Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Bribing For Votes? Free Obamaphones?  
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4177 times:

Is this for real?  Wow!
When I first heard about this, I just dismissed it as right-wing propaganda but after seeing the infamous Obamaphone lady and then did some research, this is a real. Totally shocking!
If this isn't bribery for votes then I don't know what to call it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

http://obamaphone.net/


I'm all in favor of helping the poor but a free cellphone is a bit much and the timing of this is suspect. I don't mean to poke fun of this lady but she reminds me of Gilbert Gottfried.


Bring back the Concorde
154 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4163 times:

Quoting Superfly (Thread starter):
I'm all in favor of helping the poor but a free cellphone is a bit much and the timing of this is suspect.

I'm cool with it. Chalk it up as a Homeland Security line item. Emergency services are useless if they cannot be accessed, and let's remember that the Times Square car bomb was discovered by some street vendors, so it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that something similar could be discovered by a homeless person.

I'm far less scandalized by the idea of distributing cheap phones to poor people than I am befuddled as to why they couldn't also be issued ID cards so they can vote.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4159 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
I am befuddled as to why they couldn't also be issued ID cards so they can vote.

Good point.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
distributing cheap phones to poor people

What kind of phones are these? Are they iphones?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

Actually its a continuation of a policy put in place by Ronald Reagan and the GOP in 1984.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Co.../FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr98-2.pdf


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 3):
Actually its a continuation of a policy put in place by Ronald Reagan and the GOP in 1984.



No it's not. I'm well aware of the lifeline program to help low income people with their basic phone service. I don't recall that policy ever giving out free telephones. You still had to buy your own phone
Anyone that had a car phone or celluar phone in 1984 was super-wealthy.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4112 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
I'm well aware of the lifeline program to help low income people with their basic phone service. I don't recall that policy ever giving out free telephones.

Very few people owned a phone in 1984, most of them were rented from the service provider and hence the 1984 program included coverage of that phone rental as well.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
Anyone that had a car phone or celluar phone in 1984 was super-wealthy.

Yes, but what does that have to do with this at all? Today, cellular phones are the predominant phone service around so it makes sense that the program covers them today rather than a fixed land line.

Obama hasn't passed anything new, its all covered under the act that Reagan instantiated.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4108 times:

Oh, and its worth pointing out that the migration to free cell phones happened in 2008 under GWB.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Quote:

SafeLink Wireless, [...], does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.

...

The SafeLink program has actually been offering cell phones to low-income households in some states since 2008


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4084 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
Very few people owned a phone in 1984,

Huh? Everybody owned a phone in 1984.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4080 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 7):
Huh? Everybody owned a phone in 1984.

Everyone had a phone, but I think you will find that most people rented them from the telecoms company they had service with.

But this side discussion is taking us away from the core point - Drudge and the GOP are well off base here.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4074 times:

So if what you're saying is true, how come Obama is trying to take credit for a policy started by Reagan & Bush?
The lady in the video and many others that recently got free cellphones in the swing state of Ohio are under the impression that this is a new program provided from President Obama.

Are these iPhones? O-phones? W-phones? R-Phones?

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
Everyone had a phone, but I think you will find that most people rented them from the telecoms company they had service with.



I do remember those days when the phone companies had monopolies. Some were bought and some were rented. A neighbor of ours had a phone that looked and quacked like a duck.  
Quoting moo (Reply 8):
But this side discussion is taking us away from the core point - Drudge and the GOP are well off base here.


Who said anything about "Drudge" or the "GOP"?  confused 
I posted a link from YouTube and an Obama site.

[Edited 2012-10-05 03:08:39]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 9):
So if what you're saying is true, how come Obama is trying to take credit for a policy started by Reagan & Bush?
The lady in the video and many others that recently got free cellphones in the swing state of Ohio are under the impression that this is a new program provided from President Obama.

Post some proof that Obama is trying to take the credit, rather than some random woman (who could be a pro-Republican plant for all we know - we don't know much about the heritage of that clip, or the woman involved) giving credit.

Theres a huge difference between the two.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 9):
Who said anything about "Drudge" or the "GOP"?

Drudge was the first people to release the video, and the GOP jumped on it - you aren't the first person to start this discussion.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 9):
I posted a link from YouTube and an Obama site.

Unfortunately, it looks like you've been taken in somewhat by a fake site - just because it has "Obama" plastered all over the place doesn't mean it has anything to do with Obama at all.

Firstly, a government body or political party would not be using Dreamhost to host an important website, and secondly the code is horrendous (its a WordPress site with a standard theme, not even a custom theme), and thirdly the "apply for a phone" link goes off to a site run by a private marketing company called "Free Government Cell Phones".

Not very convincing once you actually realise that theres no way in hell an official program would be advertised as "Obama [Anything]" as "ObamaCare" has bee used as a derogatory term since day one.


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6119 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4057 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 9):
So if what you're saying is true, how come Obama is trying to take credit for a policy started by Reagan & Bush?

He's not. He's just be stuck with it because it became known under his watch.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 9):
Are these iPhones? O-phones? W-phones? R-Phones?

Remember those cheapie "Free cell phone with plan" phones that had a 1 inch screen back in the 1998-2002 era? Similar to those. Nothing fancy. No data plan. In fact, until I upgraded to my HTC a couple years ago because of the AT&T buyout in my area, it's all I used as well, because it was all I needed at the time.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4057 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
Post some proof that Obama is trying to take the credit,


Hey I'm simply asking questions. Notice the "?" question marks at the end of each sentence?

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
Drudge was the first people to release the video, and the GOP jumped on it -


Thanks for the origins of the story.

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
you aren't the first person to start this discussion.


Never claimed this to be "breaking news".
I found nothing in the search engine of the forums.

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
Unfortunately, it looks like you've been taken in somewhat by a fake site


Not really. I haven't send any money.  
Quoting moo (Reply 10):
Firstly, a government body or political party would not be using Dreamhost to host an important website, and secondly the code is horrendous (its a WordPress site with a standard theme, not even a custom theme), and thirdly the "apply for a phone" link goes off to a site run by a private marketing company called "Free Government Cell Phones".



Thanks for doing the research.  
Quoting moo (Reply 10):
"ObamaCare" has bee used as a derogatory term since day one.


I never saw it as a derogatory term. Since it's supposed to be a good thing, there should be no shame in attaching his name to it.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4045 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
Hey I'm simply asking questions. Notice the "?" question marks at the end of each sentence?

Unfortunately, the format of the question does imply that you think Obama is taking credit. My personal belief (without looking into whether this has already been debunked, so it might have) is that the woman in the video is a plant by a pro-Republican campaign group (so, not officially linked to the Republican campaign) with the intention of creating this story.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
Never claimed this to be "breaking news".

Sorry, wasn't saying you were - I was just implying that theres already been a lot of discussion on this since it broke a few days ago  
Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
Not really. I haven't send any money.  

But unfortunately you have reposted it as attributed to Obama, which is exactly what the sites creators wanted   Thats all I meant!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
I never saw it as a derogatory term. Since it's supposed to be a good thing, there should be no shame in attaching his name to it.

I agree, but unfortunately its always been attacked as "ObamaCare", and derided as "ObamaCare". Theres an awful lot of negativity been pushed into the name these days, especially in the perception of the general public.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 13):
Unfortunately, the format of the question does imply that you think Obama is taking credit.


Nah I'm just being lazy. 
Quoting moo (Reply 13):
the woman in the video is a plant by a pro-Republican campaign group


She does one hell of an act if she is just a plant. I think she's the real-deal.

Quoting moo (Reply 13):
But unfortunately you have reposted it as attributed to Obama, which is exactly what the sites creators wanted Thats all I meant!


No biggie. After looking closely it does look more like a spoof site. A well crafted one that isn't too far from what Obama would support.

Quoting moo (Reply 13):
I agree, but unfortunately its always been attacked as "ObamaCare", and derided as "ObamaCare". Theres an awful lot of negativity been pushed into the name these days, especially in the perception of the general public.


Heck if I were a politician that crafted legislation that was really good, I'd be proud to have my name attached to it. There many acts that are named after their sponsors - some good, some controversial such as the Pell Grant, Sarbanes/Oxley, Grahm/Rudman/Hollings, etc



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

We've gotten a few phone calls about these phones and it does irk me that the government is handing out subsidized cell phones. I just don't feel that a cell phone is a necessity as I know family members that don't own nor have they ever owned a cell phone because they had no need for one.

My next door neighbor's daughter got one and she gave to her teenage son as a Christmas gift. I see these "free cell phones" tents in parking lots all over town and that just irks me even more. There's no telling how much wasteful spending and corruption that is going on in this program. Like any government program, there's bound to be those abusing the system.

I just don't see the point of such a program where there are plenty of prepaid/pay as you go providers that are not that expensive and one can go into pretty much any store that sells phone cards and buy minutes for a cell phone. The phones this program are handing out are likely cheap throwaway phones that are a few years old and companies are looking for a way to dump them.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4795 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3863 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 19):
We've gotten a few phone calls about these phones and it does irk me that the government is handing out subsidized cell phones

It's not the government, it is the cell companies themselves using the Universal Service Fee, which was codified to Guarantee services to those in hard to reach places.

This cell company is just doing things rather smartly. hte airtime minutes are for free, and they underwrte the phones with tracphone and offer limited airtime.
then they can SELL more minutes .

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Safelink/program_info/benefits



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1023 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

My 82 year old mom has one of these. And it is a POS cheap phone. She gets 1 hour a month and she has to pay for any additional herself. Installing a land line phone with Verizon and AT&T, the monthly cost was out of her reach. And if you have not noticed, payphones are getting few and far between lately. As BMI727 stated, it is her only access to EMS services if she may ever need them.


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 19):
it does irk me that the government is handing out subsidized cell phones.


While I support the Lifeline program to help the poor with basic land-line service, I think the free cellphone is a bit much.
Since these are new-old-stock phones, can't the manufacture just give them away directly without government involvement? I have a feeling that the manufacture may get kickbacks from the government and that cheap $30 cellphone ends up costing much more once the government is involved.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 19):
I just don't feel that a cell phone is a necessity as I know family members that don't own nor have they ever owned a cell phone because they had no need for one.


Perhaps we're showing our age? In the not to distant past, cellphones were a luxury. The under 20 crowd here can't imagine a world without cellphones. When the Lifeline program started in 1984, the only guys with cellphones drove Ferrari's and wore pin-stripe suits. They certainly didn't qualify for a free phone.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 19):
"free cell phones" tents in parking lots all over town and that just irks me even more. There's no telling how much wasteful spending and corruption that is going on in this program.



I haven't been in the US in over 2 years now and I never remember seeing such a thing. Is this something recent or regional? Has you noticed an increase in these free phone tents? After-all, there is an election next month.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
I have a feeling that the manufacture may get kickbacks from the government and that cheap $30 cellphone ends up costing much more once the government is involved.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):

I haven't been in the US in over 2 years now and I never remember seeing such a thing. Is this something recent or regional? Has you noticed an increase in these free phone tents? After-all, there is an election next month.

As cas points out, it's not the gov't administering the program but the telecoms.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6166 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moo (Reply 3):
Actually its a continuation of a policy put in place by Ronald Reagan and the GOP in 1984.

I would disagree, that program is still in place. I heard a radio ad for it last week and was shocked it was still around. The free cell phone thing did start under Bush and and as a conservative I was appalled. When I first heard an ad for it, onthe radio, I was shocked. It got popular under Obama...

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
Everyone had a phone, but I think you will find that most people rented them from the telecoms company they had service with.

Depends where you lived. My family owned their phones in 1984, but in 1980, they were rented. I have heard that 1000s of people in Detroit are still shelling out a rental fee for their home phones becuase they don't know anybetter. There was an article about it in the Detroit Free Press a couple of years ago

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
Post some proof that Obama is trying to take the credit

I don't think he is actually trying to take credit, I think a lot of people are trying to give him the credit, even if he doesn't deserve it. There are people in the conservative camp that want to make it look like he came up with to get people fire up up against him and there are those on the liberal side that want people to think Obama started it to get them fired up to vote for him

I doubt that.... People in Detroit call it an "Obama phone" and I have heard them with my own ears. The people I have heard saying it are people that actually have the phone and are telling their friends about it. I have heard this conversation at church, in bars, and in line at the grocery store.

Quoting moo (Reply 13):
agree, but unfortunately its always been attacked as "ObamaCare", and derided as "ObamaCare". There's an awful lot of negativity been pushed into the name these days, especially in the perception of the general public

That isn't new. Back in the 1990s people called it "Hillary Care" and it was meant as a negative.

Quoting moo (Reply 13):
My personal belief (without looking into whether this has already been debunked, so it might have) is that the woman in the video is a plant by a pro-Republican campaign group (so, not officially linked to the Republican campaign) with the intention of creating this story.

I doubt that. I have heard it called the "Obama phone" in Detroit with my own ears. They people calling it that are people who actually have the phone and seem to love Obama because they think he gave it to them. I have heard this conversation in bars, at church, and in line at the grocery store.

There are people who do think Obama is going to give them free stuff. There was a recent scam in Detroit that was reported in the Free Press that said several hundred people had personal information stolen by people claiming Obama was going to pay their back electric bills (not the Democratic Party, not the government, but Obama himself). These people actually expected the President to pay their bills and gladly handed over personal information to thieves.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3828 times:

For years we have been able to turn in old mobile phones that are adjusted to only be able to call 911 and given to battered women. Free. And not a political issue.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3820 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 21):
As BMI727 stated, it is her only access to EMS services if she may ever need them.


...and that I fully support.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 23):
As cas points out, it's not the gov't administering the program but the telecoms.


Does this fall under the tax credit / loophole for one of those large corporations?

Quoting falstaff (Reply 24):
I have heard that 1000s of people in Detroit are still shelling out a rental fee for their home phones becuase they don't know anybetter.



WOW!  Wow!
Just WOW!  Wow!
Quoting falstaff (Reply 24):
I don't think he is actually trying to take credit, I think a lot of people are trying to give him the credit, even if he doesn't deserve it. There are people in the conservative camp that want to make it look like he came up with to get people fire up up against him and there are those on the liberal side that want people to think Obama started it to get them fired up to vote for him



That is what I was suspecting but considering how Obama is always talking about fairness and wealth redistribution, it's totally believable. The term 'Bushphone' or 'Romneyphone' doesn't sound believable.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 24):
That isn't new. Back in the 1990s people called it "Hillary Care" and it was meant as a negative.


I was just starting college then and I was all in favor of Hillarycare at that time. Having a name attached to law or program isn't a bad thing. I support the Pell grant which was started by former Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI).
That is a good program named after a politician.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 24):
There are people who do think Obama is going to give them free stuff.


That is true. I don't want to seem like I'm dumping on mis-informed Obama supporters (I was one too) but why is it that there are so many of his supporters that think they're gonna get a free handout? The motivating factor to Kerry supporters was to simply get rid of Bush. The motivating factory behind supporting Gore was to continue the success of the Clinton years and keep Bush from getting in. The motivating factor behind supporting Clinton was that he was a great statesman and incredible politician. For a lot of Obama's core supporters, it's getting free stuff. Where is this myth coming from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Quoting falstaff (Reply 24):
There was a recent scam in Detroit that was reported in the Free Press that said several hundred people had personal information stolen by people claiming Obama was going to pay their back electric bills (not the Democratic Party, not the government, but Obama himself). These people actually expected the President to pay their bills and gladly handed over personal information to thieves.



A LOT of people in Detroit fell for that too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ojd13kZlCA



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3811 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 19):
We've gotten a few phone calls about these phones

Why are you getting calls about them?

Quoting srbmod (Reply 19):
it does irk me that the government is handing out subsidized cell phones. I just don't feel that a cell phone is a necessity

Operating cost for a cell phone is less than for a land line.


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3812 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
Having a name attached to law or program isn't a bad thing. I support the Pell grant which was started by former Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI).
That is a good program named after a politician.

But as you mention, Pell started the program. Sarbanes-Oxley was sponsored by those two politicans, likewise McCain-Feingold. This program wasn't started by Obama, so why should it bear his name?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):

Does this fall under the tax credit / loophole for one of those large corporations?

No clue here without reading further into the program than I have time for right now.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
I don't want to seem like I'm dumping on mis-informed Obama supporters (I was one too) but why is it that there are so many of his supporters that think they're gonna get a free handout?

Low information voters come in all stripes. How many low-income conservative Christian whites have pushed a button/turned a lever simply because a candidate had (R) next to their name and thought that they were going to automatically get the policy preference they wanted? It cuts both ways.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3830 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 28):
This program wasn't started by Obama, so why should it bear his name?


I have no clue. I never even heard of the term 'Obamaphone' until 2 days ago when this caustic lady's video went viral.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 28):
Low information voters come in all stripes. How many low-income conservative Christian whites have pushed a button/turned a lever simply because a candidate had (R) next to their name and thought that they were going to automatically get the policy preference they wanted? It cuts both ways.


Very true. Particularly when it comes to the abortion issue.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6166 posts, RR: 29
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
For years we have been able to turn in old mobile phones that are adjusted to only be able to call 911 and given to battered women. Free. And not a political issue.

I don't know if they even have to be adjusted to do that. I know a lot of the old ones (1980s and early 1990s models) would access 911 even if they had no service plans. I had a friend in high school who's dad would give us his old 1980s giant mobile phone if we were going on a road trip incase we needed it for an emergency. The phone nolonger had service, but would reach 911. We tried it one time to see if it worked. We stayed on the line and told the operator what we were doing and she said that was ok and it was smart to make sure it really worked.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
A LOT of people in Detroit fell for that too.

