Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

[scfire86]

Whatever. My points were very clear and very accurate. Your points are distorted and, as usual, implies a huge governmental conspiracy. I have nothing else to add.

George. I would continue this dialogue, but you're clearly in over your head on this one.

[Jasper 45]

Those groups you wish to incentivize or subsidize are still enjoying the benefits of being part of our society (defense, infrastructure, an educated work force et al) but you've excused them for paying for the services, hence that burden is now placed even greater upon the group without the incentive or subsidy. Hence the redistribution of wealth.

It can be argued that this is different than just outright taking money from the rich to pay the poor.
We can argue the legitimacy of welfare, food stamps, etc... till we're blue in the face from our various backgrounds, which is outright wealth redistribution.
The difference is that with welfare, money is simply given, whether a person wants to improve their situation, or stay on welfare their entire life.

Providing tax deferred incentives for companies is different in that they will provide jobs for people who will in turn pay taxes. It will have a net effect down the road that extends beyond their business. There are other companies they then buy product from to manufacture with, other to provide distribution networks, selling venues, etc... are allowed to create jobs and more tax payers.

Never mind the fact that when tax deferments aren't given, a company will move someplace that will give them.
Take the recent decision by MillerCoors to relocate their headquarters to Chicago. Miller's headquarters had been here for 150+ years, the buildings are built, the brewery exists, and the infrastructure is in place.
The city leadership here refused to offer any tax incentives for them to name the new world headquarters here. Chicago offered close to 30 million dollars worth of incentives to relocate, and they did.
The net effect is several hundred white collar jobs are gone, which are mostly six figure incomes. These people now will not buy homes in the area, or cars, or frequent restaurants, or use the airport here for business, meetings will not be here, and there will no longer be an international presence. How deeply will that affect the city/region? Who really knows?
Factor that over several companies that leave, or go out of business and it grows rather quickly.

Maybe we're talking semantics here, but in my mind there is a difference when I hear "wealth redistribution", and tax-incentives for business. In my mind, if we don't keep business here, and an economy going here, there won't be any wealth to argue for redistribution.
One promotes growth and success, and one promotes stagnation.

[ThNozzleman]

One promotes growth and success, and one promotes stagnation.

So...let hungry children starve, but continue giving billions to people who are already wealthy.
Gotcha.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

So...let hungry children starve, but continue giving billions to people who are already wealthy.
Gotcha.

Bob, do you honestly believe that one of the planks in the Republican platform is to let starving children die? You know that's not true.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

George. I would continue this dialogue, but you're clearly in over your head on this one.

You're right. I tried to debate with you using facts. I made a mistake.

[Jasper 45]

So...let hungry children starve, but continue giving billions to people who are already wealthy.
Gotcha.

No, wait. I got you ... Keep giving billions of dollars to people who look to it as their "job" to collect welfare. Meanwhile, their kids starve anyway as the parents use their welfare money to buy crack, and those who actually need some help can't get it. Great plan there, glad you made that clear.

[ThNozzleman]

No, wait. I got you ... Keep giving billions of dollars to people who look to it as their "job" to collect welfare. Meanwhile, their kids starve anyway as the parents use their welfare money to buy crack, and those who actually need some help can't get it. Great plan there, glad you made that clear.

Oh, yes...I forgot about that; of course the majority of people on welfare are crack addicts.
Got any other stupid myths you want to throw out?

[Jasper 45]

Oh, yes...I forgot about that; of course the majority of people on welfare are crack addicts.
Got any other stupid myths you want to throw out?

Sure, your post. Take a trip sometime to any major city. The strain on welfare systems and the abuse is unbelievable. The welfare system here was among the worst in the nation at waste. People flocked here from around the nation to collect free money. It was a system that promoted having children as a pay raise.

Roll your eyes all you want, call me ignorant or stupid, again, just like you always do. The facts speak for themselves, we see it everyday at work. And now, thanks to business leaving this city and this state in droves, the burden will be more and more shifted to the fewer people who live here, and pay their taxes. More and more people will be without work because business keeps leaving, and the domino effect just keeps right on rolling. More people become poor and dependent on the state for welfare, and those that pay their taxes have to pay more to pick up the difference.

Take a trip sometime, we'll be more than happy to show you people taking their welfare check into 7-11 to buy their Cheetos and other junk food. We'll show you their kids running around in dirty diapers alone, in squalor conditions, with a sixty inch plasma tv hooked up to satellite.

