Redistribution of wealth

[atlcomedy]

I can't wait to hear Sr O's thoughts on D&T....

[WTF]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I can't wait to hear Sr O's thoughts on D&T....

It is a Bated Breath moment for sure!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Let me start with my premis, you two are then free to expound on it.

I think all government employee's should get ready to tighten their belts. That includes teachers and military employee's.

Feel free to add whay you might.

I was the one that asked leading questions to DFW5, so I should know WTF I was getting at. You admit that you were the one changing the topic, and, IMO, using fallacious analogies to support your argument. It was your analogies I was attacking.

Another premis of mine is that folks are hypocritical in just what government employees they want to shoulder more to help bring down the cost of government.

You and DFW5 and the Gov of WI are prime examples. The Gov exempeted police and firefighters and you two seem to want to exempt the military. Prime voters for the GOP. Nothing will be done if every side gets to exempt their pet projects. Is that so hard to understand?

I really do not care about just WTF each salary starts out at or the average. I would like to clear these two hurdles and then maybe move onto the fairness in pay but DFW5 seems to want it both ways. He claims teachers are paid based on market conditions and then makes some special exemption for the military.

I identified each of these entries you mentioned in my post above. In each case, my entry was a rebuttal to the erroneous analogies posted previously by either you or Doove. Hence my challenge: “Please show me where I turned the discussion.” And you continue to insist on comparing “apples to oranges.”

I’ve already stated that military personnel are dismissed as their contracts expire—they are not tenured like Wisconsin teachers—when the government wants to realign the budget. Did you not understand? I told you to Google for that info. and learn that the U.S. Army practiced and prepared for war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan substituting broom handles for rifles and plywood cut outs to represent tanks, etc. That was all the pacifistic, isolationist Congress would permit. Meanwhile they invested millions in welfare projects, such as having men collect and remove tumbleweeds from fence lines in Oklahoma. Of course, the consequence of cutting military preparedness was that the Japanese successfully killed thousands of out-numbered and ill-equipped young Americans in Hawaii and the Far East when they launched their imperialistic war. Dollars (tumbleweed catcher) or a human life? Dollars (college tuition for all) or a human life? Which one is more valuable? Decisions, decisions. Congress has cut the military to the bone before. No doubt, they’ll do it again. It’s inevitable and already in the works. After all, you are a constituent (with a foreign policy outlook not too unlike those who voted during the 30s), and I guess you vote. FYI, all branches are undergoing a RIF numbering tens of thousands in the next five or so years, so I don’t know why you are bitching. Fewer soldiers—more teachers (based on population increase estimates): “apples—oranges!”

On another note, the governor of Wisconsin can do what Michigan education officials are doing in Detroit: end bus service for high school students and dismiss nearly half of the teachers, bringing class size to nearly 60 students per class, in order to bring the budget into line. But I think (I am not omniscient, so I might be wrong) the Wisconsin governor is giving the teachers in Wisconsin a chance to preserve more jobs overall if the teachers, as a group, agree to make uniform sacrifices.

Let me add that you do not know what portion of my health care is paid for me nor can you tell me what portion is covered at government expense. The same holds true for those teachers in Wisconsin—you do not know what or if they are paying. I will volunteer that I am still in rather good health and rarely incur expenses higher than my annual deductible. So, as it presently stands, I typically cover 100% of my healthcare out of pocket every year. How much more would you have me pay? I further promise you that I’m far along on the downhill side of middle age and won’t use too many of your precious tax dollars before I die. But then there is the troubling matter of those young men and women (mostly age 18 to 30 years old) who have been horribly maimed and whose health expenses cost hundreds of thousands per year. BTW, teachers typically don’t have those kind of “on-the-job” health care issues. Other atypical healthcare issues incurred by service personnel include: exposure to asbestos, nerve agents, depleted uranium, etc.,—you get the drift: “apples and oranges”—but I think I mentioned that before. Now these young men and women; well, they’ll will be around for a while—well beyond my days. Sorry for the [*insert explicative of your choice*] inconvenience.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

learn that the U.S. Army practiced and prepared for war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan substituting broom handles for rifles and plywood cut outs to represent tanks, etc. That was all the pacifistic, isolationist Congress would permit. Meanwhile they invested millions in welfare projects, such as having men collect and remove tumbleweeds from fence lines in Oklahoma. Of course, the consequence of cutting military preparedness was that the Japanese successfully killed thousands of out-numbered and ill-equipped young Americans in Hawaii and the Far East when they launched their imperialistic war. Dollars (tumbleweed catcher) or a human life? Dollars (college tuition for all)) or a human life? Which one is more valuable? Decisions, decisions. Congress has cut the military to the bone before. No doubt, they’ll do it again. It’s inevitable and already in the works. After all, you are a constituent (with a foreign policy outlook not too unlike those who voted during the 30s), and I guess you vote. FYI, all branches are undergoing a RIF numbering tens of thousands in the next five or so years, so I don’t know why you are bitching. Fewer soldiers—more teachers (based on population increase estimates): “apples—oranges!”

Good God....and you do not think you turned the discussion.

Just say...soldiers are more important than teachers in your eyes.

Therefore any comparison is off limits.

You think we should spend on tanks, I think education.

If we cut back....I say we do it across the board....you appear to want to save the industrial military complex.