I remember that news report and that was not for the electric bill thing, that was for money to fix up your house, which was at Cobo Hall. It turned out most of those people got nothing because the cost of the repairs exceeded the value of the house, so they didn't qualify for the grant. There were people trying to get the grant that didn't even know what it was for and didn't even own a home, they just heard about free money. Right now the average home price in Detroit is around $5000 so most people had no hope of getting a grant to fix their roofs, window, doors, etc. I know a house in Detroit that has been on the market for several years and is only $500 and still no takers, it is falling down wreck now. A buddy of mine had a house across the street from him sell for $400.

Some people will believe anything they are told. A few weeks ago we had several people come to my Church (on Woodward Avenue in Detroit) and ask about their free house. The priest asked where people heard this information and they all said a friend of a friend said it was on the news (yeah right). The details of the plan were to go and pick property from the list of city owned property (there are 1000s of them in Detroit) and then bring the information to an address on Woodward, that was our church, and we would buy you the home. This nonsense came and went in one day, but it came from somewhere and and these people believed they were getting a free house for some reason. I am sure somebody was trying to work a scam on these people somehow, but I am not sure what it was.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 29):
I have no clue. I never even heard of the term 'Obamaphone' until 2 days ago when this caustic lady's video went viral.

You should come back to Detroit and learn some new terms. LOL!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 29):
Very true. Particularly when it comes to the abortion issue.

If I don't know much about a Candidate I default Republican because I figure they will stand up for my gun rights, some don't though.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3772 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
I haven't been in the US in over 2 years now and I never remember seeing such a thing. Is this something recent or regional? Has you noticed an increase in these free phone tents? After-all, there is an election next month.

It's something that has started to crop up in the last year.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
Perhaps we're showing our age? In the not to distant past, cellphones were a luxury. The under 20 crowd here can't imagine a world without cellphones. When the Lifeline program started in 1984, the only guys with cellphones drove Ferrari's and wore pin-stripe suits. They certainly didn't qualify for a free phone.

I remember when having a pager was a big deal. I guess I'm becoming a grumpy old man as I guess I'm tired of going into places and folks are constantly yacking on their phones. I was in a store the other day and a woman came in yacking away on her cell phone in a loud voice and every third or fourth word was a swear word. Some people have a complete lack of respect for their fellow man. It's pretty bad that places have to put up signs asking customers to not talk on their cell phones at the counter or register.

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):

Why are you getting calls about them?

Because I like in a county in which there are a lot of folks that receive government assistance (Food stamps, WIC, Section 8, etc.) .

Quoting casinterest (Reply 20):

It's not the government, it is the cell companies themselves using the Universal Service Fee, which was codified to Guarantee services to those in hard to reach places.


The government is the one that mandated the Universal Service Fund through the FCC. These phones are supposed to be for emergencies, yet there has been widespread fraud with the Lifelink program and even the FCC admits it and they're now wanting to use the Lifeline program to provide broadband internet access as well to those with low incomes.

An interesting comment on this program:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...ogram-fraught-with-fraud?vwo=501cd

Quote:
"It started out with, 'Every household should have a dialtone, so you should call in an emergency,'" says Larry Downes of the technology think tank Tech Freedom. "Well, then it became, 'They should have basic phone service. They should have a basic cellphone service.' They say it's become a basic staple of life. You can't argue with that, but your electric bill doesn't charge you a tax to make sure poor people have electricity."



This guy makes a valid point. We don't have to pay a government mandated fee every month on pretty much all of our other utilities to help provide service to low-income families.


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3749 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 27):
I remember when having a pager was a big deal.

Yep, if somebody had a beeper you assumed they must be a doctor on call.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11801 posts, RR: 15
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3729 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 24):
This program wasn't started by Obama, so why should it bear his name?

To get the right fired up about hating him all over again. That's the only reason I can see for it. For those who don't do research but rely soley on FOX and AM talk radio, they believe anything.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

Phones are the least of it. Tons of people live in government housing, watch cable TV paid for by fraudulent government disability benefits, get high/drunk all day while actual working people function as their mothers/fathers and put in a shift.

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4795 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3705 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 27):
The government is the one that mandated the Universal Service Fund through the FCC. These phones are supposed to be for emergencies, yet there has been widespread fraud with the Lifelink program and even the FCC admits it and they're now wanting to use the Lifeline program to provide broadband internet access as well to those with low incomes.

There may be fraud, but that is in the administration of the program. it isn't the program itself at fault. And by no means is this a "liberal" issue, or Obama mandate. No one had introduced a bill to repeal it, and as part of the broadband bill you reference a Republican fom Alaska was very much an endorser to get broadband to the far reaches of Alaska, where it is not economical for private enterpises to put it in.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 27):

This guy makes a valid point. We don't have to pay a government mandated fee every month on pretty much all of our other utilities to help provide service to low-income families.

I would disagree to a point here, our taxes go into assistance for fuels and electricity on for the needy. Also due to the nature of the power system (most are government regulated anyway), they have more of a tax built into the rates already



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11801 posts, RR: 15
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3669 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 30):
Tons of people live in government housing, watch cable TV paid for by fraudulent government disability benefits, get high/drunk all day while actual working people function as their mothers/fathers and put in a shift.

I see... So, this just all happened since January, 2009? Never ever before then?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

Quoting Superfly (Thread starter):
When I first heard about this, I just dismissed it as right-wing propaganda but after seeing the infamous Obamaphone lady and then did some research, this is a real. Totally shocking!

During your research did you come across the fact that the Obama administration did not start the program?

Quoting moo (Reply 6):
Oh, and its worth pointing out that the migration to free cell phones happened in 2008 under GWB.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the...hone/

Facts did not stop people like Drudge or Limbaugh befoe, why should it now?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 25):
I have no clue. I never even heard of the term 'Obamaphone' until 2 days ago when this caustic lady's video went viral.

You heard about it because someone repeated a lie. You know what they say about lies and repeating them often enough.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 30):
Phones are the least of it. Tons of people live in government housing, watch cable TV paid for by fraudulent government disability benefits, get high/drunk all day while actual working people function as their mothers/fathers and put in a shift.

Not really. In here Europe we have 10x better social benefits and everything compared to United States, yet we have no problem with that extremely small minority of people who just live with welfare.

What United States needs is free healthcare, more progressive taxing and even more benefits. That would make your society way more equal, healthier and safer.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 27):
It's something that has started to crop up in the last year.


..and that makes me suspicious.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 27):
It's pretty bad that places have to put up signs asking customers to not talk on their cell phones at the counter or register.


Taiwan has signs on their subways about cellphone etiquette.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 26):
You should come back to Detroit and learn some new terms. LOL!


Haha! Yes I need to update the urban slang app in my brain.  
Quoting falstaff (Reply 26):
A few weeks ago we had several people come to my Church (on Woodward Avenue in Detroit) and ask about their free house.


If that were the case, they would get free parking to the Tigers games at Comerica Part.
Did they ask your Priest if he had a 'stash' of ca$h to give out as well?

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 33):
During your research



As I stated already, I didn't do much research at all and Moo already answered my questions early on in this thread.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3594 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 34):
Not really. In here Europe we have 10x better social benefits and everything compared to United States, yet we have no problem with that extremely small minority of people who just live with welfare.

What United States needs is free healthcare, more progressive taxing and even more benefits. That would make your society way more equal, healthier and safer.

If that works in Finland, great...but as crazy as it sounds we're not primarily interested in having the government make society more equal, healthy, or safe here in the US. At least the people who have worked hard to secure these things for themselves aren't.

Taking as much as necessary from successful people in order to ensure some minimum standard of living for everyone, whether they are industrious or not, is a recipe for disaster in the US. We've been about freedom combined with personal responsibility for too long...and what you're suggesting takes away much of the incentive for people to make good choices.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3584 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 36):

But is United States anymore a country of opportunities where any man can go and become successful through hard work?

In my opinion a system where government doesn't help poor people and try to make society more equal works only if anyone can truly become successful through hard honest work. However now if you are average guy from very poor family and can't afford high quality education what chances you truly have to become middle or upper class citizen just through honest work?

I think a hundred or even 50 years ago it was still possible, however I feel that nowadays it rarely goes that way, people who born poor will usually die poor no matter how much they try, social problems keep going on from generation to another and on the other hand those born into rich families can stay rich without too much effort.

I think at some point United States must follow Europe and add more social benefits, it's just necessary natural development of a country. Otherwise social problems and inequality will just keep increasing until they get totally out of control and may cause whole society to collapse. Only in dictatorships extreme inequality can keep going for long time, in any democracy it will eventually lead to either social reforms or revolution.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 37):
But is United States anymore a country of opportunities where any man can go and become successful through hard work?

People keep trying to come here, so I'm thinking it must be. But there is also a large and growing segment of the population that seems happy enough to sit on their ass and live the minimum guaranteed lifestyle rather than strive for success. I fear supporting this trend.

I would agree with reforms that reward and encourage responsibility and hard work.


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3568 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 35):

Taiwan has signs on their subways about cellphone etiquette.

If this is so, I'm moving, when's the next flight?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 35):

As I stated already, I didn't do much research at all and Moo already answered my questions early on in this thread.

If you didn't do the full research, do the fact-minded people in this thread a favor and don't post "Obama bribing for votes" as your header.

One important point is that in all the hue and cry about redistribution, fairness, government moochers, and so on, the people saying "I'm successful, don't take it away from me and give it to unsuccessful people" seem to have lost quite a bit of their personal perspective. Sure, you may have much more money and general personal success than you did when you started. But what in you gave you the drive to do that? If it's simply your lack of money compared to rich people earlier in your life, then support a 100% estate tax so your children will feel the same way and not become parasites or whatever the popular term is these days. I suspect you probably wouldn't support such a thing, so understand that ambition, the kind that makes innovation and billionaires and rainbows and smiling orphans, is not derived from deprivation but from being able to see a window of opportunity and act upon it.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11801 posts, RR: 15
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3541 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 36):
Taking as much as necessary from successful people in order to ensure some minimum standard of living for everyone, whether they are industrious or not, is a recipe for disaster in the US.

Seemed to work pretty well through the 1950s and 1960s....



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3487 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 34):
What United States needs is free healthcare,

Nothing free about it.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 34):
more progressive taxing

Get some disgusting European tax rates to push more business and capital elsewhere?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 34):
That would make your society way more equal,

I don't want society to be equal. Equality under the law is great, but beyond that equality is bad. A focus on equality will only lead to an enforced standard of mediocrity. I want to be able to earn and keep as much inequality as I can and not be forced to use my resources to pay the way for others.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 36):
Taking as much as necessary from successful people in order to ensure some minimum standard of living for everyone, whether they are industrious or not, is a recipe for disaster in the US. We've been about freedom combined with personal responsibility for too long...and what you're suggesting takes away much of the incentive for people to make good choices.

  

Quoting seb146 (Reply 40):
Seemed to work pretty well through the 1950s and 1960s....

...when there was no competition. Not to mention that if you look at the segments of the US budget, the part that has exploded since isn't the defense part of the pie.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3478 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
I don't want society to be equal. Equality under the law is great, but beyond that equality is bad. A focus on equality will only lead to an enforced standard of mediocrity. I want to be able to earn and keep as much inequality as I can and not be forced to use my resources to pay the way for others.

So basically "mine! it's all mine!" Also it can't have escaped your attention that any other inequality tends to undermine equality under the law.

No one's saying "a focus on equality" means "everyone has the same stuff" heck no one is even specifically focusing on equality the way you're constructing it. The problem is that the inequality has become so resilient and massive. If we don't address the way our public policies tilt heavily in favor of the wealthy and the organizations with the most money in general, the system will increasingly calcify and ruin even the most avowed capitalist, self-made paths of personal success.


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 36):
If that works in Finland, great...but as crazy as it sounds we're not primarily interested in having the government make society more equal, healthy, or safe here in the US. At least the people who have worked hard to secure these things for themselves aren't.

Then why haven't "we" amended out that clause of the Constitution about doing things "necessary and proper for the general welfare" then? Indeed, why do "we" have a government at all, if the people who have secured wealth, health, and safety for themselves don't feel they owe anything to the rest of the population? Because I was under the impression that those three things were why most governments existed, barring possibly the equality bit depending on how you construe it (although I was under the impression that in the US "we" held these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal etc. etc.)

Although it's also possible that "we" just want government to protect successful people's money from all those class-warfare ideas like "taxes" and "civic responsibility," in which case a lot of things make more sense.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 44, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3461 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 42):
So basically "mine! it's all mine!"

Yep. I don't appreciate the government reaching into my pocket to take care of everyone. Taxes should pay for services, not for people.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 43):
Indeed, why do "we" have a government at all,

Because some services cannot be provided on a private basis.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 43):
if the people who have secured wealth, health, and safety for themselves don't feel they owe anything to the rest of the population?

They don't owe anything to the rest of the population. But they still need protection from the military, law enforcement, courts, etc. hence they pay taxes. That is what taxes should go to pay, not TVs for welfare queens.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 43):
Although it's also possible that "we" just want government to protect successful people's money from all those class-warfare ideas like "taxes" and "civic responsibility,"

They will protect their own money by spending and investing it elsewhere. The more the government tightens their grip, the more prosperity will slip through their fingers.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3454 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
Yep. I don't appreciate the government reaching into my pocket to take care of everyone. Taxes should pay for services, not for people.

Taxes do not pay for people.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
Because some services cannot be provided on a private basis.

Not true. The answer is that there are a lot of things we do not want provided by owners of private businesses.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
They don't owe anything to the rest of the population.

They owe as much to the rest of the population as everyone else.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
But they still need protection from the military, law enforcement, courts, etc. hence they pay taxes.

Welfare programs are part of this. The only reason they pay for what you derogatory label as TV's for welfare queens is because is the better alternative. It means those you care so much about are able to pay less taxes in the long run.

Let's also not forget that it is the time and sweat supplied by the rest of the population that makes it possible for society to provide all the infrastructure and protection you want them to provide. If work was properly compensated there would be no need for this roundabout system.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
They will protect their own money by spending and investing it elsewhere. The more the government tightens their grip, the more prosperity will slip through their fingers.

No they won't. They know that they will be much better by staying. If not they would all have left long time ago. They need this society just as much as this society need them.


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3455 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
Yep. I don't appreciate the government reaching into my pocket to take care of everyone. Taxes should pay for services, not for people.

Boy, that answer sure fills me with confidence about the ability of private charities to make up the difference when addressing the legitimately needy and helpless in this country.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
Because some services cannot be provided on a private basis.

What services are those, if not related to health or security as SmittyOne said?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
That is what taxes should go to pay, not TVs for welfare queens.

Ronald Reagan lives! Random stereotypes like welfare queen do nothing to inform successful policymaking.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
They will protect their own money by spending and investing it elsewhere. The more the government tightens their grip, the more prosperity will slip through their fingers.

Specifically, they'll protect their money by spending and investing it in governments that prevent anyone else from having it. Which I guess is fine by you, since you only seem to care about the de jure equality under the law and not what actually happens in courtrooms and legislatures.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 32):
I see... So, this just all happened since January, 2009? Never ever before then?

It's an old concept but it has increased markedly, yes. Not Obama's fault but it points out the flaws in his philosophy. Many people can claim to be "needy" if it gets them a nice place to live, free food for life, free medical etc. Those used to be things people aspire to after hard work. Now it's considered a "right." The corollary to that is, far fewer people will decide to "work" if everything is a right. And we are seeing that now, as workforce participation among men hits all-time low levels.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 34):
Not really. In here Europe we have 10x better social benefits and everything compared to United States, yet we have no problem with that extremely small minority of people who just live with welfare.

By no problem, you mean, what exactly? Have you seen Europe has incredibly low economic growth recently? Perhaps you are acquainted with current events in Spain, Greece, the UK and France? Or not?      


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 48, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Taxes do not pay for people.

Not all of them, but too many do.

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Not true. The answer is that there are a lot of things we do not want provided by owners of private businesses.

Really? Go get yourself a navy.

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
They owe as much to the rest of the population as everyone else.

No they don't, they have to pay for the services they receive, but don't owe anything to me or you.

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Welfare programs are part of this.

No they aren't.

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Let's also not forget that it is the time and sweat supplied by the rest of the population that makes it possible for society to provide all the infrastructure and protection you want them to provide. If work was properly compensated there would be no need for this roundabout system.

The market determines what is or is not proper compensation.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 46):
Boy, that answer sure fills me with confidence about the ability of private charities to make up the difference when addressing the legitimately needy and helpless in this country.

You're drawing a false connection. Just because something is good does not mean that the government should be doing it. Taking taxes to support the poor is not charity any more than getting mugged by a poor person is charity. Car companies and airlines are good, but that doesn't mean I think the government should be in charge of them.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 46):
What services are those, if not related to health or security as SmittyOne said?

Armed forces, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, various regulatory bodies (though they must be carefully held in check), emergency services, foreign relations, education, and a lot, though certainly not all, infrastructure.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 46):
Random stereotypes like welfare queen do nothing to inform successful policymaking.

Has it ever occurred to you that stereotypes become stereotypes because they have an element of truth?

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 46):
Specifically, they'll protect their money by spending and investing it in governments that prevent anyone else from having it.

Yep.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 46):
Which I guess is fine by you, since you only seem to care about the de jure equality under the law and not what actually happens in courtrooms and legislatures.

It is fine by me. Milton Friedman was right you know.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3403 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
You're drawing a false connection. Just because something is good does not mean that the government should be doing it. Taking taxes to support the poor is not charity any more than getting mugged by a poor person is charity. Car companies and airlines are good, but that doesn't mean I think the government should be in charge of them.

Listen to yourself. On one post (actually two) you're saying "my money my money my money forever, I intend to keep it no matter what" and now you're saying that government shouldn't be providing social services to people because private charities who receive money via donations can take care of it. I should think that the dissonance is fairly easy to note.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Armed forces, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, various regulatory bodies (though they must be carefully held in check), emergency services, foreign relations, education, and a lot, though certainly not all, infrastructure.