There is nothing wrong with giving a helping hand to those who need it. But when you sit and throw out nonsense that drives business' out of an area, that take good paying jobs with them, BS has to be called. Better than 65% of this city now lives in poverty, and more business leaves every single day because city and state leadership does nothing to keep them here. So then more people are without jobs, without money, without motivation, and they then become a drain on the system and the community. Good idea you have there!

[scfire86]

You're right. I tried to debate with you using facts. I made a mistake.

Whoaaa. Back the truck up there pardner. When did you offer any facts? You offered your opinion. Unless you have a side job buying and selling oil futures based upon decades away availability it is conjecture. Nothing more. You've yet to put forth anything empirical that substantiates your claim.

As far as redistribution of wealth. Giving exemptions or incentives to a specific group is a redistribution of wealth as it places the burden to the group not receiving that consideration. That's basic econ/finance. You can make the claim those considerations are beneficial to society as a whole but that is a seperate discussion.

Do yourself a favor. Quit while you're only a little behind.

This is what is known as a Nixon strategy. Declare victory and go home.

[ThNozzleman]

Sure, your post. Take a trip sometime to any major city. The strain on welfare systems and the abuse is unbelievable. The welfare system here was among the worst in the nation at waste. People flocked here from around the nation to collect free money. It was a system that promoted having children as a pay raise.

You don't really know much about welfare, do you? You're just spreading the same, tired old bull**** that's been around since Reagan started making it up in the 80's.

Roll your eyes all you want, call me ignorant or stupid, again, just like you always do. The facts speak for themselves, we see it everyday at work. And now, thanks to business leaving this city and this state in droves, the burden will be more and more shifted to the fewer people who live here, and pay their taxes. More and more people will be without work because business keeps leaving, and the domino effect just keeps right on rolling. More people become poor and dependent on the state for welfare, and those that pay their taxes have to pay more to pick up the difference.

The things you have said on this topic are ignorant and stupid. Any real research into the issue will quickly debunk the myths.

Take a trip sometime, we'll be more than happy to show you people taking their welfare check into 7-11 to buy their Cheetos and other junk food. We'll show you their kids running around in dirty diapers alone, in squalor conditions, with a sixty inch plasma tv hooked up to satellite.

Yes, I'm sure you've seen enough to judge everyone in the nation who is unfortunate enough to be forced to depend on welfare to survive.

There is nothing wrong with giving a helping hand to those who need it. But when you sit and throw out nonsense that drives business' out of an area, that take good paying jobs with them, BS has to be called. Better than 65% of this city now lives in poverty, and more business leaves every single day because city and state leadership does nothing to keep them here. So then more people are without jobs, without money, without motivation, and they then become a drain on the system and the community. Good idea you have there!

The exodus of American labor and decent jobs has jack crap to do with needy people receiving welfare, and you know it. Do you even know what the percentage of the budget is spent on welfare in this nation? Peddle your myths somewhere else.

[ThNozzleman]

As far as redistribution of wealth. Giving exemptions or incentives to a specific group is a redistribution of wealth as it places the burden to the group not receiving that consideration. That's basic econ/finance. You can make the claim those considerations are beneficial to society as a whole but that is a seperate discussion.

I swear, most of the righties on this forum won't be happy until America is returned to the days of the robber baron, and everyone is living on company land and shopping at the company store with company money, treated as an expendable resource instead of a human being.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506836

[Jasper 45]

You don't really know much about welfare, do you? You're just spreading the same, tired old bull**** that's been around since Reagan started making it up in the 80's.

Good grief, give me a break. Spin things however you want, and I wasn't talking about welfare on a national level. I'm talking about on a state level, isn't that how welfare is handled, and should be handled?
I know much more than you think, and it isn't the same tired old BS, as you like to put it. I never advocated eliminating it, but it does need constant reform. Any plan that is in place, without checks and balances, and reevaluations periodically, will be abused, and you know that.
I lived and worked thru W2, which is a good program that needs some adjusting, just like every other program out there.

The system was highly abused here prior to W2, and everyone knew it. Those facts speak for itself. People were flocking here in droves from around the country to take advantage, and took money out of the system for those who actually need it. Alcohol, tobacco, junk food, etc... were able to be purchased using welfare money, AFDC, along with other state programs.
People didn't even try to look for work, because they didn't need to.

