their janitorial needs. If said janitor service is succesful, holy fuck janitor became CEO! Or more likely the original janitor/founder realizes that he's going to need someone with more organizational knowhow and business accumen to make his company be super successful. Chances are he'll have to pay that person more than minimum wage...

So here's your direct question dohdough:
Do different jobs deserve different pay?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'll be 100% honest, no I cannot provide a line-by-line list of items from the military/defense budget that I'd cut. But, here's the deal - the US is not only number one when it comes to military/defense spending, we actually spend more than numbers 2-16 COMBINED.

Something about that tells me there's a whole lot of room for cutting - and my gut instinct tells me that a lot of those cuts would come into play once we stop being Team America: World Police.
[/QUOTE]

But you still didn't answer the main question, what ends are you willing to sacrifice? Do you want to defund our international bases and lose our advance defenses? Do you want military health to be cut, and have our soldiers face personal problems going forward? Are you willing to allow these countries to collapse to save money for our budget. You are shirking your opinion to other people, so you do not have a stance at all. You have no idea what you would like to be cut or what effect it will have, which means you have no middle ground with anyone.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Again the owner sits back and chilaxes? you fool, please TRY to visit your local business owners around you and just take a look and talk with them and see if they are just "chilaxin"

My god you really do not understand. It blows my mind....but here is where you are going to pull the whole "i am just talking about the super companies" as if they hold a majority of the employment.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...yeah...owners are not making hand over fist compared to their grunts. There's a bridge in NY that I'd like to sell you....
 
[quote name='cindersphere']But you still didn't answer the main question, what ends are you willing to sacrifice?

A) Do you want to defund our international bases and lose our advance defenses?
B) Do you want military health to be cut, and have our soldiers face personal problems going forward?
C) Are you willing to allow these countries to collapse to save money for our budget?

You are shirking your opinion to other people, so you do not have a stance at all. You have no idea what you would like to be cut or what effect it will have, which means you have no middle ground with anyone.[/QUOTE]

A) Yes. Pull everyone back home, we don't need to police the world.
B) Yes.
C) Yes.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']But you still didn't answer the main question, what ends are you willing to sacrifice? Do you want to defund our international bases and lose our advance defenses? Do you want military health to be cut, and have our soldiers face personal problems going forward? Are you willing to allow these countries to collapse to save money for our budget. You are shirking your opinion to other people, so you do not have a stance at all. You have no idea what you would like to be cut or what effect it will have, which means you have no middle ground with anyone.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps lower the amount of time that troops are deployed (thus reducing combat pay as opposed to generally enlisted pay) which would also lead to less health and stress issues?

Let the military submit purchase orders to congress for what it needs, not have congress give them things they don't want to fuel pork in their area. This is a bit tricky because of lead time and all that, but it's better than getting unwanted items that just sit there.

Perhaps have lower staff levels at the bases that you're so concerned about. These UAV's are seemingly pretty snappy at their job so let's have them do more of the work.

Other countries won't collapse in our absence since will still be sending foreign aid without the military there.
 
[quote name='Quillion']
Your stance on unemployment is so incorrect that it hurts.

  • Unemployment extension is for extensions past 26 weeks, not 99.
  • Individuals on Unemployment are required to seek work while collecting.
  • The above requirement includes a quota of jobs applied to and interviews attended.
  • JFS employees monitor the above, and even submit the resume themselves occasionally.
  • If you fail to demonstrate attempts to gain employment, you lose the benefits.
  • If you refuse a job offer, you lose the benefits.
  • If you are fired with cause in the first place, you are unable to collect benefits.
How can you expect them to work for 40 hours a week and still search for a job? Job hunting is a full-time proposition. I understand giving welfare recipients a "workfare" requirement, but requiring the same from the unemployed seeking employment is ludicrous.

Secondarily. Arguing against extending benefits (for fiscal responsibility!) while arguing that the top tier tax-cuts should be extended (for many of the CEOs who are refusing to hire) is mind-boggling.

I'd be happiest if the tax cuts were not extended at all, and the folks who need the money most got support. I can afford to pay 2% more a year, and want that safety net in place for me if I need it.
[/QUOTE]

It wasn't my "stance" on current unemployment, it was my stance on how I would run it, but w/e. And I never said anything about tax cuts, for or against.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']A) Yes. Pull everyone back home, we don't need to police the world.
B) Yes.
C) Yes.[/QUOTE]

Are you willing to fix the problems these create, such as if the destabilization of middle eastern countries leads to the proliferation of nuclear and chemical agents?

What do you mean though by policing the world? What exactly is policing the world and what is acceptable military operation? Does this include sending troops to places like Columbia and the Horn of Africa and training local the military how to counter act terrorist that are also hostile to the US, which is a cost effective way to secure safety? Or is it just any overt military action?
 