Plenty of things on that list fall directly under health and safety.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Has it ever occurred to you that stereotypes become stereotypes because they have an element of truth?

I could upgrade it to anecdote if you like, but it still wouldn't inform the debate any better.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Yep.

So literal plutocracy is a thing that you're absolutely comfortable with as a sustainable system of governing a country?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
It is fine by me.

You do realize that you're waving away some of the longest lasting injustices in American history by saying this, right?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3385 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Not all of them, but too many do.

No they don't.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Really? Go get yourself a navy.

Yes really. Historically defense (and offense) have frequently been privately supplied.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
No they don't, they have to pay for the services they receive, but don't owe anything to me or you.

They owe to the society they are part of, just as everyone else.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
No they aren't.

Yes they are. They are no different than police and courts. They help provide a functioning society. Cheaper than giving them room and board at prisons.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
The market determines what is or is not proper compensation.

Only when made between equals. A good number of societies problems originate in the unproportional balance between suppliers and consumers.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Just because something is good does not mean that the government should be doing it.

Finally something we can agree on. But you need to follow the extension of it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Has it ever occurred to you that stereotypes become stereotypes because they have an element of truth?

Though most of the time it is because someone has an agenda they can't support with good arguments.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 51, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 49):
On one post (actually two) you're saying "my money my money my money forever, I intend to keep it no matter what"

Actually it's "my money and I will determine where it should go" whether that is charities, investments, matresses, banks, etc. If I feel that strongly about a person or organization having a portion of my money I'll make sure they get it.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 49):
So literal plutocracy is a thing that you're absolutely comfortable with as a sustainable system of governing a country?

Versus a system that operates under the assumption that I have the right to others money and/or they have a right to mine? Yeah, I'll take it.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 49):
You do realize that you're waving away some of the longest lasting injustices in American history by saying this, right?

Like what injustices? That rich people have nicer things than I do? That's just the way it works.

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):
Yes really. Historically defense (and offense) have frequently been privately supplied.

Let's be practical. Do you really want to hire someone privately to sign treaties for you? And you'd better hope that the private military I hire isn't stronger than the private military you hire, lest I decide to occupy your house.

Quoting cmf (Reply 50):
They owe to the society they are part of, just as everyone else.

This whole "society" thing is crap. Nobody owes me or anybody else anything, they just have to pay for the services they receive from the government. People don't pay taxes for the good of "society," they pay taxes to buy themselves military protection, infrastructure, etc.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13754 posts, RR: 61
Reply 52, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
"ObamaCare" has bee used as a derogatory term

Then why did President Obama specifically refer to it as "ObamaCare" during the debate?



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4795 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3333 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 52):
Then why did President Obama specifically refer to it as "ObamaCare" during the debate?

Beacause it is short and concise, and by the way Romney brough it up.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7979 posts, RR: 51
Reply 54, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Wow is this thread about phones or is it

Quoting casinterest (Reply 53):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 52):
Then why did President Obama specifically refer to it as "ObamaCare" during the debate?

Beacause it is short and concise, and by the way Romney brough it up.

He went further than that... he said he was very fond of the term.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4795 posts, RR: 3
Reply 55, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 54):
He went further than that... he said he was very fond of the term.

It still doesn;t take away from the fact that the right likes to use it as a derogatory term. However everyone else has adopted it since listing out the real name is just painful .



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11801 posts, RR: 15
Reply 56, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 55):
It still doesn;t take away from the fact that the right likes to use it as a derogatory term.

Like the word "liberal" or "Democrat".

Quoting Flighty (Reply 47):
Many people can claim to be "needy" if it gets them a nice place to live, free food for life, free medical etc.

But, with the rash of outsourcing and the resulting workers forced to take up minimum wage jobs because they lost their benefits, why is it such an evil thing to try to survive?

BTW, have you seen the "nice place to live"? They are pits! No one *wants* to live in those holes. No one *wants* that kind of nice. It is a roof over your (in general, no one specific) head. And, no one gets "free food for life." Last time I checked, they give out $20 to $200 a month for just a few years at most. $200 a month? For food for a family? That will give people nutrients?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13754 posts, RR: 61
Reply 57, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3289 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting casinterest (Reply 53):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 52):Then why did President Obama specifically refer to it as "ObamaCare" during the debate?
Beacause it is short and concise, and by the way Romney brough it up.

  

While Romney brought it up, if the President found the term so abhorrent he'd make a point of calling it the Affordable Care Act, "the healthcare law" or anything other than "ObamaCare."

I think he referred to it as ObamaCare because he's a narcissist and likes the way it sounds.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Actually it's "my money and I will determine where it should go" whether that is charities, investments, matresses, banks, etc. If I feel that strongly about a person or organization having a portion of my money I'll make sure they get it.

The point is, you're not selling anyone on the charity-only approach when you say that you want to earn and keep as much inequality as you can.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Like what injustices? That rich people have nicer things than I do? That's just the way it works.

De jure, black people have been equal under the law for far longer than they have been able to avoid discrimination in pay, sentencing, and multiple other issues. If the extent to which you're willing to stick your neck out for any sort of equality is the word of the law saying so, then all the rest of the inequality that is allowed to remain in place will encroach on that, be it economic, racial, sexual, or otherwise. Sometimes rich people get better access to the criminal justice system by virtue of being rich; other times they're vilified for their money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Versus a system that operates under the assumption that I have the right to others money and/or they have a right to mine? Yeah, I'll take it.

For the sake of argument I'll work with your strawman for a second. If the richest people truly are the best people to run anything because they had the wherewithal to earn a ton of money, what do you make of the estate tax?


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 59, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 58):
The point is, you're not selling anyone on the charity-only approach when you say that you want to earn and keep as much inequality as you can.

Versus extortionist politics? Telling people what they should be doing with their money is ridiculous. I don't care if you have $10 or $10 million, it's your money and you should be the one determining where it goes and what happens to it.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 58):
If the extent to which you're willing to stick your neck out for any sort of equality is the word of the law saying so, then all the rest of the inequality that is allowed to remain in place will encroach on that, be it economic, racial, sexual, or otherwise.

True equality does not take something from one person to give it to another.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 58):
If the richest people truly are the best people to run anything because they had the wherewithal to earn a ton of money,

I never said they were the best to run anything. But if your alternative to a plutocracy is a system where we all get a share of what isn't ours, there is a problem.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 58):
what do you make of the estate tax?

Institutionalized theft with a nicer name.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
Versus extortionist politics? Telling people what they should be doing with their money is ridiculous. I don't care if you have $10 or $10 million, it's your money and you should be the one determining where it goes and what happens to it.

That's a great idea but there are a multitude of other ideas associated with it that make it a little problematic. No matter how much control you have over your money, things will happen to you that you can't control and the dude with $10 can be controlling his money like no tomorrow and still be far worse off than mister $10 million who has nothing to worry about. Does he have a recourse besides "next time you should have brought more money?"

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
True equality does not take something from one person to give it to another.

That's not even what I'm talking about. The fact is that equality under the law does not and has never subsisted in a vacuum. It has to be protected and enforced so that all the other inequalities that you don't mind in principle exert so much pressure on it that it exists on paper only.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
I never said they were the best to run anything. But if your alternative to a plutocracy is a system where we all get a share of what isn't ours, there is a problem.

Well maybe you didn't, but you sure did consent to the plutocracy concept really easily. I mean, you just said "Yep" to my obvious implication, which was that rich people given enough leeway will create governments that make them all but untouchable to anyone else. I mean, some people seem to think the less you pay in taxes the better qualified you are to run countries now, so I'm not putting zero taxes past anyone. Especially since you threw up the false alternative strawman before I had proposed anything relating to redistribution- there's much more to economic inequality than that, such as access to health care and education, provisions of the tax code such as deductible items, and so on. If you took my concerns over inequality and immediately jumped to poor people robbing you because you were paying taxes, the problem is very much on your end.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
Institutionalized theft with a nicer name.

Then you're either a hypocrite or short sighted. The whole concept of letting inequality run rampant in terms of wealth sits on the notion of the people who have it having earned it out of superior competence and ambition. Or at least, that's what they say. If it just passes down through the generations untouched then two things will happen: that won't be true anymore, and the access to education and resources required to generate additional wealth will be more completely denied to people who don't have it to begin with. Someone using the "welfare queen" argument should know that the root of ambition is not deprivation alone.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 61, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3259 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 60):
No matter how much control you have over your money, things will happen to you that you can't control and the dude with $10 can be controlling his money like no tomorrow and still be far worse off than mister $10 million who has nothing to worry about.

Duh. Having more money makes life easier. None of that, however, makes it okay for you or I to stake a claim on anyone else's money.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 60):
Well maybe you didn't, but you sure did consent to the plutocracy concept really easily. I mean, you just said "Yep" to my obvious implication, which was that rich people given enough leeway will create governments that make them all but untouchable to anyone else.

There is the very slight detail that even billionaires only get to vote once.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 60):
The whole concept of letting inequality run rampant in terms of wealth sits on the notion of the people who have it having earned it out of superior competence and ambition.

How can you reconcile that with the wishes of those who did earn it? If someone earns money, it's theirs and they should be the sole person to determine where it goes upon their death: their kids, charities, or bury it with them for all I care.

And why stop with money? How do you level out inequality in abilities? It's certainly not fair that some people aren't as smart as others. Should people be "taxed" some of their talent to help people who are below average?

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 60):
and the access to education and resources required to generate additional wealth will be more completely denied to people who don't have it to begin with.

How? Are public schools funded solely by inheritance theft? If your parents have a pile of money, chances are you'll be getting no need based financial aid and quite possibly be educated completely outside of the public school system.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 60):
Someone using the "welfare queen" argument should know that the root of ambition is not deprivation alone.

I don't care how lazy someone is if it isn't costing me anything. If you inherit millions and decide to do nothing for the rest of your life, by all means go ahead, that doesn't bother me in the least. If you decide you don't want to work while collecting welfare your whole life, then we're going to have a problem.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3252 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
I don't care how lazy someone is if it isn't costing me anything. If you inherit millions and decide to do nothing for the rest of your life, by all means go ahead, that doesn't bother me in the least. If you decide you don't want to work while collecting welfare your whole life, then we're going to have a problem.

What if someone has a serious disease that prevents he/she from working? Should he/she then get money from the government ?



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40071 posts, RR: 74
Reply 63, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 62):
What if someone has a serious disease that prevents he/she from working? Should he/she then get money from the government ?



They're already covered by disabilities (ADA). It's a good program supported by both parties.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 39):
If this is so, I'm moving, when's the next flight?


China Airlines and EVA have daily flights from JFK.




http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj96/Rush8track/TaipeiTaiwan212.jpg
I took this photo on their MRT last month when I was in Taipei.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 39):
as your header.


It was too late. As you already know, you only have 60 minutes to make edits after you make your post.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3193 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Actually it's "my money and I will determine where it should go" whether that is charities, investments, matresses, banks, etc. If I feel that strongly about a person or organization having a portion of my money I'll make sure they get it.

Pay your bills, then you get to decide how you spend the rest. If you don't like to pay your bill to the society you live in then move. But stop being a freeloader.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Let's be practical. Do you really want to hire someone privately to sign treaties for you? And you'd better hope that the private military I hire isn't stronger than the private military you hire, lest I decide to occupy your house.

Happy to see you want to be practical. So now when you have highlighted some of the reasons why private armies have gone away let's realize this isn't a problem limited only to armies.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
This whole "society" thing is crap. Nobody owes me or anybody else anything, they just have to pay for the services they receive from the government. People don't pay taxes for the good of "society," they pay taxes to buy themselves military protection, infrastructure, etc.

If you think society is crap then find a place not claimed by any society and live without interacting with anyone else there. But as long as you live with other people there is society. And as long as you're there you live by that societies rules. Not just the rules you like.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
Versus extortionist politics?

You're giving it wrong label.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
Telling people what they should be doing with their money is ridiculous. I don't care if you have $10 or $10 million, it's your money and you should be the one determining where it goes and what happens to it.

You have full control of your money. You have a vote, not control, in how societies money is used.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
Duh. Having more money makes life easier. None of that, however, makes it okay for you or I to stake a claim on anyone else's money.

No-one is staking a claim on other peoples money. Just requiring every person to pay their share.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
There is the very slight detail that even billionaires only get to vote once.

Of course is person only gets one vote. It is fundamental to our democratic principles. If you don't like it find a place that fits you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
I don't care how lazy someone is if it isn't costing me anything.

Neither do I. I do care about greedy bastards making small costs big.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 65, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 64):
Pay your bills, then you get to decide how you spend the rest.

Cutting checks to poor people is not a bill.

Quoting cmf (Reply 64):
You're giving it wrong label.

That's exactly what it is whenever liberals say things like "it's cheaper than prisons" or "it keeps us from being robbed by people who need money." I'm sure poor people should find that incredibly insulting and others should be revolted by the extortion.

Quoting cmf (Reply 64):
You have full control of your money. You have a vote, not control, in how societies money is used.

First, it isn't "society's" money, it's my money. I'll pay for governmental services, but gifting money to others is not part of that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 64):
Just requiring every person to pay their share.

Welfare is not paying their share. Taxes should go for governmental services. I'll pay for part of the military. I'll pay for part of law enforcement. I'll pay for part of infrastructure. And I'll pay for part of embassies and diplomats. Those are all services I receive from the government, just like I pay a bill for the services I receive from my phone company.

The trailer park queen sitting on her ass having babies and eating Funyuns offers me nothing. Those people give me no services. I would pay her if she were to clean my house or serve me a sandwich, but I shouldn't have to pay for people who don't do anything for me.

Quoting cmf (Reply 64):
I do care about greedy bastards making small costs big.

You mean not subsidizing things for you. If the costs are small you shouldn't have to reach into everyone else's pockets to pay for it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
Duh. Having more money makes life easier. None of that, however, makes it okay for you or I to stake a claim on anyone else's money.

The point is the valid social principle of letting people do what they want with their money doesn't exist in a vacuum and its inherently rougher on some people than others. You didn't answer my question anyhow about whether people with less money should have any recourse to anyone if something happens and they lose it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
There is the very slight detail that even billionaires only get to vote once.

Because voting is the only way politics is ever influenced.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
How can you reconcile that with the wishes of those who did earn it?

If you think that the conditions that created your massive wealth included being at the bottom of the pile first, shouldn't you want your kids to have the same thing in order to make them good ambitious citizens? Of course not, which is precisely my point.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
How? Are public schools funded solely by inheritance theft? If your parents have a pile of money, chances are you'll be getting no need based financial aid and quite possibly be educated completely outside of the public school system.

Exactly. They have a leg up on equally smart people who weren't born with as much money. They're going to use it in other ways too. Your mistake is thinking that the unfettered competition, both on a personal and a corporate basis, of the free market stays that way for generations without help. The Gilded Age called and says that it doesn't.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
And why stop with money? How do you level out inequality in abilities?

You don't. I'm not suggesting "leveling out" except possibly as an intellectual exercise to demonstrate why and how people get rich. And besides, abilities and money are different things, I kind of thought that was your point not mine.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
Cutting checks to poor people is not a bill.

Yes, because we all know that's all that social welfare programs are and that none of them benefit any other demographic or work in any other way.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
I'll pay for part of the military.

Wait, who will pay for the rest?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
I'll pay for part of infrastructure.

What happens if a poor person uses the road "you" paid for? Isn't that the government cutting them a check to go someplace?


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 67, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3159 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 66):
The point is the valid social principle of letting people do what they want with their money doesn't exist in a vacuum and its inherently rougher on some people than others.

Having less money sucks, believe me, I know. But again, that doesn't mean I should get a cut of anyone's money.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 66):
You didn't answer my question anyhow about whether people with less money should have any recourse to anyone if something happens and they lose it.

What is "something"? If it's losing money in a Ponzi scheme or being robbed, then yes, they should have recourse like anyone else. If you lose in a bad market, that's just one of the things that happens. I'd recommend that people build their portfolios accordingly.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 66):
If you think that the conditions that created your massive wealth included being at the bottom of the pile first, shouldn't you want your kids to have the same thing in order to make them good ambitious citizens?

Some wealthy people do that to some degree. But what they do with their money and why is solely their business and their decision.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 66):
They have a leg up on equally smart people who weren't born with as much money.

So? Take advantage of whatever you have, whether that's money, intelligence or something else.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 66):
Your mistake is thinking that the unfettered competition, both on a personal and a corporate basis, of the free market stays that way for generations without help.

The mistake of liberals is to think that the way to keep competition fair is to retard the top performers. That only works in sports, where the point is to achieve parity. All anyone should really ask for is mechanisms for capable people to make it, which I'm all in favor of, but welfare is not one of those things.

Drop welfare and have the government improve education instead and make all federal student aid merit based. Go to school, prove yourself, do the work and you can go as far as you want and get an education as good as any rich kid. Screw around and drop out and you'll face a crappy life of minimum wage jobs which the government won't subsidize.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 66):
Wait, who will pay for the rest?

There's the other 300,000,000 people in the country.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 66):
What happens if a poor person uses the road "you" paid for?

They've paid for it too.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3155 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 67):
The mistake of liberals is to think that the way to keep competition fair is to retard the top performers. That only works in sports, where the point is to achieve parity. All anyone should really ask for is mechanisms for capable people to make it, which I'm all in favor of, but welfare is not one of those things.

It works very well in here Europe and so it would work in United States too if there were less greedy conservatives out there.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
Cutting checks to poor people is not a bill.

Which you're not doing so stop stating you do.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
That's exactly what it is whenever liberals say things like "it's cheaper than prisons" or "it keeps us from being robbed by people who need money." I'm sure poor people should find that incredibly insulting and others should be revolted by the extortion.

It is cheaper than prison. Even better, it is productive as it helps getting people out working.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
First, it isn't "society's" money, it's my money. I'll pay for governmental services, but gifting money to others is not part of that.