You admit that you were the one changing the topic, and, IMO, using fallacious analogies to support your argument. It was your analogies I was attacking.


Oh God, here we go again. Yes, I asked DFW5 about WI teachers, I then asked him what he thought about Sec GATES proposal. Whether it is a fallacious analogies is up to each person. I do not think so, you do. That should have been the end of our discussion. Now If you say soldiers are getting the shaft, I do not doubt it. Big business does not give a fuc about soldiers no more than that WI Gov gives a fuc about teachers. You do understand that all government is is a tussle between labor and big business. Big Business always wins. They will use your precious soldiers and discard them when no longer needed.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

If we cut back....I say we do it across the board....you appear to want to save the industrial military complex.

And yet when you talk about taxes?...not so much across the board stuff, huh?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

And yet when you talk about taxes?...not so much across the board stuff, huh?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I identified each of these entries you mentioned in my post above. In each case, my entry was a rebuttal to the erroneous analogies posted previously by either you or Doove.

Your only rebuttal to me in this entire thread was based on an inability on your part to correctly read the post i commented on, to which you did exactly what you accused me of doing (twisting DFW's words into something they weren't) so please stop bringing me into this.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

Your only rebuttal to me in this entire thread was based on an inability on your part to correctly read the post i commented on, to which you did exactly what you accused me of doing (twisting DFW's words into something they weren't) so please stop bringing me into this.

I read what I read. Your inability to properly express yourself is no fault of mine.

[DFW5Traveler]

Forget it IB, it's a Sol Alinsky tactic right out of Rules for Radicals. Their indoctronation is complete and they will never understand logic or reason. The best definition I've heard is that "Liberals will anger over facts whereas Conservatives anger over lies." Just share facts with them and watch them fall all overthemselves with liberal/progressive talking points as they get red in the face.

[discreetgent]

Off topic, but looks like this thread can use it lol

When Healthcare passed with no Republican votes we heard all about it. I was wondering today what has taken PJ and friends so long to let us know that the recent budget passed in the House of Representative was passed without 1 vote from the Democrats.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

And yet when you talk about taxes?...not so much across the board stuff, huh?

The subject of having teachers pay more for their health and retirement is actually about shifting taxes..to the middle class. ( I actually agree, I just thnk other government employees {such as the firemen and police,that the WI Gov exempted should pay more of their retirement too).. But if your plan is cutting regressive taxes too?

What do you wanna do cut taxes and balance the budget?

What about these folks? Should we continue to lower their tax rate?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs...americans.html

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I read what I read. Your inability to properly express yourself is no fault of mine.

Me express myself? This ain't about anything i said, it's about our interpretation of what DFW said. Maybe you can correct me by quoting the specific comment(s) from the post(s) in question that lend themselves to your interpretation. But don't hurt yourself tryin'.

I'm seeing WTF's point. You really do twist things into an almost unrecognizable knot.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

The subject of having teachers pay more for their health and retirement is actually about shifting taxes..to the middle class. ( I actually agree, I just thnk other government employees {such as the firemen and police,that the WI Gov exempted should pay more of their retirement too).. But if your plan is cutting regressive taxes too?

What do you wanna do cut taxes and balance the budget?

Sometimes WTF?!...I wonder whether you really are that dense or whether you are just that atagonistic.

I haven't proferred an opinion here on raising taxes, lowering taxes, balancing the budget, or spending like crazy. I was simply commenting on your propensity to be "fair and balanced" when you choose (i.e. wanting to cut expenses "across the board", in lieu of prioritizing), and "opinioned rule" when you choose (cut taxes for poor and middle classes...not wealthy).

So much for that bouncing ball, linier thought process of yours.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Sometimes WTF?!...I wonder whether you really are that dense or whether you are just that atagonistic.

.

Well I have read enough post of yours to relieve any wondering on my part regarding you.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I haven't proferred an opinion here on raising taxes, lowering taxes, balancing the budget, or spending like crazy..

Nor did I. I did simply ask you about doing so. Yet you twist that into me offering an opinion. Are you really that dense or do you just think the rest of us are? Maybe a combination of the two?

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I was simply commenting on your propensity to be "fair and balanced" when you choose (i.e. wanting to cut expenses "across the board", in lieu of prioritizing), and "opinioned rule" when you choose (cut taxes for poor and middle classes...not wealthy).

Lets be honest. They poor do not make enough to either cut their taxes or raise them. I am not a fan of welfare, in case you haven't heard. So that would be a lean towards raising...

The middle class are going to have to cover this deficit gap. While I may not like it, I am all for it. They will have to change the way we go about entitlements...ie raising the age of benifits and the cap on how high you tax it along with other measures, like a rise in the gas tax........

Yes I am for raising the taxes on the wealthy in the process. Especially the 400 richest. The wealth creators as some folks like to call them.


There you go a vote for raising all three.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

So much for that bouncing ball, linier thought process of yours.

Any time you want to have a fair and balanced debate on anything, let me know. You would be suprised on just how much we would agree on. There is very little we disagree on.....but I thought this forum was about tail pulling.I have been know to hold my own in that regard.

You sure started this post off with a tug. WTF are you? dense/atagonistic?double entendre there. How is that for fair and balanced?

But if you and the boys ever want to have a logic driven talk, I'd be glad to have that discussion too.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

but I thought this forum was about tail pulling.

Maybe that's been the problem. I did not.