[quote name='nasum']Which hypocrisy? Mine or yours?[/QUOTE]
Yours you dumb kumquat. You can point mine out if you can find it. I'm not above criticism and not immune from a little inconsistancy here or there.

Why on earth would a small business owner reward their first employees with equity for just having worked there? If they chipped in with capital, then hell yes they deserve equity, but nor just for having been there.
Click to expand...
Right, because the labor is "just there." It's not like they actually WORK or anything.

I realize that 99.99% of CEO's from current large companies come from outside the business. That's not what I pointed out in my example, though I did try to get to it towards the end with the selling or going public of your cafe.

I'm not pointing out that janitors can or cannot become CEOs, it's not even remotely what I'm getting at. However, maybe someone that is a janitor decides to create a janitor service for companies that want to farm out their janitorial needs. If said janitor service is succesful, holy fuck janitor became CEO! Or more likely the original janitor/founder realizes that he's going to need someone with more organizational knowhow and business accumen to make his company be super successful. Chances are he'll have to pay that person more than minimum wage...
Click to expand...
Why does that person deserve more than minimum wage? And how do you gauge how much more they should be paid?

So here's your direct question dohdough:
Do different jobs deserve different pay?
Click to expand...
Sure they do, but I'm talking about equity in compensation to their work and true value for the lowest rungs, not advocating for squeezing every little penny you can to the top. There's a fucking difference. Use your damned brain and not just puke tardizms at me.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...yeah...owners are not making hand over fist compared to their grunts. There's a bridge in NY that I'd like to sell you....[/QUOTE]

Another hilarious comment, you just keep em coming. It is entertaining how you believe owning/running a business is a free ride. It blows my mind that if you truely believe that this is the case, why haven't you simply started a business and hired some "grunts"? You'll be set for life amiright?

When you get home from visiting ONE local business owner, come back and talk to me.
 
---Perhaps lower the amount of time that troops are deployed (thus reducing combat pay as opposed to generally enlisted pay) which would also lead to less health and stress issues?

Most of the costs incurred are due to transportation cycles. It's like a circle, for every 100 people you have fighting, you have another 100 in holding to go home, another at home, and another 100 training to get redeployed. Your situation would increase the strain of the system and would cost more than just leaving the military in the hostile nations. Your situation just shifts costs to the transportation divisions.

---Let the military submit purchase orders to congress for what it needs, not have congress give them things they don't want to fuel pork in their area. This is a bit tricky because of lead time and all that, but it's better than getting unwanted items that just sit there.

That would remove civilian checks on military budget, which may be a good or bad thing.


---Perhaps have lower staff levels at the bases that you're so concerned about. These UAV's are seemingly pretty snappy at their job so let's have them do more of the work.

UAV fleet is currently very small and very expensive. What you want to sacrifice in combat ready soldiers you are gaining in engineers to maintain these crafts, again it is essentially budget neutral, because the same systems that support regular troops now support engineers.

---Other countries won't collapse in our absence since will still be sending foreign aid without the military there.

Even when we are there money is getting funneled to groups that are hostile to the US. You are right the countries won't collapse, but a nation that is antagonistic will most likely take over if we pull out without establishing the countries sovereignty, irregardless of if we send aid or not.


I am not an expert on the military at all, I just happen to read most of the reports issued by the DoD when I have free time, and poke around at current military statistics that are provided by Siad. Although I feel as if I have derailed the thread now.

Edit- BTW if you are interested in military budgeting, here is an article about it that may prove informational to you.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=604
 
[quote name='Knoell']Another hilarious comment, you just keep em coming. It is entertaining how you believe owning/running a business is a free ride. It blows my mind that if you truely believe that this is the case, why haven't you simply started a business and hired some "grunts"? You'll be set for life amiright?[/quote]
HAHAHAHA...I never said it was a free ride, but no workers=no business=no moneyz. Like all owners are breaking their backs to pay their employees a couple bucks more while barely scraping by themselves.

When you get home from visiting ONE local business owner, come back and talk to me.
Click to expand...
I know plenty of business owners and partners. I've know of businesses that succeeded, struggled, and closed. There's a difference between a 2 man crew, 3 man crew, and 10+ man crew. There's a difference between a restaurant, a body shop, a sign shop, a beauty salon, a landscaping crew, bookstore, gas stations, etc...but if there's one thing they usually have in common, is that the owner takes most of the money with them, or at least enough to have a substantially higher quality of life than the average employee. Visiting ONE business doesn't mean shit. No wonder why you don't understand anything. But no, I'm the dumb one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top