There is no gifting. Taxes is your cost for living in the society you live. Pay your part. Stop being a leach.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
Welfare is not paying their share. Taxes should go for governmental services. I'll pay for part of the military. I'll pay for part of law enforcement. I'll pay for part of infrastructure. And I'll pay for part of embassies and diplomats. Those are all services I receive from the government, just like I pay a bill for the services I receive from my phone company

It is a package deal. You do not get to pick and choose.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
The trailer park queen sitting on her ass having babies and eating Funyuns offers me nothing.

The trailer park queen is very rare. The mother and father working three jobs and still not making ends is the reality.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
You mean not subsidizing things for you. If the costs are small you shouldn't have to reach into everyone else's pockets to pay for it.

I mean taking loads of resources from society and expecting others to pay for it. I mean paying people so poorly they can't make a living and then expect society to cover the rest. I mean working them down and not even providing medical for them. I mean providing unsafe conditions and letting others handle it.

Then pretending it is OK to do this because somewhere is a few people who got a cent more than absolutely minimum required.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 70, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3126 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
It is cheaper than prison.

Perhaps if every poor person decides they need to commit crimes, but we all know that isn't the case.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
There is no gifting.

No it isn't. Gifting implies that there is a choice, what it really is comes closer to codified theft.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
Taxes is your cost for living in the society you live.

Cost for services I receive, just like a phone bill or a water bill. Welfare is not a service. Welfare offers nothing, it's just rearranging deck chairs.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
It is a package deal. You do not get to pick and choose.

The package needs to get cut down a good bit. Government is too bloated and there isn't money for all of it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
The mother and father working three jobs and still not making ends is the reality.

They don't provide me any benefit either. If they were to clean my house or serve me a sandwich, I'd pay them too. But they shouldn't get paid just for existing.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
I mean taking loads of resources from society and expecting others to pay for it.

Like what? What exactly are the wealthy taking from society and not paying for? That sounds exactly like what people collecting welfare do.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
I mean paying people so poorly they can't make a living and then expect society to cover the rest.

It's a minimum wage job, not a minimum wage career. Unless of course you are so uneducated that you cannot do any other jobs, which really should not become my problem.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
I mean providing unsafe conditions and letting others handle it.

Which is, thankfully, illegal.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 68):
It works very well in here Europe and so it would work in United States too if there were less greedy conservatives out there.

You have an interesting idea of "works very well." Let's see in Europe we have quite a few nations that have ridiculously high taxes and ridiculously high debts. We have people not happy because the government may no longer be able to provide the things they've been getting for "free." We have higher taxes on pretty much everything. And as bad as labor and tax costs have driven outsourcing from the US, even worse labor and tax costs have driven outsourcing from Europe to the US. In light of that, I can see why Europeans might advocate the US adopting similar policies, but not because they work but rather because they don't work.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 67):

The mistake of liberals is to think that the way to keep competition fair is to retard the top performers. That only works in sports, where the point is to achieve parity. All anyone should really ask for is mechanisms for capable people to make it, which I'm all in favor of, but welfare is not one of those things.

I'm not saying retard the top performers. I'm saying keep the top performers from using the resources they have to keep anyone else from being a top performer. You've conceded that people do whatever they can to keep whatever they've got- that extends to getting more at the expense of everyone else. Heck, that's what you've said poor people on welfare do, repeatedly. The conservatives of your ilk never seem to think far enough ahead to consider what the effect of allowing the richest to do whatever they want with their money might be, and I'm raising the possibility that it could be incredibly destabilizing and detrimental to the whole concept of social mobility that you're promoting.

Don't like that all of your precious tax dollars don't go to things you personally benefit from? Too bad, as you seem to enjoying saying about everything else. The whole point of taxes is to ensure that things people can't universally agree upon can get paid for. Otherwise do away with that altogether and just let the people who would be paying taxes just spend that money where they want. And watch the ensuing riots.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):

Which is, thankfully, illegal.

See this is precisely what I'm trying to say. By drastically scaling back government's power to administer programs and regulate economies, you're tipping the balance in favor of money; money that usually has no vested interest in the welfare of its lower-paid workers beyond the charity that it's clear plenty of the money does not have. What's to say that the companies hiring people for dangerous work can't just tell government "we don't want this to be illegal anymore?"


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
Like what? What exactly are the wealthy taking from society and not paying for?

More things than you care to admit. Believe it or not, not every government entitlement is for a welfare queen. Tax deductions that cover very expensive items, freer ability to influence political speech, capital gains being treated differently from standard income (maybe there's a valid argument for this in there somewhere but the fact is that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to take advantage,) the ability to get the most favorable break for a large capital expenditure by extorting states into lowering or eliminating their taxes on things like new factories, stuff like that.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
They don't provide me any benefit either


So? Government exists for the benefit of more people than just you.

[Edited 2012-10-07 11:22:44]

User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 73, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 71):
I'm saying keep the top performers from using the resources they have to keep anyone else from being a top performer.

That doesn't happen. My neighbor being a millionaire in no way inhibits my chances of becoming a millionaire.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 71):
You've conceded that people do whatever they can to keep whatever they've got- that extends to getting more at the expense of everyone else. Heck, that's what you've said poor people on welfare do, repeatedly.

Collecting welfare checks that come from taxpayers is getting more at the expense of everything else. Collecting a large sum of money from your grandparents is not that at all. It doesn't cost me anything and it doesn't cost the rest of the taxpayers anything. It only costs your grandparents.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 71):
The conservatives of your ilk never seem to think far enough ahead to consider what the effect of allowing the richest to do whatever they want with their money might be,

Freedom could be just too dangerous...  
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 71):
I'm raising the possibility that it could be incredibly destabilizing and detrimental to the whole concept of social mobility that you're promoting.

That's just not the case. What would be detrimental is investment money going elsewhere because the US is heavy on taxes and regulations but light on education. Liberals playing the troll on the bridge making sure that people who have pay their cut to people who don't does nothing to fix the problem.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 71):
The whole point of taxes is to ensure that things people can't universally agree upon can get paid for.

The point of taxes is to pay for things we need to be provided by the government. Unfortunately that goal has been corrupted by those who believe in saving the world with everyone else's money. If you can't get everyone to agree on something I suggest you find the people who do agree with you and take their money, which they should be more than willing to provide.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 71):
What's to say that the companies hiring people for dangerous work can't just tell government "we don't want this to be illegal anymore?"

Well there are laws that say that. Plus if companies actually started saying that then unions would actually have a purpose again besides being labor cartels.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 74, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
Perhaps if every poor person decides they need to commit crimes, but we all know that isn't the case.

Because we provide alternatives.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
Cost for services I receive, just like a phone bill or a water bill. Welfare is not a service. Welfare offers nothing, it's just rearranging deck chairs.

Welfare provide a much better society for all of us. It means we create positive resources instead of dealing with negative. The later is also much more expensive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
The package needs to get cut down a good bit. Government is too bloated and there isn't money for all of it.

There certainly are things that should be cut and there are many thing that could be done more efficient. Everything from various pet projects, unproductive requirements just because it is supplied by government, emergency and reduced mobility dues to lack of preventive medical, court and prison resources instead of a bit of welfare and help to get back on track.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
They don't provide me any benefit either. If they were to clean my house or serve me a sandwich, I'd pay them too. But they shouldn't get paid just for existing.

I can only hope you get to experience what they go through.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
Like what? What exactly are the wealthy taking from society and not paying for? That sounds exactly like what people collecting welfare do.

It is very much similar. Difference is that you overstate one and pretend the other doesn't exist. As to what exactly. You need to look at each case to get it exactly but typical things include: higher and preferential use of infrastructure, unproportional use of legal system, making society pay for their shortcomings as employers and business managers.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
It's a minimum wage job, not a minimum wage career. Unless of course you are so uneducated that you cannot do any other jobs, which really should not become my problem.

Every full time job should pay enough to cover basics. When they don't you are leach on society.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
Which is, thankfully, illegal.

LOL, it is much better than it used to be. There is a lot left to be done.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
You have an interesting idea of "works very well."

Careful there. Europe certainly have a lot of problems but they also have many areas where they are way ahead. All have their problems.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
You have an interesting idea of "works very well." Let's see in Europe we have quite a few nations that have ridiculously high taxes and ridiculously high debts

Yes couple of them, then we have Finland and many others with high taxes and welfare system & small amount of debts. And United States has ridiculously high debts too, has had for long time.

In here Finland we have had welfare society all the way from 60's and surprisingly we are doing way better than United States in most areas. Quality of healthcare, education life expectancy, they are all better here than in countries that lack this kind of welfare system.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 76, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3060 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 72):
Tax deductions that cover very expensive items,

Tax deductions are not taking money from the government. Paying less money to the government is not the same as getting money from the government. Furthermore, tax deductions are available to everyone.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 72):
capital gains being treated differently from standard income (maybe there's a valid argument for this in there somewhere but the fact is that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to take advantage,)

First of all, anyone who tells you that the capital gains tax is a problem in the budget is lying to you. Capital gains have been taxed at a lower rate since the 1920s, which is well before budget deficits were an issue.

Secondly, many people take advantage of capital gains. Basically everyone in my not at all wealthy family has investments and is subject to capital gains taxes. It's easy to paint shareholders as cigar smoking boogeymen trying to stomp on the little people, but that's just not true. Many lower and middle class people own and trade assets that invoke capital gains.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 72):
the ability to get the most favorable break for a large capital expenditure by extorting states into lowering or eliminating their taxes on things like new factories, stuff like that.

You get what you can negotiate. And at the core of that notion is what I've been advocating all along: that modern economies are a giant competition where commerce and growth will be earned by the locales that have the most to offer at the lowest cost and to that end need to have lean governments. Of course it again needs to be pointed out that not paying money is not the same as taking out money. I really hope that liberals are just obfuscating stupidity when they need people to explain to them that not raising taxes is not the same as lowering taxes.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 72):
So? Government exists for the benefit of more people than just you.

Government is a service provider. I'll pay for the services I receive, just like I do for my phone bill every month. Now if my phone company acted like the government they would add $20 onto my bill so they could reduce a poor person's bill by $20 and try to convince me I'm better off for it. Or they'd jack up my bill $20 each month but in return I'd get a sandwich in addition to phone service each month. Obviously, neither is something I'd like.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
Because we provide alternatives.

From now on we need to make education the alternative.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
It means we create positive resources instead of dealing with negative.

Maybe if you think that Faygo and Kools are positive resources.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
You need to look at each case to get it exactly but typical things include: higher and preferential use of infrastructure,

How? I've never seen a Zil lane on an American road.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
making society pay for their shortcomings as employers and business managers.

I'm against bailouts for private businesses.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
I can only hope you get to experience what they go through.

Actually, I've worked my butt off all through school to make sure I don't. Of course I still don't have a job, but that's largely because of uncertainty over whether liberals will slash defense spending in order to pay for useless social programs.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):
Every full time job should pay enough to cover basics.

Sounds nice, but reality is different. If you increase the minimum wage some people will get raises, but some will get pink slips instead.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 75):
Yes couple of them, then we have Finland and many others with high taxes and welfare system & small amount of debts.

High taxes is a bit of an understatement. Federal and local taxes plus a 23% VAT is very high, although not the worst in Europe. And then other things on top of that, it's no wonder you all need welfare.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 75):
And United States has ridiculously high debts too, has had for long time.

Actually the national debt didn't become a major issue until fairly recently. Reagan, for all of what he did right, did run deficits, although part of that was defense spending that made up for the neglect the armed forces suffered during the Carter administration. Even through the defense heavy Cold War the national debt was not a big problem, what has changed is the explosion in social programs.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 75):
Actually the national debt didn't become a major issue until fairly recently. Reagan, for all of what he did right, did run deficits, although part of that was defense spending that made up for the neglect the armed forces suffered during the Carter administration. Even through the defense heavy Cold War the national debt was not a big problem, what has changed is the explosion in social programs.


Social programs are for good of the people, "defense" forces are not. Over 50% of US military is totally useless waste of money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
High taxes is a bit of an understatement. Federal and local taxes plus a 23% VAT is very high, although not the worst in Europe. And then other things on top of that, it's no wonder you all need welfare.

Nah, smaller percent of people here are poor than in United States.

I rather use money to give everyone equal chances instead of giving it away to multimillionaires that have more money than they will ever use during their entire lifetime of extreme luxury.

What matters is how well general population is doing, not how many billionaires or multi millionaires a country has.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 78, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 77):
Social programs are for good of the people,

For people cashing the checks anyway, not the people writing them.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 77):
"defense" forces are not. Over 50% of US military is totally useless waste of money.

Defense is necessary and you should ponder how useless it is next time you get on a jetliner or use a microwave to heat food. Not only do we have to maintain enough forces to fight a "conventional" war, we must also expand our ability to find and neutralize terrorists around the world.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 77):
Nah, smaller percent of people here are poor than in United States.

But how many are rich?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 77):
I rather use money to give everyone equal chances instead of giving it away to multimillionaires that have more money than they will ever use during their entire lifetime of extreme luxury.

Again, and I cannot comprehend why people don't get this, letting people keep more of the money they rightfully earn is not "giving it away." You cannot give something away unless it is yours, and that money never belonged to the government and the only money that should belong to the government is the money it needs to run itself and not money they intend to redistribute.

Secondly, what multimillionaires use or don't use their money on during their lifetime is their business and only their business. If they want to use it to light cigars, neither you nor I can object.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 77):
What matters is how well general population is doing, not how many billionaires or multi millionaires a country has.

Now that is a completely backwards philosophy. Trying to level out economics in the name of equality will result in standardized mediocrity. Maximize the ceiling and the floor will take care of itself. I want nothing to do with the country that can guarantee a merely decent existence. I want the country that will give me an even marginally better chance of becoming a billionaire.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 79, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3026 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
First of all, anyone who tells you that the capital gains tax is a problem in the budget is lying to you. Capital gains have been taxed at a lower rate since the 1920s, which is well before budget deficits were an issue.

   Capital gains tax receipts skyrocketed (in dollars) when Bush cut the rate to 15%. It frees capital in order to reallocate it to newer investments, rather than let it stagnate for decades in investments with lower return to the economy. There are good reasons for keeping capital gains tax rates fairly low.

And other tax rates as well...

None of the above is an excuse for wasteful spending. People cry that budget deficits don't matter so long as straw man arguments can be made. Actually budget deficits can overturn our economy if you give it a few years.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Now that is a completely backwards philosophy. Trying to level out economics in the name of equality will result in standardized mediocrity. Maximize the ceiling and the floor will take care of itself. I want nothing to do with the country that can guarantee a merely decent existence. I want the country that will give me an even marginally better chance of becoming a billionaire.

Okay, well that explains a lot. After let's say 10 million euros money would be worth nothing to me and I would probably give it away to charity. I simply want to be able to travel around the world, see different cultures, get experiences, live interesting and real life instead of fake life in middle of luxuries. Nobody will ever need billion dollars.

Money itself doesn't matter to me, just stuff that I can get with it, and like said 10 millions is easily enough to get anything I could possibly want.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
But how many are rich?

Probably smaller percent too, but so what?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Defense is necessary and you should ponder how useless it is next time you get on a jetliner or use a microwave to heat food. Not only do we have to maintain enough forces to fight a "conventional" war, we must also expand our ability to find and neutralize terrorists around the world.

Your military made those same terrorists pissed off at first place. Also if all the money and resources used on military through human history would have been used on peaceful technological development we would already probably have a settlement in Mars.


Most people understand that after you become actually rich those extra millions truly mean nothing to you and do not make your life any better.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 81, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
For people cashing the checks anyway, not the people writing them.

Much better to write a small check than a big check. This isn't good wine. It doesn't get better by letting it sit.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Defense is necessary and you should ponder how useless it is next time you get on a jetliner or use a microwave to heat food. Not only do we have to maintain enough forces to fight a "conventional" war, we must also expand our ability to find and neutralize terrorists around the world.

Defense is necessary but what we have isn't sized for offence, not defense.. I am also sure jetliners and microwaves will work perfectly fine without military.

We also should use police instead of military to deal with terrorism.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
But how many are rich?

Most of them. Some more than others.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Again, and I cannot comprehend why people don't get this, letting people keep more of the money they rightfully earn is not "giving it away."

Taxes are similar to condominium association fees. If you live there you got to pay the them and you have only one vote in how much they are and what they are spent. What you do after you have paid your bills is up to you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Secondly, what multimillionaires use or don't use their money on during their lifetime is their business and only their business. If they want to use it to light cigars, neither you nor I can object.

Which is why no-one but you suggest there is an objection.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Trying to level out economics in the name of equality will result in standardized mediocrity.

It isn't leveling out economics. It is raising the minimum level so as to avoid the very costly consequences of not doing it. Mediocrocy is what you have in the system you propose.

A society without people dragging you down gives you a much better chance to succeed. There are more people who can buy what you produce. There are more people qualified to produce. There is less waste.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
I want the country that will give me an even marginally better chance of becoming a billionaire.

You should move to Sweden then. Much higher frequency of billionaires.

But having worked in management in several successful companies, including one where the owner once was listed at over 10 BUSD, and looking at your posts I predict that all your attempts will end with bankruptcy. And then we will need to cover the costs you generated.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 82, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3000 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 79):
Capital gains tax receipts skyrocketed (in dollars) when Bush cut the rate to 15%. It frees capital in order to reallocate it to newer investments, rather than let it stagnate for decades in investments with lower return to the economy. There are good reasons for keeping capital gains tax rates fairly low.

You'll probably see a spike if it looks like capital gains rates will expire.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 79):
None of the above is an excuse for wasteful spending. People cry that budget deficits don't matter so long as straw man arguments can be made. Actually budget deficits can overturn our economy if you give it a few years.

