SHaYap Posted December 10, 2016 #51 Share Posted December 10, 2016 On 12/9/2016 at 5:57 AM, blacknagus said: .... is let it happen and enjoy the Schadenfreude. Well played ... ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted December 10, 2016 #52 Share Posted December 10, 2016 3 hours ago, Agent0range said: Don't try to compare the National Guard to active duty. It is not even close to the same. You don't make a living in the National Guard..you play dress up once a month for $200 and some college. When you are active duty, it's like a regular job. You wake up, you go to work, you get weekends off. And did I say I speak for everyone? Reading comprehension is KEY, buddy. In fact, in my very first sentence I literally said MOST. So, yes, I will take my 8 years of active duty experience, and my interactions with thousands of Soldiers, and I will state my opinion. If you look at it with the POV of a 9-5 job, then there is no comparison between the Guard & Reserve and active duty. But most people don’t get into the military for a 9-5 job. They get in to serve their country. That translates into defending freedom and democracy. The job of the military is to prepare for war and when war comes, to destroy the enemy and win it. The military is being paid to be retained to sit on their butts waiting for that call. Just like fire fighters. But in the mean time, there is much to do to prepare. Plying one’s skills requires repetition to get better. From drills and exercises all the way down to the daily routine of maintaining military bearing, it’s more than just a 9-5 job. Being in the military is 24x7x365. You can be called up at any moment to be mobilized (that goes for the Guard and Reserve too). The Guard and Reserve retains that link with the Minutemen of the past and providing increased manpower that can be quickly integrated to bolster the regular ranks. Sometimes, that’s a more difficult job on the Guard and Reserves (because they had 9-5 jobs elsewhere). If you got in because it was just a job, then you got in for the wrong reasons. Getting into the military is dedicated, unselfish service to this nation. If you are in the military, you can’t allow yourself to forget that. Doesn’t matter what your role is or how long you are in or in what capacity. As fond as I am to say this, but when you give the oath, you are in for life even though you might be physically mustered out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted December 10, 2016 #53 Share Posted December 10, 2016 I don't know if they can...but geez...I hope they impede it. Otherwise, we're all ******. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted December 10, 2016 #54 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Just now, ChaosRose said: I don't know if they can...but geez...I hope they impede it. Otherwise, we're all ******. You’ve got that all backwards. We’ve been fncked for the past 8 years. Now we’re going to try to move forward, getting more closely aligned to the original concepts of the Founding Documents. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted December 10, 2016 #55 Share Posted December 10, 2016 1 minute ago, RavenHawk said: You’ve got that all backwards. We’ve been fncked for the past 8 years. Now we’re going to try to move forward, getting more closely aligned to the original concepts of the Founding Documents. Maybe you'd like there to be no minimum wage, no safety net for seniors, no consumer, worker or environmental protections...but I call that the majority of us being ******. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted December 11, 2016 #56 Share Posted December 11, 2016 1 hour ago, ChaosRose said: Maybe you'd like there to be no minimum wage, no safety net for seniors, no consumer, worker or environmental protections...but I call that the majority of us being ******. I would love that there’s no minimum wage. That is a job and business killer. The people that are purported to work for minimum wage should not be doing this line of work as a means for livelihood. These jobs are for entry level workers into the work force, i.e. teenagers or others that just want to make a little extra cash. If this is someone’s livelihood then the problem lies elsewhere. Where does this “no safety net for seniors” come from? Are you talking about getting rid of SS? That would be one archaic institution that needs to go, but the thing is, is if you’ve paid into SS, you’ll get that back provided it is still solvent by then. Can you imagine the hole we would have been in if Hilary became President? We would probably need $1 trillion to bolster both Obamacare and SS each. Where would that money come from? The consumer is still the best protection for the consumer and worker. It’s call the free market. Business lives and dies on the desires and knowledge of the consumer. What really fncks people over is when government makes its people dependent on it with social and entitlement programs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted December 11, 2016 Author #57 Share Posted December 11, 2016 20 hours ago, ChaosRose said: I don't know if they can...but geez...I hope they impede it. Otherwise, we're all ******. They should've impeded Obama's far more than they did. Look what a disaster your progressive ideology has wrought and your solution, as well as Hillary's, is more of the same? Common sense dictates no and that is why that criminal Hillary is sitting at home complaining about how everyone failed her (couldn't possibly be that witch's fault) instead of filling cabinet positions. I know how people with you political bent are, though and know that no matter what Trump does it will be labeled a failure or a fluke. I have seen it before with Reagan. Thankfully we have more than the three networks and the biased newspapers to discuss events, hence the democrat pogrom to eliminate so-called "fake news". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted December 12, 2016 #58 Share Posted December 12, 2016 On 12/11/2016 at 10:42 AM, Merc14 said: Common sense dictates no and that is why that criminal Hillary is sitting at home complaining about how everyone failed her (couldn't possibly be that witch's fault) instead of filling cabinet positions. Thankfully we have more than the three networks and the biased newspapers to discuss events, hence the democrat pogrom to eliminate so-called "fake news". Ha! I think you meant that Hillary is sitting at home struggling with the effects of her brain damage/Parkinson's. According to your thoroughly vetted news 'sources'... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2016 #59 Share Posted December 12, 2016 On 12/11/2016 at 3:45 AM, RavenHawk said: I would love that there’s no minimum wage. That is a job and business killer. The people that are purported to work for minimum wage should not be doing this line of work as a means for livelihood. These jobs are for entry level workers into the work force, i.e. teenagers or others that just want to make a little extra cash. If this is someone’s livelihood then the problem lies elsewhere. “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”President Roosevelt criticized businesses paying low wages to employees during his 1933 statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). NIRA allowed the government to regulate business to combat deflation and stimulate a better economic situation. No the minimum wage was never intended to just protect entry level jobs. Nor were companies ever supposed to be built around "entry level jobs" its those very companies whom Roosevelt was mentioning in the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted December 13, 2016 #60 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Farmer77 said: “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” Most business don’t depend for existence on paying less than a living wage. They couldn’t stay in business for long. But they can’t go beyond what the market can sustain and stay in business for long either. What happens when a business spends more on entry-level wages? It forces them to cut positions and/or hours. The bottom line must balance or the business doesn’t stay solvent. That’s why entry-level jobs don’t rate a high wage. That’s why jobs like these are not the primary job of family breadwinners. Business owners are not in business to see to the needs of their employees. It’s great when they do, but there is no requirement. If business wasn’t so desperate for these low paying jobs, I’m sure they would do a better job of screening, ensuring that only entry-level workers work those jobs. President Roosevelt criticized businesses paying low wages to employees during his 1933 statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). NIRA allowed the government to regulate business to combat deflation and stimulate a better economic situation. NIRA was shot down as being unconstitutional. This was like the center piece of FDR’s “New Deal” and it was pure Socialism. As long as we are a people ruled by the Constitution, Socialism has no place here. It will continue to struggle to take over but it never really will unless it is able to convince enough in power to do away with the Constitution. I don’t see that happening. Until it is fully exercised from the body it will continue to create pain and suffering on the people through enslavement. No the minimum wage was never intended to just protect entry level jobs. Nor were companies ever supposed to be built around "entry level jobs" its those very companies whom Roosevelt was mentioning in the above. Minimum wage was never to protect any jobs, except for the jobs of Progs. Well, what’s the latest numbers? Over 900 Progs have lost seats at all levels of government? Minimum wage is one of the reasons. There are just some companies that are mostly entry-level. Turn-around is frequent (and it should be). Bus-boy, newspaper-boy, waitressing, etc. These are not career jobs, yet this is where most people start building their work ethic. Most people move on. If you can’t move on for whatever reason, the business should not reward that behavior. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted December 13, 2016 #61 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, RavenHawk said: Farmer77 said: Most business don’t depend for existence on paying less than a living wage. They couldn’t stay in business for long. But they can’t go beyond what the market can sustain and stay in business for long either. What happens when a business spends more on entry-level wages? It forces them to cut positions and/or hours. The bottom line must balance or the business doesn’t stay solvent. That’s why entry-level jobs don’t rate a high wage. That’s why jobs like these are not the primary job of family breadwinners. Business owners are not in business to see to the needs of their employees. It’s great when they do, but there is no requirement. If business wasn’t so desperate for these low paying jobs, I’m sure they would do a better job of screening, ensuring that only entry-level workers work those jobs. NIRA was shot down as being unconstitutional. This was like the center piece of FDR’s “New Deal” and it was pure Socialism. As long as we are a people ruled by the Constitution, Socialism has no place here. It will continue to struggle to take over but it never really will unless it is able to convince enough in power to do away with the Constitution. I don’t see that happening. Until it is fully exercised from the body it will continue to create pain and suffering on the people through enslavement. Minimum wage was never to protect any jobs, except for the jobs of Progs. Well, what’s the latest numbers? Over 900 Progs have lost seats at all levels of government? Minimum wage is one of the reasons. There are just some companies that are mostly entry-level. Turn-around is frequent (and it should be). Bus-boy, newspaper-boy, waitressing, etc. These are not career jobs, yet this is where most people start building their work ethic. Most people move on. If you can’t move on for whatever reason, the business should not reward that behavior. So when you retire, you'll refuse to accept Social Security, Medicare, or any other form of government assistance that smacks of "Socialism" , you know, to sort of practice what you preach? Edited December 13, 2016 by Hammerclaw 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted December 13, 2016 Author #62 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said: So when you retire, you'll refuse to accept Social Security, Medicare, or any other form of government assistance that smacks of "Socialism" , you know, to sort of practice what you preach? Social Security isn't an entitlement if you have paid into it your entire life. I've been paying into medicare as well. Edited December 13, 2016 by Merc14 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 13, 2016 #63 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Merc14 said: Social Security isn't an entitlement if you have paid into it your entire life. I've been paying into medicare as well. Not an entitlement , but it is still has socialist aspects to it. Same with medicare. Edited December 13, 2016 by Farmer77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted December 13, 2016 #64 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said: Not an entitlement , but it is still has socialist aspects to it. Same with medicare. not really, it is a form of insurance, kinda retirement fund. people paid into it before. same with medicare, Edited December 13, 2016 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted December 13, 2016 #65 Share Posted December 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said: So when you retire, you'll refuse to accept Social Security, Medicare, or any other form of government assistance that smacks of "Socialism" , you know, to sort of practice what you preach? Why should I? I’m vested in it. I wish I wasn’t but I have no choice. The government strong-armed me and took my money. It is not quite an Entitlement but it is still a government foisted Ponzi scheme. I don’t even get back my money; I get back someone else’s (provided there is any left) as mine is given to someone else up the pyramid. In the meantime, Congress raids the fund and replaces it with IOUs that we tax payers have to pay taxes again just to repay ourselves. I would have better security with the more risky stocks in the market. The sooner it is gone the better. Now having a SS is a good idea but the government needs to be completely out of the picture. Maybe utilize the government to provide guidelines for investment bankers to secure these investments. The day government sponsored SS is gone, will be a long overdue victory for this nation. The government should have never put itself into such a position where it could take from the people and enslave them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now