When you are spending 1.5 times what you bring in, that's not a revenue problem. Our government has added programs and spend money like a fifteen year old girl with a charge card.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 80):
Money itself doesn't matter to me, just stuff that I can get with it, and like said 10 millions is easily enough to get anything I could possibly want.

Then live a comfortable life but make sure to do it with your own money and don't expect millionaires to pay the way.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 80):
Your military made those same terrorists pissed off at first place.

Yeah, defending Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was such a mistake.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 80):
Most people understand that after you become actually rich those extra millions truly mean nothing to you and do not make your life any better.

Governments should get their hands off of taxes collected for social programs and let the people who actually possess the money decide how much it's worth to them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
Defense is necessary but what we have isn't sized for offence, not defense..

Offense is the best defense, and has been for about the last 60 years. Isolationism failed in the lead up to WWII and failed again in the lead up to 9/11. That doesn't mean going in nation building expeditions, but there does need to be a full court press against terrorism.

Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
We also should use police instead of military to deal with terrorism.

At some level law enforcement will always be involved, so I should clarify that when I refer to defense spending I lump homeland security in with that. All law enforcement from now on will have to be a counterterrorism force to some degree whether we like it or not.

Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
It isn't leveling out economics. It is raising the minimum level so as to avoid the very costly consequences of not doing it.

It's skimming off the top to pay the bottom, pushing everyone's wealth towards the middle.

Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
Which is why no-one but you suggest there is an objection.

All of the people who for some reason support the inheritance tax have an objection.
Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
A society without people dragging you down gives you a much better chance to succeed.

How is cutting a check to all of our poor not dragging well off people down? That money has to come from somewhere, and welfare isn't an investment like education. Cut off welfare and put some of the savings towards improved education which makes that money productive and puts the ball in individuals' court. They'll go as far as their ability and work ethic will take them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
But having worked in management in several successful companies, including one where the owner once was listed at over 10 BUSD, and looking at your posts I predict that all your attempts will end with bankruptcy. And then we will need to cover the costs you generated.

How do you figure that?

[Edited 2012-10-07 15:26:44]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 83, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2986 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
Quoting cmf (Reply 81):
Defense is necessary but what we have isn't sized for offence, not defense..

Offense is the best defense, and has been for about the last 60 years. Isolationism failed in the lead up to WWII and failed again in the lead up to 9/11. That doesn't mean going in nation building expeditions, but there does need to be a full court press against terrorism.

As so often, you understand the principle but don't ask why said principle exists, leaving you with an erroneous conclusion.

Terrorism is a reaction to the USA. It didn't exist first.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2983 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
Governments should get their hands off of taxes collected for social programs and let the people who actually possess the money decide how much it's worth to them.

That is for the voters to decide. If you don't like the result then you should move.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
Offense is the best defense, and has been for about the last 60 years.

No, it is bullying. It provide short time positives but long time failure.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
but there does need to be a full court press against terrorism.

Which is a path US is refusing to take.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
It's skimming off the top to pay the bottom, pushing everyone's wealth towards the middle.

No, it is raising everyone.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
All of the people who for some reason support the inheritance tax have an objection.

You're jumping topic again. The statement you did was "during their lifetime". Inheritance clearly does not fall within that scope.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
How is cutting a check to all of our poor not dragging well off people down?

Because it provide positive return instead of additional costs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
That money has to come from somewhere, and welfare isn't an investment like education.

It certainly is an investment. It reduces crime, it reduces medical expenses, it helps provide capable workforce.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
How do you figure that?

You display a complete lack of how to get things done this society. Meaning you will butting head instead of succeeding.


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2981 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
That doesn't happen. My neighbor being a millionaire in no way inhibits my chances of becoming a millionaire.

Not directly, no. But long-term, more wealth controlled by fewer people is a terrible recipe for social mobility. You can look to dozens of governmental and economic structures from the past where the people at the top have most of the money. Two things are true about them: those people also have almost all of the power, and the top class with the money is very hard to break into.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):

Collecting welfare checks that come from taxpayers is getting more at the expense of everything else. Collecting a large sum of money from your grandparents is not that at all. It doesn't cost me anything and it doesn't cost the rest of the taxpayers anything. It only costs your grandparents.

I'm not just talking about inheritance here. If you're going to assume that poor people are going to grab anything they can at anyone's expense, then why won't rich people do the same thing in a different way?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
Freedom could be just too dangerous...

Money can do a lot of things. People with a lot of money can do even more. Now the specifics are a bit up in the air but I don't just want to assume that they are going to use it responsibly.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):

That's just not the case. What would be detrimental is investment money going elsewhere because the US is heavy on taxes and regulations but light on education. Liberals playing the troll on the bridge making sure that people who have pay their cut to people who don't does nothing to fix the problem.

What we should be doing is creating an educated work force that is good enough at what it does to make the foreign investment question irrelevant. We used to have that; other countries have now caught up with us. The two paths are either as I mentioned making this a country worth hiring people in, or just going ahead and lowering the general living standard to that of Bangladesh, because a lot of what makes our work force expensive is the fact that we have reasonably functional regulations and civic institutions to provide for the common welfare.

Also, the implications of unmitigated capitalism are still flying completely over your head. More money at the top means more power at the top; more power at the top means fewer regulations and less government revenue; fewer regulations and less government revenue means reduced overall government power; reduced overall government power means ever-larger business agglomerations, which starts with greater pricing power for the businesses but could easily lead to cornering markets, removing inconvenient laws, and stifling competition, because something will fill the gap that government has left behind. Laws against things to ensure safety are all well and good but the more freedom you give to money, the weaker those laws will get. Since we're in agreement that it's well within human nature to take things that aren't yours and you didn't earn- you think that's what poor people do.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
Well there are laws that say that. Plus if companies actually started saying that then unions would actually have a purpose again besides being labor cartels.

Laws don't mean squat if a government isn't strong enough to enforce them or can be swayed into enforcing them selectively. In which case yeah, not only would we need unions, but we'd have striking workers getting beaten and shot again and you probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):

Tax deductions are not taking money from the government. Paying less money to the government is not the same as getting money from the government. Furthermore, tax deductions are available to everyone.

Tax deductions are available for everyone. Tax deductions for dressage horses are not. Tax breaks for oil exploration for companies that make their money from producing oil are not. And it's true that direct subsidy from the government and less tax paid in are technically different, the result is the same and the reasons for cutting taxes and introducing deductions are generally pretty similar too. Especially since people who pay taxes have the capability to push politicians to create these deductions and rate changes, what with this being a representative government and everything.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):

You get what you can negotiate. And at the core of that notion is what I've been advocating all along: that modern economies are a giant competition where commerce and growth will be earned by the locales that have the most to offer at the lowest cost and to that end need to have lean governments.

If you're allowed to call welfare extortionary politics, then I'm allowed to call not building a factory in a location unless that location goes out of its way to change its public policy for you extortion as well. And if it really is a giant competition, it's one I don't want the United States to win, since the cheapest labor tends to happen in the countries that are corrupt, inefficient, and lacking in basic infrastructure and quality of life.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
Of course it again needs to be pointed out that not paying money is not the same as taking out money. I really hope that liberals are just obfuscating stupidity when they need people to explain to them that not raising taxes is not the same as lowering taxes.

That's not entirely relevant given that the people who defend the current tax policy with regard to the upper income brackets, and indeed most brackets, are the people who are in favor of just about every tax cut that has ever been proposed, and continue to be in the face of budget deficits that they loudly proclaim need to be made up. You can cite the expansion of Social Security and Medicare in the face of our population changes all you want but that doesn't change the fact that the government has repeatedly given away chances to pay for them more effectively.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):

The point of taxes is to pay for things we need to be provided by the government. Unfortunately that goal has been corrupted by those who believe in saving the world with everyone else's money.

I think you may have just described the war on terrorism. Do I have a right to complain that tax money is being taken and given to people who won't do anything for me in the form of subsidizing new military forces for Afghanistan and Iraq?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):

First of all, anyone who tells you that the capital gains tax is a problem in the budget is lying to you. Capital gains have been taxed at a lower rate since the 1920s, which is well before budget deficits were an issue.

Secondly, many people take advantage of capital gains. Basically everyone in my not at all wealthy family has investments and is subject to capital gains taxes. It's easy to paint shareholders as cigar smoking boogeymen trying to stomp on the little people, but that's just not true. Many lower and middle class people own and trade assets that invoke capital gains.

Your anecdote is fine and all, and I concede that there are legitimate arguments for treating capital gains separately. But the wealthy still do more of it than anyone else, so they are indeed receiving a benefit from government policy, which is why I brought it up.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):

Government is a service provider. I'll pay for the services I receive, just like I do for my phone bill every month. Now if my phone company acted like the government they would add $20 onto my bill so they could reduce a poor person's bill by $20 and try to convince me I'm better off for it. Or they'd jack up my bill $20 each month but in return I'd get a sandwich in addition to phone service each month. Obviously, neither is something I'd like.

If you think government is like your phone company I'm not completely sure what to say. Only that I don't think Verizon could have won World War II with its current business model.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 86, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2966 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
If you don't like the result then you should move.

Do you think that jobs, growth, and capital moving elsewhere is a coincidence?

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
Which is a path US is refusing to take.

I hope not, otherwise it's just a matter of time until the next major attack.

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
The statement you did was "during their lifetime". Inheritance clearly does not fall within that scope.

And during one's lifetime they get to decide what will happen to their assets upon their death, and such wishes should be followed.

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
Because it provide positive return instead of additional costs.

Like what? Besides propping up Natty Ice sales? Instead of giving people the chance to learn to fish, the government raids everyone's nets to hand poor people cans of sardines left and right.

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
You display a complete lack of how to get things done this society. Meaning you will butting head instead of succeeding.

I can butt heads when I have to. I'm also able to cooperate with people who are largely clueless.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
Not directly, no. But long-term, more wealth controlled by fewer people is a terrible recipe for social mobility.

You assume that wealth is a zero sum proposition and it isn't. One person gaining wealth does not correlate to someone else losing it, unless of course people do exactly that.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
Money can do a lot of things. People with a lot of money can do even more.

That's what being rich is about. More money allows you to buy a nicer life, that's been true ever since one caveman was able to kill bigger animals than another caveman.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
Now the specifics are a bit up in the air but I don't just want to assume that they are going to use it responsibly.

It's their money, I don't really care if they use it responsibly or not.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
What we should be doing is creating an educated work force that is good enough at what it does to make the foreign investment question irrelevant.

Exactly, but what we do instead is pay people who do nothing.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
because a lot of what makes our work force expensive is the fact that we have reasonably functional regulations and civic institutions to provide for the common welfare.

Then don't complain when that costs a lot of money and jobs. Uneducated Indians or Chinese can do everything an uneducated American can do but at a lower cost.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
Also, the implications of unmitigated capitalism are still flying completely over your head.

Not at all, but American blue collar workers need to understand that they are pricing themselves out of the market for many things.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
Tax deductions for dressage horses are not.

You didn't do any Googling. The tax deduction concerning the dressage horse could be applied to any hobby activity: painting, golf, restoring old cars, etc. Nowhere is there a minimum net worth requirement to utilize the deduction.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
If you're allowed to call welfare extortionary politics, then I'm allowed to call not building a factory in a location unless that location goes out of its way to change its public policy for you extortion as well.

Fine, but the country has a hammer to swing in this too: be the only place with the infrastructure and educated workforce necessary to do such work. The growth comes from the top, not the bottom. You could drop a dildo factory anywhere in the world and have it run just fine, but the same can't be said for factories that turn out generators or heavy equipment. The price of admission, of course, is education.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
And if it really is a giant competition, it's one I don't want the United States to win, since the cheapest labor tends to happen in the countries that are corrupt, inefficient, and lacking in basic infrastructure and quality of life.

But you have to understand that those jobs screwing things together or driving forklifts and making a career out of it are going to leave and aren't coming back. And I don't want to be paying welfare bills for those people when they can't gain any new skills, but providing mechanisms for them to gain those skills would be useful.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
That's not entirely relevant given that the people who defend the current tax policy with regard to the upper income brackets, and indeed most brackets, are the people who are in favor of just about every tax cut that has ever been proposed, and continue to be in the face of budget deficits that they loudly proclaim need to be made up.

You'd have to levy something like a 75% tax on the wealth of the top 1% of Americans to close the deficit, so that's pretty obviously not a revenue problem that's a spending problem. You can't go around looking in pants pockets and under cushions for that kind of money. It's not a gap that can be closed by tweaking things a little bit.

Furthermore, if the problem is really going to be solved and America is to be competitive in the future, the entire structure needs to change. It's not something a tax hike here and there is going to do anything to solve. It will take long term commitment to lean government and education.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
Do I have a right to complain that tax money is being taken and given to people who won't do anything for me in the form of subsidizing new military forces for Afghanistan and Iraq?

Yes. Despite the name, neoconservatives are unabashedly liberal. They just use the military instead of the Peace Corps.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
But the wealthy still do more of it than anyone else, so they are indeed receiving a benefit from government policy, which is why I brought it up.

It's not a benefit that everyone can't get.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 85):
Only that I don't think Verizon could have won World War II with its current business model.

...which is why we pay the government to fight wars and pay Verizon to provide phone service. If Verizon wants to increase your rates so they can buy tanks, it might be time to switch carriers.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Do you think that jobs, growth, and capital moving elsewhere is a coincidence?


No, I think they are related to much more complicated reasons than taxes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
I hope not, otherwise it's just a matter of time until the next major attack.

There is nothing indicating it will change.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
And during one's lifetime they get to decide what will happen to their assets upon their death, and such wishes should be followed.

You keep changing your statement. But for the record. I don't think it is a good tax. In my book taxes should only be leveled on incomes and spend.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Like what? Besides propping up Natty Ice sales? Instead of giving people the chance to learn to fish, the government raids everyone's nets to hand poor people cans of sardines left and right.

Like what I explained to you in the previous response. Sick people are not able to be productive. Take away too much and crime become the only option and that too is very expensive to the rest.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
I can butt heads when I have to. I'm also able to cooperate with people who are largely clueless.

You will need to break every principle you display here to be successful. I don't think you will be able to keep that up for any length of time. Of course just my opinion and I will be happy for you if I'm wrong.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Then don't complain when that costs a lot of money and jobs. Uneducated Indians or Chinese can do everything an uneducated American can do but at a lower cost.

I have been involved in setting up and then dismantling factories in China. The later because they became the lesser option.

I am involved with a company that just stopped using Indian manufacturing because it is cheaper to split it between Nicaragua and USA.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
That's what being rich is about. More money allows you to buy a nicer life, that's been true ever since one caveman was able to kill bigger animals than another caveman.

There is a point where money become unimportant. For most people that point is well before 1 BUSD. Once you pass that point only accomplishments matters.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Exactly, but what we do instead is pay people who do nothing.

They really don't. It is the envious who think so. With few outliers it is very well invested money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Then don't complain when that costs a lot of money and jobs. Uneducated Indians or Chinese can do everything an uneducated American can do but at a lower cost.

Then don't complain when there is no market for your products. But of course there are many other problems you failed to address.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
but the country has a hammer to swing in this too

I knew you would eventually come around on this too. A country with unhealthy people is very expensive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
But you have to understand that those jobs screwing things together or driving forklifts and making a career out of it are going to leave and aren't coming back.

The day you make it impossible for people to make a living by driving forklifts is the day you have signed the death warrant for that society. Everything will break down.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
You'd have to levy something like a 75% tax on the wealth of the top 1% of Americans to close the deficit, so that's pretty obviously not a revenue problem that's a spending problem.

There is a spending element and there is a revenue element. Fortunately it isn't the wealth of the 1% that generate the revenue. Something I thought you knew.


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2950 times:

We're probably both sick of parsing each other now so:

1. Just because it's their money doesn't mean its dispensation can't have a massive effect on you. Suppose you've been legitimately wronged in some way and need to sue someone- would you rather be suing a poor guy or a rich company? I don't necessarily believe in controlling how people spend their money, but I do believe that, past a certain point, I should care.

2. I'm not assuming anything about zero sums. I'm assuming things about what happens in social structures where economic equality is massive and fundamental when they persist over long periods. The people on top will tend to make more and consolidate what they have; this doesn't mean there's less to go around so much as it means that new wealth generation will benefit them before it benefits anyone else. You mentioned the "learn to fish" analogy; if learning to fish is the opportunity for success, what happens if the existing successful fishermen buy up entire ponds, where is everyone else going to get that chance? Corporations are just as good at shutting down windows to generate prosperity as governments are, if given enough leeway to do so.

3. It's not so much the American worker pricing himself out, although there is some blame to be parceled there it's more an effect of entire labor markets that hadn't previously existed. I don't think an American worker in, say, an auto construction job is a whole lot pickier than he or she was fifty years ago; it's more the massive new less-picky work forces that weren't nearly as available for the average company then. The effect is, admittedly, fairly similar, but I wouldn't attribute the cause in the way you just did.

4. A tax deduction for a therapeutic hobby allowed someone to deduct the cost of an entire horse. Anyone can use that deduction, but not anyone can use it like that. The point is, there are a lot of government programs and policies that cost the taxpayer a lot of money that benefit the rich as much as anyone else or more. We subsidize profitable companies, directly or indirectly via tax breaks, and that's money we could be addressing the deficit with too.

5. The running on offense military strategy and neoconservatism are pretty directly linked- we wouldn't be doing what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq if we hadn't decided that a full-on invasion was the best course of protecting national security. And military spending is just as discretionary as any other kind, especially since past a certain point the two become indistinguishable. Yes, the politicking surrounding Lockheed Martin's latest contract or what have you is for national security, but it creates almost identical structural problems to those created by any large corporate entity or government spending program.

6. Obviously there's no way to raise revenue and reduce the expenditure on government programs at the same time, that's just crazy talk. Although speaking of crazy talk, I don't think serious reform of the most expensive and popular programs, Social Security and Medicare, is politically possible without a unabashed and honest compromise owing to the current structure of the two-party system, but that's a subject for another thread. Welfare for the poor that people like to decry as being a handout isn't nearly as big a component of the budget (at least I don't think it is. And the Social Security and Medicare expenditures as of this moment owe a lot to demographics rather than any notion of redistribution.)

7. The point I was making about Verizon is that a government is much more than a service provider and for a variety of reasons a government viewed exclusively as such would have a hard time prosecuting massive global conflicts. We may have railed against government coercion and economic planning in the Cold War, but we didn't win it because we rejected entire concepts of what government should do.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 89, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
No, I think they are related to much more complicated reasons than taxes.

There are other reasons too, but when people say "if you don't like it, move" the answer is that some things already are.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
You will need to break every principle you display here to be successful. I don't think you will be able to keep that up for any length of time. Of course just my opinion and I will be happy for you if I'm wrong.

I can play nice. It's like going to the dentist, but I can pull it off.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
There is a point where money become unimportant. For most people that point is well before 1 BUSD.

That's wonderful, but it isn't up to the government to decide where that point is.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
A country with unhealthy people is very expensive.

I'm more than happy to take responsibility for my health, but there are too many inputs that affect it to be responsible for others. I don't want to be on the hook to pay for the guy who eats four tacos for lunch and doesn't exercise.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
The day you make it impossible for people to make a living by driving forklifts is the day you have signed the death warrant for that society. Everything will break down.

In a competitive world economy Americans won't be willing to do things cheaper so they'll have to do them better. But how do you manufacture mundane consumer products better? How can Americans make better staplers than the Chinese? The growth has to come from the top end, and that will take education while costs will have to be kept in check. What's going to happen if foreign workers are both cheaper and better educated?

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
Fortunately it isn't the wealth of the 1% that generate the revenue. Something I thought you knew.

I'm just pointing out the scale of the issue and how big social programs have become. This isn't a matter of taking a few bucks more out of everyone's paychecks.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
Then don't complain when there is no market for your products.

That's the bridge where America can take advantage of offshoring while we educate younger generations of workers. Even if US tax rates evaporated there would still be investments and jobs headed overseas simply because there are literally billions of people who want all the things we already have. If they are all getting jobs to afford such things, we should be getting fat selling them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 90, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2934 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 88):
Suppose you've been legitimately wronged in some way and need to sue someone- would you rather be suing a poor guy or a rich company?

The rich company, without a doubt. Number one rule is that there's no point suing someone who can't pay you anything. The rich company, on the other hand, can pay you a life changing sum of money and not think twice.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 88):
I'm not assuming anything about zero sums. I'm assuming things about what happens in social structures where economic equality is massive and fundamental when they persist over long periods. The people on top will tend to make more and consolidate what they have; this doesn't mean there's less to go around so much as it means that new wealth generation will benefit them before it benefits anyone else.

It's an inherent assumption of welfare and wealth redistribution proponents. It rests on the notion that someone else having something means I cannot have the same, which just isn't true. Wealth generation is the same: just because a billionaire generates some amount of wealth does not inhibit my ability to generate wealth as well.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 88):
You mentioned the "learn to fish" analogy; if learning to fish is the opportunity for success, what happens if the existing successful fishermen buy up entire ponds, where is everyone else going to get that chance?

First, most of the successful fishermen will have to hire people to man their boats. Secondly, the amount of ponds available is not finite. After all, we've seen whole new segments of the economy appear in the last several decades that didn't exist before. And lastly, there are anti-trust laws to protect against blatantly anti-competitive practices.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 88):
A tax deduction for a therapeutic hobby allowed someone to deduct the cost of an entire horse.

They only get to deduct against the income the horse makes.

For example, I spend $1000 on new golf clubs and then win an amateur golf tournament with a purse of $2000. I can write deduct the cost of the clubs from my winnings when I do the taxes. Obviously if I spend more on my hobby than I make, I can write off all of my winnings.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 88):
5. The running on offense military strategy and neoconservatism are pretty directly linked-

Not really. When it comes to going on the offensive against terrorists, it likely won't require the invasion of whole countries. Afghanistan was something of a special case, and such actions will probably be far less likely in the future. Talk about things like "nation building" and "spreading democracy" comes straight from the Neocon/liberal playbook and doesn't have a lot to do with fighting terrorism.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 88):
(at least I don't think it is. And the Social Security and Medicare expenditures as of this moment owe a lot to demographics rather than any notion of redistribution.)

Social Security was just a bad idea from the start, basically being a big Ponzi scheme. When your pyramid turns into a diamond you're going to have problems.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 91, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
There are other reasons too, but when people say "if you don't like it, move" the answer is that some things already are.

Hardly ever because of taxes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
I can play nice. It's like going to the dentist, but I can pull it off.

If you think it is comparable to going to the dentist, then you're not ready.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
That's wonderful, but it isn't up to the government to decide where that point is.

And they don't, so you're objecting with a non issue.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
I'm more than happy to take responsibility for my health, but there are too many inputs that affect it to be responsible for others. I don't want to be on the hook to pay for the guy who eats four tacos for lunch and doesn't exercise.

Health is something where we only have limited control. The example you use isn't representative, as unfortunately most of your examples. Most people will have one or more serious medical events. The question is how serious. We are better pooling that risk. we don't need private companies adding cost of profit and exclusion clauses meaning they don't cover what is really needed. If you only pay the coverage without using it or only using very small amounts of the coverage thank your lucky star.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
But how do you manufacture mundane consumer products better?

Automation and less scrap.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
What's going to happen if foreign workers are both cheaper and better educated?

There are many more elements but the end of it is that we collapse. Not an outcome you want, is it? Better make sure we don't get dragged down by having uneducated and unavailable workforce without buying power.

Fortunately for us we are helped by costs rising quickly in what is/has been considered low cost areas. Often the advantages they hold are in better logistics and availability of resources instead of cheap production costs. Areas where we can compete, if we want to, and don't handicap ourselves by refusing to let government be part of the total equation.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
I'm just pointing out the scale of the issue and how big social programs have become. This isn't a matter of taking a few bucks more out of everyone's paychecks.

No it isn't. You're consistently selecting provocative outliers as examples while ignoring the total.

Social programs by themselves are cheaper than the alternatives. That doesn't mean that there are no problems inside those programs. It means we must correct those problems instead of scrapping them and thus take on higher costs.

We certainly need to be smarter about how we spend money but the solution is to spend smart, not to stop spending. Focus on spend must be on what will generate future revenue and reduce future costs. There really is no advantage in saving one dollar today if it means we pay 4 tomorrow.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
That's the bridge where America can take advantage of offshoring while we educate younger generations of workers.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
Even if US tax rates evaporated there would still be investments and jobs headed overseas simply because there are literally billions of people who want all the things we already have.

You need to understand that tax rates is just about the last thing considered when deciding where to set-up shop. You also need to understand that just because there are billions of people who want something doesn't mean there are billions of customers for it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
If they are all getting jobs to afford such things

I.e. they need to be paid enough to be able to afford it. Just as people here must be paid enough.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
we should be getting fat selling them

If we make sure we don't save so much we can't produce anything

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
It rests on the notion that someone else having something means I cannot have the same

No it doesn't. This is how objectors try to demonize it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
Social Security was just a bad idea from the start, basically being a big Ponzi scheme

Then just about every form of insurance plan, retirement plan and fond is a Ponzi scheme.


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
And lastly, there are anti-trust laws to protect against blatantly anti-competitive practices.

This is my bugbear. The more leeway you give to corporations and wealthy stakeholders, the less likely these laws are to hold. They work now, but the fact is government right now really is large and has the resources to investigate and prove such claims when required. The less power you give it to collect revenue and regulate, the less able it will be to police these laws properly.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):

It's an inherent assumption of welfare and wealth redistribution proponents. It rests on the notion that someone else having something means I cannot have the same, which just isn't true. Wealth generation is the same: just because a billionaire generates some amount of wealth does not inhibit my ability to generate wealth as well.

I just said that this wasn't the assumption I was working off of, and gave explicit reasoning for why. I'm assuming, just as you are, that when people have the chance to grab some money that they will generally take it.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 93, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
If you think it is comparable to going to the dentist, then you're not ready.

I find not being in charge to generally be an annoyance.

Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
We are better pooling that risk.

Sure but I want to be able to choose the risk pool I'm in. I don't want to be forced to pay for people who live irresponsibly and eat, drink, or smoke themselves to an expensive death. I don't want to say they can't do that because it's too expensive, but I don't want to pay for it either.

Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
Automation and less scrap.

That hasn't kept jobs from going offshore yet. And to some degree automation just means that nobody has jobs. The jobs that remain, maintaining machinery and such, are likely to be higher paying, but it's still a factory using machines to do jobs that used to be done by people.

Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
There are many more elements but the end of it is that we collapse. Not an outcome you want, is it?

Nope, which is why government money needs to be invested in education rather than handouts. Give an uneducated guy a check and chances are next week he'll still be uneducated. People should be given the tools to succeed, but the responsibility for success has to be on them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
There really is no advantage in saving one dollar today if it means we pay 4 tomorrow.

You could spend that dollar on welfare, in which case the recipient is probably going to need another dollar next week, or you could spend it on education and put that person in a position to earn two dollars later on.

Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
You also need to understand that just because there are billions of people who want something doesn't mean there are billions of customers for it.

No, but a pretty good portion of those billions are making it to the point where they can buy those things. Cars are being sold to people who before only had a motorcycle (if that) and airlines are catering to passengers who used to take a bus. If even a fraction of those people get good enough jobs to upgrade, there is a huge opportunity.

Quoting cmf (Reply 91):
No it doesn't. This is how objectors try to demonize it.
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 92):
I'm assuming, just as you are, that when people have the chance to grab some money that they will generally take it.

If a millionaire making money doesn't inhibit my chances of grabbing money, why do I need to have some of theirs?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13754 posts, RR: 61
Reply 94, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2891 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pvjin (Reply 77):
Over 50% of US military is totally useless waste of money.

That so? Well, can you actually back up that claim up with credible, factual data, or is this merely more of your useless hyperbole?   



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2890 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 94):
That so? Well, can you actually back up that claim up with credible, factual data, or is this merely more of your useless hyperbole?   

No, just the fact that during last 50 years nobody has tried to invade United States and also the fact that regular army can't effectively fight against terrorism.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
Yeah, defending Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was such a mistake.

Sooner or later at least in case of Saudi Arabia it will be, who knows when it gets a revolution and gets Iranian style government.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
Governments should get their hands off of taxes collected for social programs and let the people who actually possess the money decide how much it's worth to them.

In here Finland majority of the people support this kind of system that we have here. If someone doesn't like it then he/she is free to move elsewhere.

Anyway, have you ever thought about costs of prisons, police forces, guards and other stuff needed to keep criminality and violence caused by lack of social programs?

In the end social programs are cheaper for the society.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13754 posts, RR: 61
Reply 97, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2878 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pvjin (Reply 95):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 94):That so? Well, can you actually back up that claim up with credible, factual data, or is this merely more of your useless hyperbole?

No, just the fact that during last 50 years nobody has tried to invade United States and also the fact that regular army can't effectively fight against terrorism.


Okay, so it's merely more of your useless hyperbole then - got it. Just wanted to fact-check you to ensure your complete and utter lack of credibility remains flawless. Thanks for confirming it.

No one has invaded Russia, Great Britain, France, or even your own beloved Finland for the last 50 years; certainly none of them are capable of effectively fighting terrorism either, as terrorists generally don't have defined bases of operation to target or fight under any conventional rules of warfare.

Are over 50% of each of those nations' military budgets comprised of "completely useless wastes of money" as well?

[Edited 2012-10-08 00:38:45]


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 98, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 95):
No, just the fact that during last 50 years nobody has tried to invade United States and also the fact that regular army can't effectively fight against terrorism.

That's exactly the point: we now must maintain not only the conventional war fighting force but also drastically expand the capabilities of the military, law enforcement, and intelligence community in order to fight terrorism proactively on a worldwide scale.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 96):
Sooner or later at least in case of Saudi Arabia it will be, who knows when it gets a revolution and gets Iranian style government.

I'm sure all the Saudis would have enjoyed life under Saddam.  
Quoting pvjin (Reply 96):
Anyway, have you ever thought about costs of prisons, police forces, guards and other stuff needed to keep criminality and violence caused by lack of social programs?

Yes, and I think poor people should be incredibly insulted that you and others believe that the only thing between them and a life of crime is essentially bribery. Those people should be offered an education so that they can support themselves rather than being handed welfare checks.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 99, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
find not being in charge to generally be an annoyance.

Better get used to it because if you want to build something that is worth a billion USD you will need to trust people a lot more than you need to trust a dentist.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
ure but I want to be able to choose the risk pool I'm in. I don't want to be forced to pay for people who live irresponsibly and eat, drink, or smoke themselves to an expensive death. I don't want to say they can't do that because it's too expensive, but I don't want to pay for it either.

You want to eat the cake and keep it too. You get annoyed just by not being in charge. A recipe for high blood pressure and all the risks and costs associated with it. You should be happy to find a pool accepting you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
That hasn't kept jobs from going offshore yet. And to some degree automation just means that nobody has jobs. The jobs that remain, maintaining machinery and such, are likely to be higher paying, but it's still a factory using machines to do jobs that used to be done by people.

Not at all. It means higher productivity. It does however require that there is demand for the additional production made available.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
ope, which is why government money needs to be invested in education rather than handouts. Give an uneducated guy a check and chances are next week he'll still be uneducated. People should be given the tools to succeed, but the responsibility for success has to be on them.

Government money needs to be spent on what makes society better. Education is very important, health is very important, low crime is very important, overhead costs must be kept down.

That is why we need welfare, to make sure that what is one welfare dollar doesn't become several other dollars.

We are not taking away their responsibility for success. No-one wants to live under the most basic circumstances welfare provide. Visit the areas where the people you label welfare queens tend to live. You will find many are working several jobs and those without jobs want nothing more than to get one. You will find that the queen you claim to be sitting eating chips and drinking beer is doing nothing but. She is spending hours turning every dollar into the most to just stay alive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
No, but a pretty good portion of those billions are making it to the point where they can buy those things. Cars are being sold to people who before only had a motorcycle (if that) and airlines are catering to passengers who used to take a bus. If even a fraction of those people get good enough jobs to upgrade, there is a huge opportunity.

There are huge opportunities but only if they earn enough money and thus they are not as competitive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
If a millionaire making money doesn't inhibit my chances of grabbing money, why do I need to have some of theirs?

You don't need some of theirs. That connection is something only you make. Just make sure everyone, including the millionaires, pay their share of society and we will all be fine. If we can get employers to cover actual costs of the workforce they use, instead of relying on society handouts to cover the rest, then we can also reduce the welfare costs.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 97):
No one has invaded Russia, Great Britain, France, or even your own beloved Finland for the last 50 years;

But all of them have made deeper cuts in military spend.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 97):
certainly none of them are capable of effectively fighting terrorism either, as terrorists generally don't have defined bases of operation to target or fight under any conventional rules of warfare.

Aren't they? They certainly are not sending the military all over the world, except to support someone, but seems to be doing quite well anyway.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Yes, and I think poor people should be incredibly insulted that you and others believe that the only thing between them and a life of crime is essentially bribery. Those people should be offered an education so that they can support themselves rather than being handed welfare checks.

I am sure they are very insulted by you suggesting the differnce between a welfare check and not is just education.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10934 posts, RR: 37
Reply 100, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2859 times:

I had no idea Obama had raised so much campaign money.

Barack Obama: The $1 Billion Candidate

With his latest fundraising haul, Barack Obama will almost certainly set a new campaign finance milestone, becoming America's first $1 billion candidate.
...
That sum pushes the overall fundraising total for Obama's reelection machine—his campaign and the Democratic affiliates backing him—well past $900 million. Even a modest fundraising month in October means Obama and the Democrats will reach the $1 billion mark.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...bama-billion-fundraising-september

Now comes my question. Is B.O. allowed to use some of that money on himself proper (and family)... i.e. spending it on upscale restaurants, clothing, and whatever else he wishes that "could' apply to his re-election campaign?

Does he have to pay the cost of using the presidential airplanes for his campaign needs out of his campaign funds?

(the same question applies to Mitt Romney of course...)

 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2824 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
That's exactly the point: we now must maintain not only the conventional war fighting force but also drastically expand the capabilities of the military, law enforcement, and intelligence community in order to fight terrorism proactively on a worldwide scale.

You need just more special force troops, UAV's and others. Iraq and Afghanistan have already proven that invading a country does not solve anything.

That's why I think currently US military has way too many troops and equipment meant for normal war, not fighting against terrorism.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Yes, and I think poor people should be incredibly insulted that you and others believe that the only thing between them and a life of crime is essentially bribery. Those people should be offered an education so that they can support themselves rather than being handed welfare checks.

We offer them completely free education too and only few of those who have no job and are currently living with welfare actually want to do so, most of them just can't find a job that would match their education, and forcing them to do some extremely small salary jobs isn't humane option.

Actually even children of millionaires get completely free education here, we have barely any private schools here as public school system is so good.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 102, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2822 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 101):
We offer them completely free education too and only few of those who have no job and are currently living with welfare actually want to do so, most of them just can't find a job that would match their education, and forcing them to do some extremely small salary jobs isn't humane option.

Actually even children of millionaires get completely free education here, we have barely any private schools here as public school system is so good.

The problem is that as I tried to to find out in a separate thread, Americans pay more or less the same tax burden as us ''evil socialist'' Europeans do. Their taxes are just squandered on things no European would be willing to spend money for. That is okay because it is their money. It is just ridiculous when the right in the USA tries to make it look like the Democrats want to give free handouts and encourage people to be lazy, while the Republicans support and reward success.

If you look at true success in the USA, you will realize that barely any of that is the fruit of hard labor but what a huge rule luck played in it. If you look at Europe's ''monetary elite'', you'll realize that it's more or less the same.

If you look at European or Asian innovations and products, you will realize that they are in no way, shape or form inferior to American products. In many instances they're much superior, actually.

But Americans are kept to believe that a more socially just tax system would not create a fairer country, with less crime, and more productive people but that it'd incentivize people to be lazy and unwilling to take risks. Completely regardless of what empirical evidence suggests.

Yet, they ironically pay more or less the same taxes as us Europeans as it is anyway so even under a more Euro-styled fiscal spending behavior, they wouldn't have to spend more. They'd just have to spend it differently. The macroeconomic as well as social effects of a ''more just'' tax system are evident, the benefits of an overblown military budget only to those who realize that it's a huge job creation program.

We can discuss with this type American all day long and we will never find common ground. They look at life differently. They believe that Democrats want to borrow money, give free handouts and make people lazy and less productive. Republicans on the other hand provide people with equal opportunities and everybody has a chance to ''make it''. That hardly any of them ever does, and that they are the dog in the trunk of the car that keeps thinking ''tomorrow, he'll let me drive'' doesn't matter as long as you have the fantasy to hold on to that one day it'll be your turn. The logical inference that everybody who isn't rich is consequentially stupid, uneducated, lazy and useless is graciously overlooked as well.

John Steinbeck, a famous Californian writer, put it so aptly: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 103, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

Quoting something (Reply 102):
Their taxes are just squandered on things no European would be willing to spend money for.

Which things are you talking about here?


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6166 posts, RR: 29
Reply 104, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting something (Reply 83):
Terrorism is a reaction to the USA. It didn't exist first.

Really? So when the IRA was bombing railroad stations in England that was the USA's Fault. How about when those terrorists captured that school in Russia, was that the USA's fault too? When the poison gas was released in the subway in Japan, how was that the fault on the USA? The railroad bombing in Spain must be our fault too?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 100):
I had no idea Obama had raised so much campaign money.

Barack Obama: The $1 Billion Candidate

He sure rakes in the bucks and some people still think he doesn't get enough support against the "rich Republicans". A few months ago he was at a $75,000 a plate fundraiser in metro Detroit. I doubt there were any rich Republicans to be seen at that event. There are plenty of rich democrats too and Obama gets their money.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 104):
Really? So when the IRA was bombing railroad stations in England that was the USA's Fault. How about when those terrorists captured that school in Russia, was that the USA's fault too? When the poison gas was released in the subway in Japan, how was that the fault on the USA? The railroad bombing in Spain must be our fault too?

Yeah terrorism has existed through the history of course, however terrorism against United States and its allies (other than some local conflicts such as the one in Northern Ireland) is mainly result from actions of United States during last 50 years in Middle East.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 106, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
You get annoyed just by not being in charge. A recipe for high blood pressure and all the risks and costs associated with it. You should be happy to find a pool accepting you.

If I end up with high blood pressure, etc. I'll just have to pay a bit more in insurance and medical costs. It wouldn't be fair to throw the costs on everyone else because I have a high stress lifestyle, just like it isn't fair to throw the costs of food addiction or alcoholism on everyone.

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
Visit the areas where the people you label welfare queens tend to live. You will find many are working several jobs and those without jobs want nothing more than to get one.

You have to look at why those people have to do that. It's because they cannot do anything else. People can't drop out of school or have no marketable skills and then be surprised when they end up working crappy paying jobs their whole lives while expecting the government to close the gap. I'm not saying everyone needs a Ph.D but there is a reason why we refer to "minimum wage jobs" and not "minimum wage careers."

Quoting pvjin (Reply 101):
You need just more special force troops, UAV's and others. Iraq and Afghanistan have already proven that invading a country does not solve anything.

Do you think that all of that is going to be free? Do you think that all of the equipment and manpower for conventional wars can just be crated up and saved for a rainy day without needing updates, maintenance, and training? Do you think that a lot of stuff isn't a bit worn out after ten years of war?

Quoting something (Reply 102):
It is just ridiculous when the right in the USA tries to make it look like the Democrats want to give free handouts and encourage people to be lazy, while the Republicans support and reward success.

Liberals want to take all of their moneywasting programs and make them bigger.

Quoting something (Reply 102):
If you look at true success in the USA, you will realize that barely any of that is the fruit of hard labor but what a huge rule luck played in it. If you look at Europe's ''monetary elite'', you'll realize that it's more or less the same.

None of that means that the wealthy have any responsibility to take care of the rest of us.

Quoting something (Reply 102):
But Americans are kept to believe that a more socially just tax system would not create a fairer country, with less crime, and more productive people but that it'd incentivize people to be lazy and unwilling to take risks. Completely regardless of what empirical evidence suggests.

Where's France's Silicon Valley? Were the Italians spearheading the digital revolution?

Quoting something (Reply 102):
They believe that Democrats want to borrow money, give free handouts and make people lazy and less productive.

An even bigger issue is that they seem to believe in protectionism while vilifying outsourcing and eschewing competition.

Quoting something (Reply 102):
John Steinbeck, a famous Californian writer, put it so aptly: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

And that's the way it should be. As I've said before, there is no higher virtue than ambition.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2723 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
If I end up with high blood pressure, etc. I'll just have to pay a bit more in insurance and medical costs.

No, no, no. With high blood pressure you have an expensive condition so they will not take you. SOOL

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
You have to look at why those people have to do that.

Because they are made to work at absolute minimum. Just more than they can say to and not enough to give them a break. It is abuse by the employeers.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
there is a reason why we refer to "minimum wage jobs" and not "minimum wage careers."

This certainly isn't it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
None of that means that the wealthy have any responsibility to take care of the rest of us.

So stop asking for welfare checks for the rich.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
there is no higher virtue than ambition.

Very few agree with you.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2702 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
Do you think that all of that is going to be free? Do you think that all of the equipment and manpower for conventional wars can just be crated up and saved for a rainy day without needing updates, maintenance, and training? Do you think that a lot of stuff isn't a bit worn out after ten years of war?

Just hide all that stuff to warehouses, as long as there is no water or other stuff it all will stay just like new.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 109, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2704 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
No, no, no. With high blood pressure you have an expensive condition so they will not take you.

At which point I either become healthier or pay the costs. It's not fair to tell others what they can and cannot eat, but it's also not fair that everyone else should have to pay for the costs incurred by eating unhealthy foods. Same for smoking, drinking, stress, etc.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Because they are made to work at absolute minimum.

You have to consider why those people have minimum wage jobs: they aren't qualified for anything else. Now I'll concede that for the current workforce this isn't just lack of work ethic and circumstances play a role since some schools do a very poor job educating students. I know because I went to one.

I'd rather throw that welfare money at the schools to take away that excuse. The system needs to be improved so that even a student from the worst ghetto in the country can be educated well enough to get any job they want to do. However, that will not solve the case of people who simply don't want to. That can't come from anywhere but the individual.

Beyond that, increasing minimum wage is far from a magic bullet. Some people will get a raise and some people will get fired. If it's going to cost that much more to hire or retain an employee, managers are going to find ways to make do with fewer people. Not to mention that the extra cost is going to have to come from somewhere, which is probably going to end up as higher prices.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Very few agree with you.

And that's a big part of the problem that no government program can solve.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 110, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2699 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 109):
And that's a big part of the problem that no government program can solve.

That is where we got it right.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 111, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 108):
ust hide all that stuff to warehouses, as long as there is no water or other stuff it all will stay just like new.

It doesn't work that way anymore for a lot of reasons.

First, systems are now more sophisticated and development cycles are far longer than in the past. The P-51 was designed in about 100 days. Even during a total wartime effort there is no way you could pull something like that off today. If the military waits until they need something, it's too late.

Secondly, equipment has to constantly be tested and upgraded. Potential enemies will be catching up while our stuff is gathering dust. Same with training.

Third, crises and situations that may require a military response arise and develop more quickly than in the past. It won't be like the lead up to WWI and WWII where we had months and years to develop equipment, produce it in sufficient quantity, and then pluck boys from farms across America to teach them how to fight and maintain their equipment. Even with the lead up to WWII where America had a significant amount of time to prepare before actually entering the war, America was still under equipped in the early part of the war.

The US instituted a draft in September of 1940, so about 15 months before actually entering the war with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Contrast that to the entire Gulf War, which lasted about seven months from the invasion of Kuwait through the cease fire. You'd be hard pressed to get equipment out of storage and on a ship to a war zone in that amount of time, let alone find and train people to use it. Things just happen too fast these days to allow for a lull in capability and preparedness like between WWI and WWII and to a lesser extent between Vietnam and the Gulf War.

Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
That is where we got it right.

If you keep giving ladders to someone who doesn't want to climb you're eventually going to run out of ladders.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 109):
At which point I either become healthier or pay the costs. It's not fair to tell others what they can and cannot eat, but it's also not fair that everyone else should have to pay for the costs incurred by eating unhealthy foods. Same for smoking, drinking, stress, etc.

I'm aware you're young and attempting to justify your opinions, but as you get older you'll begin to unravel your share of health problems. Yes, poor lifestyle choices affect one's health, but most health problems are derivatives of hereditariness. I take care of myself (I never saw a doctor between age 13 & 26), but high blood pressure has long run in my family. I just can't get "healthy."

Here's a suggestion: go to a hospital and tell all the cancer patients, people with M.S., innocent victims of accidents, etc. to "get healthy" or pay the price.  

[Edited 2012-10-08 14:33:43]


Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 113, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2662 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 111):
If you keep giving ladders to someone who doesn't want to climb you're eventually going to run out of ladders.

I'm sorry to hear you're having another heart attack. You really should have slowed down after that first bypass and insurance would not have dropped you. Pity it happened just the day before you got the next attack and needed that second bypass that made you penniless.

But don't you worry. We will get to you as soon as we find someone to donate fuel for the truck. Pity that trust you set-up is only able to donate ladders. Not everything is bad. If we can find fuel in the next hour I have a doctor who is prepared to take on your case. Apparently there wasn't enough sick kids and elderly and he really want to do some charity work so even though he was looking for a cute kid he will take you on this time, if we can get some fuel.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 114, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 112):
I'm aware you're young and attempting to justify your opinions, but as you get older you'll begin to unravel your share of health problems.

Which is exactly why I wouldn't make the ultimate bet and go without insurance. Other people may disagree and want to do something different.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 115, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

BMI, I'm interested in your thoughts on this idea...

I agree that education is key, but there is plenty of work that doesn't require a ton of skill or education, but it's still valid, honorable work that needs to get done - AND THERE ALWAYS WILL BE. The person who brings you your food in a restaurant, or does the dishes. The person who cleans the crappers in your office building or at the rest stops. The person who harvests melons. The person who stocks the shelves at COSTCO or tells you where the hell the toilet flappers are at Lowes. You get the idea.

In the past a lot of these jobs were done by High School kids, young people on a 'temporary' basis, or immigrants (legal or otherwise) but the country's demographics are changing and reality is that these functions are being performed on a long-term basis, as a 'career' of sorts.

It seems to me that the logical result of your "Government is only a service provider and the concept of society is irrelevant" line of thinking is a subclass of people doing unskilled work but not able to meet their basic needs, simply because they're inevitably replaceable and their skill sets are not valued in the labor marketplace. Living in shantytowns, dying early from preventable diseases, having kids that don't have enough to eat or succeed in school etc. I don't think the framers of the Constitution necessarily envisioned this scenario, since an honest man could hire on to a farm, live in a barn and scratch out a living back in 1776. Farmers and craftsmen back then, not factories and service industries.

I agree that people who do these jobs are not entitled to the same quality of life that the doctor who went to medical school gets, the teacher who got their Master's Degree gets, the guy who owns a small business gets etc. But I can't help thinking that it would be in everybody's best interest (including successful people's) that these people - working fifty or so hours a week - be able to put a reasonably safe roof over their heads and get regular medical checkups, and raise a healthy kid or two who are fed and clothed and sent to school, so that they can buy the goods and services that drive the economy, qualify to serve in the military etc.

Even if it means some Government assistance is involved? Just speaking for myself, I'm willing to pay back some of my hard earned cash to avoid that scenario. Not out of guilt or some kind of morality thing, but simply as an investment in the future...somebody will be emptying my bedpan after all and I'd prefer that they be reasonably healthy and well nourished. But I definitely agree with more accountability and (absent a genuine disability) tying benefits to work. Until every street in this country is swept and every weed pulled I don't want able-bodied people sitting at home and collecting a check.


User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 115):
I agree that education is key, but there is plenty of work that doesn't require a ton of skill or education, but it's still valid, honorable work that needs to get done - AND THERE ALWAYS WILL BE. The person who brings you your food in a restaurant, or does the dishes. The person who cleans the crappers in your office building or at the rest stops. The person who harvests melons. The person who stocks the shelves at COSTCO or tells you where the hell the toilet flappers are at Lowes. You get the idea.

The overwhelming of majority of USA citizens do not possess a college education. Nor do the overwhelming majority of jobs within the USA require a college education (albeit many require either formal or informal vocational training).

Into the 1980s, people working low-skilled jobs received low -- but so-called living -- wages. Since then, executive pay has soared (~ up from 30x the average worker's pay to more than 300x) whereas low-skilled wages have held flat. Oodles of senior, houtly full-time Walmart employees barely make $20,000/year (with no benefits). Since it's difficult to live, or raise a family off 20K, it's unsurprising most of these Walmart employees turn to the government for assistance. Meanwhile, the Waltons pilfer billions. Next up: Walmart's working hard to import low-cost Chinese apples, thereby eliminating more American jobs in Washington state whereas putting more money in Walmart's pockets. But hey, consumers will benefit as these apples go from $1.69 to $1.67 per lb. on rollback.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2647 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114):
Which is exactly why I wouldn't make the ultimate bet and go without insurance. Other people may disagree and want to do something different.

You do realize how much private health insurance costs, right? And once you pay your $4,000+ annual premium, you'll likely to have spend hundreds -- and often thousands -- of dollars before the insurance pays anything. And you'll still owe a good potion of services when it does.

That is, if you can get health insurance. If you've had any health problems -- asthma, diabetes, cancer, whatever -- you'll be rejected.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 118, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2632 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 115):
I agree that education is key, but there is plenty of work that doesn't require a ton of skill or education, but it's still valid, honorable work that needs to get done - AND THERE ALWAYS WILL BE.

There will be since, after all, there is no real way to outsource things like garbage collection or roofing. Economics will likely dictate that these aren't really good jobs. Or I suppose more specifically, jobs rather than careers.

And there will be fewer jobs that can be done by relatively uneducated people and give a high quality of life. I think the days of graduating high school, getting a job at the local ball bearing factory or whatever, and doing that for fifty years while buying a house, raising a family, owning two cars that get replaced regularly, and taking a vacation each summer are probably over. There will still be factories and there will still be jobs, but it will probably take more skilled labor than in the past.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 115):
In the past a lot of these jobs were done by High School kids, young people on a 'temporary' basis, or immigrants (legal or otherwise) but the country's demographics are changing and reality is that these functions are being performed on a long-term basis, as a 'career' of sorts.

Which is why the investments need to shift towards education. People who are doing those jobs should have the opportunity to make it a temporary deal. If someone is screwing around and foregoes the chance at an education, then they might find themselves in a position of having jobs that pay poorly.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 115):
It seems to me that the logical result of your "Government is only a service provider and the concept of society is irrelevant" line of thinking is a subclass of people doing unskilled work but not able to meet their basic needs, simply because they're inevitably replaceable and their skill sets are not valued in the labor marketplace.

The existence of such a subclass isn't really a problem. You hear it all the time in the immigration debate: low wage, unskilled labor is an important part of the economy. Paying tomato pickers a middle class wage is great for tomato pickers, but not so great for people who buy tomatoes.

The key is giving people the opportunity to leave that subclass with enough effort. As long as a kid whose parents might have a criminal record, maybe were dropouts, never learned marketable skills, and spend their whole lives working minimum wage jobs can have the ability to go to school, college, graduate school, etc. if they prove themselves, then the system is working.

Honestly, my thinking is pretty simple: the future is going to be owned by smart people. My solution is simple too: be one of the smart people. I guarantee that every one of my high school classmates who just got a job or went to community college has made more money than I have. But the ceiling for such a career is lower, so as far as I'm concerned it's a bad deal.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 117):
You do realize how much private health insurance costs, right?

Plenty.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 117):
That is, if you can get health insurance. If you've had any health problems -- asthma, diabetes, cancer, whatever -- you'll be rejected.

I think there needs to be coverage for preexisting conditions. But I don't find throwing the doors open on healthcare to let it be a pure business any worse than a single payer system.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 119, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2627 times:

Great posts. They describe much of what our friend is missing. But, of course, I have to add a few comments.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 115):
But I can't help thinking that it would be in everybody's best interest (including successful people's) that these people - working fifty or so hours a week - be able to put a reasonably safe roof over their heads and get regular medical checkups, and raise a healthy kid or two who are fed and clothed and sent to school, so that they can buy the goods and services that drive the economy, qualify to serve in the military etc.

It certainly is in everyones interest.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 115):
Not out of guilt or some kind of morality thing, but simply as an investment in the future.

A small cost now to save or more likely generate positive return soon.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 115):
I don't want able-bodied people sitting at home and collecting a check.

Agree in principle but there are few caveats. There must be time to search for jobs. depending on situation training for other professions and even help for relocations should be considered.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 116):
Since then, executive pay has soared (~ up from 30x the average worker's pay to more than 300x) whereas low-skilled wages have held flat.

I don't know from where you have these numbers but they are close enough to other numbers I have seen and they truly display one of the root problems.


User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2618 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 118):
I think there needs to be coverage for preexisting conditions. But I don't find throwing the doors open on healthcare to let it be a pure business any worse than a single payer system.

Huh? Private insurances operate today as for-profit businesses. Insurances play a BIG role in dictating the type of health care one receives. If you suffer an injury in a car accident and your doctor recommends surgery, your insurance company will protest and "recommend" step-therapy, which may mean you'll spend a whole year of costly rehabilitation. Your return to work will be prolonged and you'll endure much expense, but your insurance company is hoping to save a bundle. And if your injury gradually worsens over time... too bad.

Like I said, I know you're young but one day you'll experience these things. Hopefully for your sake, it won't be anything major.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 121, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2601 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 118):
I think the days of graduating high school, getting a job at the local ball bearing factory or whatever, and doing that for fifty years while buying a house, raising a family, owning two cars that get replaced regularly, and taking a vacation each summer are probably over.

Agreed, and sure as hell not what I'm talking about. Let me clarify with an example...

You work as a manager for a company making widgets. You are doing very well, are super busy and employ all kinds of people's services. Services that don't require much skill or education to perform, but that you rely on to take care of the small stuff so that you can continue to excel at your job.

Do you think that - to the extent that they put in an honest day's work - they should be able to obtain the most basic necessities of life (food, shelter, medical care) that are moving farther out of reach of people who do those kinds of jobs? Even if, because of market forces, it means that you have to kick in a few bucks in taxes?

Maybe not...it doesn't matter practically if you are OK with this from a moral standpoint. But you do say that you are a student now, and from your posts you seem to be assuming that you'll be hired to do something relatively productive right out of school. If you're not (unfortunately for people your age in 2012 a common scenario), and you have to spend some time waiting tables or performing other menial duties for 'already successful' guys like me, would you want the government to help you out with obtaining medical care when the doctor tells you that despite your healthy lifestyle etc. you've got testicular cancer? (a 'healthy young man's disease'). The treatment of which might make it impossible for an extended period for you to interview for the great job that you trained for in college?

I'd be OK with paying taxes to help you out there, because I know that your eventual productivity would pay me back in spades later on. And I think my opinion carries some weight here since between the two of us I'm the one in the position to actually do that. In fact, I could make the case that I'm not OK with your "billionaire or die trying" philosophy because I need you around to take care of me when I'm old. (That was a joke).

But back to the example of you as the successful businessman: these unskilled workers are also the ones who buy your widgets. Your success depends on them having a few bucks in their pocket to spend on your product after they put food on the table and pay their health expenses. Does it makes sense to your long-term success to make sure that they can cover the basics so that they can buy your stuff? Worth it to you now to pay some taxes toward that end?

It's a rhetorical question...I'm just trying to illustrate that in my mind I can't work my way around the idea that the concentration of wealth and success that seems to be accelerating will eventually come back to bite us in the ass by undercutting the demand needed to keep the economic wheels turning.

And that it seems fundamentally short-sighted to banish the idea of direct government assistance to the extent that you are talking about...correct me if I'm wrong but your posts have advocated for virtually NO individual payments for food stamps, health care etc. I'm a pretty practical guy, and to me it make sense to empower the Government to collect money in taxes in order to help working people secure the basics if necessary so that overall the population can be as PRODUCTIVE as possible. The success of the United States is to some degree a team effort, otherwise we'll be like an Olympic basketball squad made up of NBA superstars that get taken to school by a bunch of no-names who actually pass the ball to each other.

Which is not the same thing as buying votes with government handouts and all the other waste that we've been talking about in this thread, I agree that has to stop.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 122, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2594 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 121):
Do you think that - to the extent that they put in an honest day's work - they should be able to obtain the most basic necessities of life (food, shelter, medical care) that are moving farther out of reach of people who do those kinds of jobs?

Wages have to be determined by market forces and I'd be bound to gain the most return for shareholders. Paying more than necessary to employees wouldn't be a breach of fiduciary responsibility, but I'd have to find a way to justify it, and if times got tough it would have to be one of the first things to get reassessed.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 121):
But you do say that you are a student now, and from your posts you seem to be assuming that you'll be hired to do something relatively productive right out of school.

Actually I graduated in May without a job. Based on everything I've heard, it's much more to do with political wrangling and uncertainty than anything I did or didn't do. Suffice to say, a lot of what the Democrats propose to do for the economy could be very damaging to me.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 121):
If you're not (unfortunately for people your age in 2012 a common scenario), and you have to spend some time waiting tables or performing other menial duties for 'already successful' guys like me, would you want the government to help you out with obtaining medical care when the doctor tells you that despite your healthy lifestyle etc.

Luckily I don't, thanks to savings, and frankly a better alternative would be more education. Healthcare is already taken care of, and I'd not be in a position to take a job that doesn't offer such benefits.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 121):
And that it seems fundamentally short-sighted to banish the idea of direct government assistance to the extent that you are talking about...correct me if I'm wrong but your posts have advocated for virtually NO individual payments for food stamps, health care etc.

There's very little productivity there. If you give a dropout welfare for a year, a year later he's still a dropout who isn't going to make much more than minimum wage.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
As I've said before, there is no higher virtue than ambition.

That's fine and all but you're not especially likely to be ambitious if you have no chance of being successful. And most of the policies you advocate don't exactly throw wide the doors of opportunity.


User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2552 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Wages have to be determined by market forces and I'd be bound to gain the most return for shareholders. Paying more than necessary to employees wouldn't be a breach of fiduciary responsibility, but I'd have to find a way to justify it, and if times got tough it would have to be one of the first things to get reassessed.

Market forces hardly determine wages. Low wages lead to high turn over at places like Target, Kroger, etc. Places like Whole Foods and Costco -- which offer high wages + benefit packages -- compete very effectively low, in part because they have low turn over rates. Even during the early 2000s, during periods of labor shortages, retailers refused to raise wages. Where I grew up, a very large grocery retailer became well-known for its lack of help (bare shelves, stock not rotated - especially in produce, etc.) and unsurprisingly, went out of business several years later.

In my area, there's a huge growing shortage of engineers, including many jobs that have been available for quite awhile. Yet wage offers have yet to increase.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13754 posts, RR: 61
Reply 125, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 116):
Since it's difficult to live, or raise a family off 20K, it's unsurprising most of these Walmart employees turn to the government for assistance. Meanwhile, the Waltons pilfer billions.

You clearly don't know what the word "pilfer" means.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 124):
Market forces hardly determine wages.

  

On the contrary, they absolutely do. Jobs are offered at a wage the employer feels is fair, based on what other employers pay for similar work, and what their budgets can justify. If they feel they aren't able to attract a talented enough pool of candidates for the job, they offer either higher wages, additional benefits, or a combination of these to entice the candidates they're looking for to apply. If those wages are outside what their budget can support, they have to ask themselves questions about their business fundamentals.

This is also one of the reasons why employers conduct exit interviews when employees resign; one of the key questions asked is, "Why are you choosing to leave?" When enough employees say, "Pay and benefits" as the reason, the employer has to make a decision of whether or not their wages and benefits are in-line with the market, and whether or not it needs to be adjusted upward to attract and retain the talent they desire. This is also why many large companies have positions like "compensation analyst."

By the same token, market forces can also drive wages downward; look at Walmart and other grocery or retail stores! At one point, grocery store cashiers and clerks commanded fairly high wages, but since the free market - in the form of consumer behavior - has screamed for lower and lower prices, retailers have cut these wages substantially in the past 20 years. Likewise, 30 years ago you would have likely purchased a TV from a salaried salesman at a department store who wore a suit and tie. Today - if you even buy it in person - it's from a 19 year old wearing a blue polo shirt making $9.50/hr. Again, market forces at work determining what wages should be.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 126, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Wages have to be determined by market forces and I'd be bound to gain the most return for shareholders. Paying more than necessary to employees wouldn't be a breach of fiduciary responsibility, but I'd have to find a way to justify it, and if times got tough it would have to be one of the first things to get reassessed.

I wasn't talking about shareholders or paying higher wages. I'm talking about selective gov't assistance so that unskilled workers who perform vital yet non-lucrative functions can achieve a reasonable minimum quality of life. You're sidestepping the entire issue that a lot of work in the modern world still requires no real skill or education, but it still needs to get done. And that the current system seems to be flattening and stretching out the bell curve more every year.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
There's very little productivity there. If you give a dropout welfare for a year, a year later he's still a dropout who isn't going to make much more than minimum wage.

This discussion is kind of frustrating because you just keep repeating these general statements without addressing the specific points that I took a lot of time to describe. What do you say to my concern about the concentration of wealth and its potential to negatively impact the market system (when nobody can afford to buy your products)? Or the assertion that the success of the 'United States as an enterprise' could be enhanced by ensuring that people doing unskilled work can achieve some minimal standard of living so that they can perform that work well, raise better kids and contribute to the overall quality of life in the US?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Actually I graduated in May without a job.

Sorry to hear that. If you measure up I'd suggest serving in the military. Then you could use the GI Bill to get your postgraduate degree and have some experience to talk about with a future employer.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 125):
At one point, grocery store cashiers and clerks commanded fairly high wages

I can tell you from personal experience that this was no longer true by 1987.

[Edited 2012-10-09 03:39:02]

User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Luckily I don't, thanks to savings, and frankly a better alternative would be more education. Healthcare is already taken care of, and I'd not be in a position to take a job that doesn't offer such benefits.

I just caught this upon re-reading your post.

So, I'm assuming you're not working currently, covered by your parents' health care policy, living at home? Did they support you financially in school also? If so, good on them for doing a great job. A testament to their hard work and correct priorities. Unfortunately that is not the case for a lot of people.

If you are living on your own means and obtained health care on your own, even better for you and even more important that a person of that caliber achieve success.

If you were an unemployed grad without help from your folks who got sick (my scenario above), I would definitely support government assistance to get you healthy and keep you alive until you could get work commensurate with your training, not because I like you but because it's a wise investment in the best interest of the country. Otherwise, why the hell have I been working so hard toward the success of the US for the past twenty years, if we're going to just piss away a potentially productive mbr of the 'team'?

Of course I would expect you to work to the extent that you were medically able.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4795 posts, RR: 3
Reply 128, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Actually I graduated in May without a job. Based on everything I've heard, it's much more to do with political wrangling and uncertainty than anything I did or didn't do. Suffice to say, a lot of what the Democrats propose to do for the economy could be very damaging to me.

I assume you graduated with the degree in Aerospace engineering? If so, I think politically with the cuts coming to Defense( that both parties agreed too during the last budget crisis) you may be on the edge of the hiring scheme. However, there will be a need for Aerospace engineers , cuts or no cuts, and if your skills are sharp enough, you will be hired. Do not forget that there will be a lot of Aerospace engineers retiring in the next 10 years as the baby boomers are hitting retirement now.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 124):
In my area, there's a huge growing shortage of engineers, including many jobs that have been available for quite awhile. Yet wage offers have yet to increase.

But where is your area,, and what are the wages. There are a lot more items that go into where Engineers are or will be, that is not based soley on wages.

Market forces very much determine wages. your example of Grocery store chains and cashier and stocket turnover is nothing compared to turnover of highly trained engineers and business people. Anyone can learn to stock in a day or run a cashier. Plus companies like Target, Wal-Mart and most grocery stores have enough experienced that stays on that they can manage the low wage high turnover positions. store like Costco, and Whole foods, run highly specialized offerings with different pricepoins, and can pay some employees a higher wage. But not all employees make that higher wage. At costco the folks that stock the aisles have to operate heavy machinery, and at Whole foods, they have people that are preparing foods as well as helping customers with specialized recipes and catering.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Actually I graduated in May without a job. Based on everything I've heard, it's much more to do with political wrangling and uncertainty than anything I did or didn't do. Suffice to say, a lot of what the Democrats propose to do for the economy could be very damaging to me.

Republicans are not going to do any magical trick to improve US economy as it's dependent from international economy and its problems.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 130, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2458 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 126):
I'm talking about selective gov't assistance so that unskilled workers who perform vital yet non-lucrative functions can achieve a reasonable minimum quality of life.

If the choice is between that and raising minimum wage, I'd raise the minimum wage even though it won't benefit everyone. Put the cost of achieving the minimum quality of life on employers without the middle man of government.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 126):
What do you say to my concern about the concentration of wealth and its potential to negatively impact the market system (when nobody can afford to buy your products)?

Truthfully, you just have to put that onto companies to offer products that succeed on the market. It would be great for everyone to have money, but shifting money from one bucket to another isn't a good solution. It's much better to genuinely create wealth.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 126):
If you measure up I'd suggest serving in the military. Then you could use the GI Bill to get your postgraduate degree and have some experience to talk about with a future employer.

Maybe if the government doubles their payscales.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 127):
So, I'm assuming you're not working currently, covered by your parents' health care policy, living at home? Did they support you financially in school also? If so, good on them for doing a great job. A testament to their hard work and correct priorities. Unfortunately that is not the case for a lot of people.

A few loans and a lot of scholarships, but my parents had quite a bit of money saved. And I didn't go to state school either, I went to a rather expensive private university. And my parents are by no means wealthy and are truthfully barely middle class. But they don't buy cars every two years and when they do it's used cars, they don't go on long vacations and I don't think my mom knows what a plasma screen is. My first job will pay me more than my dad will ever make.

The point is that it's possible now, and with a few more tweaks could become that much more accessible.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 127):
Otherwise, why the hell have I been working so hard toward the success of the US for the past twenty years, if we're going to just piss away a potentially productive mbr of the 'team'?

First of all, do you mean to imply that you find other people expendable? Is there no sense in covering the roofer because you can just find another one?

Secondly, how would I be on your "team?" I don't work for you, you don't get any benefit from me or my skills.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 129):
Republicans are not going to do any magical trick to improve US economy as it's dependent from international economy and its problems.

No there isn't, but that's okay. What isn't okay is spending a ton of money on stimulus that didn't really do anything or doing things that will make it worse, like raising taxes.

I've not seen any articles to this effect (although I haven't really looked yet) so I'll call it a rumor, but supposedly the Obama administration may be manipulating the laws regarding the sequestration cuts to avoid damage leading up to the election.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 131, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2431 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 130):
Maybe if the government doubles their payscales.

I know you are all about the benjamins etc...but show me the world's hottest married woman and I'll show you a guy who is tired of sleeping with her. Money is like that once you have some.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 130):
First of all, do you mean to imply that you find other people expendable? Is there no sense in covering the roofer because you can just find another one?

Are you kidding? Absolutely not. I'm the one here advocating that we need to make sure roofers can afford coverage, even if it means some government involvement. I was continuing the hypothetical case that I started...about you dying unnecessarily of testicular cancer because you were not making enough to afford health care, and there was no help from the Government.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 130):

Secondly, how would I be on your "team?" I don't work for you, you don't get any benefit from me or my skills.

True, you don't work for me now. But you will be working for me when I retire from the Service in a couple of years and your taxes are paying me. Just like I have been working for you for your entire lifetime, contributing to the physical security and economic prosperity of the country that you grew up and went to school in (US Coast Guard). We are very much on the same team called the United States.

[Edited 2012-10-09 18:11:31]

User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2411 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 125):
On the contrary, they absolutely do. Jobs are offered at a wage the employer feels is fair, based on what other employers pay for similar work, and what their budgets can justify.

And I'll respectfully disagree. I'll reiterate: if market forces truly determined wages, many occupations would've experienced much stronger wage growth in the late 1990s into the mid-2000s. This is especially true at the bottom, whereas companies like Walmart lead a de facto collusion by refusing to hike wages, and instead choosing to leave vacancies unfilled (which was noticeable by consumers in the form of long check-out waits, etc.) You brought up commissions. Did market forces really eliminate the need for commissions, or was it greedy managerial teams/ownership? Even today, some of the most successful & thriving furniture stores around the country are the ones that pay commissions. While I personally avoid high-pressure sales, they do pay off. Take a look at Circuit City and its decision to end commissions and fire employees making more than $10/hour... the lack of knowledgeable employees was a huge catalyst in the company's quick death.

It always astounded me at the rate high-level managerial pay increased compared to wages elsewhere within the company, despite the fact that there was no shortage of qualified applicants seizing the jobs. If market forces dictated these wages, then one would think they wouldn't be hiked until the company failed to reach an acceptable talent pool. But that doesn't happen. My dad owned a very large, successful company and preached to me while I was growing up that many people considered (high) management to be a club, and they got to decide who got let in. I use to laugh it off, but then I saw stats (some estimates say as much as 80% of high-ranking execs in F500 companies were members of a frat, etc.) and actually lived the experiences. Instead of seeing the most qualified applicants get the jobs, they went to the boyfriend of the CEO's daughter, etc. That doesn't mean they weren't capable of the work. Just not the most, and often at a premium.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 133, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 129):
Republicans are not going to do any magical trick to improve US economy as it's dependent from international economy and its problems.

The US economy is about 45% government (federal, state and local). So, it definitely matters who is in charge of that. Let's just agree that it would definitely be possible to cause the USA to totally implode if the government is managed in a very stupid or shortsighted way.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 132):
It always astounded me at the rate high-level managerial pay increased compared to wages elsewhere within the company, despite the fact that there was no shortage of qualified applicants seizing the jobs. If market forces dictated these wages, then one would think they wouldn't be hiked until the company failed to reach an acceptable talent pool.

Sigh. And this is exactly what happens. You can carve out the top 10 jobs at corporations if you really want to prove your point. For other white collar corporate jobs (there are _millions_ of such jobs), in public companies, they hire who can do the best work for the cheapest salary. Including hiring H1-B foreign workers if at all possible.

Look, I am sorry, but there is a wage market (internationally!), and blue collar labor pays about 30 bucks an hour maximum. Skilled trade work up through about 50 bucks an hour. Most white collar work also falls under these wage brackets. You need to show a track record of adding millions of dollars in value to get a salary much more than 100k, unless you are a lawyer or doctor, or can throw a football extremely far and accurately.