The things you have said on this topic are ignorant and stupid. Any real research into the issue will quickly debunk the myths.

Yes, I'm sure you've seen enough to judge everyone in the nation who is unfortunate enough to be forced to depend on welfare to survive.

I've seen enough to know that there are extreme abuses that exist. Those abuses cost a tremendous amount of money and resources. That's money that could be spent on people who are actually in need.
The issue has been talked about and debated locally at great length, and it is a significant issue here.

All you're doing on this topic is being argumentative, again.

The exodus of American labor and decent jobs has jack crap to do with needy people receiving welfare, and you know it. Do you even know what the percentage of the budget is spent on welfare in this nation? Peddle your myths somewhere else.

It has everything to do with it. Companies leave, and so do their jobs. Close to 40% of this city lives on some sort of welfare.
If you keep people from abusing the system, more money can be spent on helping them to get jobs, learn a new trade, or become educated.

Not that it matters, but TANF has about 25 billion dollars available to it. It isn't about total dollars, it's about the quality of the program., and you know it.

[txgp17]

You mean the same Blackwater who is quitting the "security" business as a result of the murderous rampages and underhanded activities (along with other "contractors" who bilked the taxpayers out of billions) in which its personnel took part while in Iraq?

Blackwater did more with less. The killing of civilians was no more prevalent there than in the DoD operations. I'm not saying it's right, but when wars happen, people die, it's an unavoidable fact, and no one should act surprised when it happens. The problem is that the liberal press wants to make out every Blackwater operator to be a soulless profiteering mercenary, which isn't true.

This took a two second Google search.

Do you think I didn't try one?
Google search for "laff riot".
I don't find your encarta link anywhere in the first 5 pages. That OK, we're all getting used to you inventing things to support your ideas.

And what is the difference in cost for the private entities?

Umm, they hire people who work hard, rather than just show up. If you don't produce, then they might fire you, or at least transfer you somewhere else. The .gov doesn't do this nearly enough. It's cheaper to pay top salaries to 1 or 2 good workers, rather than paying average wages to 3 or 4 substandard ones. Labor remains the most significant cost of almost any operation. Effective management of that labor is crucial to profitability. And while the private firms cost of materials may be the same, better management of better workers means they waste less materials, which in the end, costs the private firm less money.

The F-111 is your sole example? Why can't the USAF take over the air wings of the Navy and USMC with planes designed to land on decks.

I don't have the answer to that, and it's way off topic from this thread. Your "redundancy" argument has merit, but it's trumped by the individual needs of each service. You can't expect for a USAF commander to effectively manage a squadron of Harrier's. They're capability would most certainly be underutilized.

I'm not a military tactician, and clearly neither are you. If you think you can solve all these problems, why don't you write to the pentagon about it? I'm certain that you're the first person the put forth this hypothesis. I'm sure they'll take your suggestions and implement them ASAP.

I provided a real world example where a suggestion such as yours failed. If you want all the soldiers to use the same tooth brush, that's fine, but you're not gonna save the taxpayers much money in doing so. And your suggestion to put USAF commanded planes on boats commanded by the USN is lunacy.

Why does the USMC exist at all?

In general, the Marines invade from the sea. The Army does it from the ground or air. The training and toys required for each task vary greatly. Your example is akin to putting a seasoned Wildland Firefighter in charge of a company fighting a high rise fire.

As an example, the CIA has done an incredible of detecting and preventing threats to the US via continued terrorist acts. You just never read about them.

I won't deny the fact that the CIA has done a great job in key areas, most of which we will never know of. But any assertion about the degree of efficiency at their job can't even be analyzed. Their budget is a government secret. And your comparison of CIA personnel to those expected to build and maintain a Nuclear Power plant is an Apples to Oranges comparison.

The Feds built the Interstate Highway System. Until then there was no interest for the private sector to build something of that magnitude. Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

So you're going to give credit of our Interstate Highway System to the Government. If anything, you should thank the Germans, and Ike for his desire to copy them. The Feds didn't build it, most of it was bid out to private contractors. And how would you propose a private company, by itself, go about building the Interstate Highway System, without any guidance or legal assistance from the government? How would a private firm go about forcing other governments to move their existing roads to make way? A private firm can't go about seizing land under imminent domain to build a road on. A private firm can only do the individual tasks once given permission by the .gov.

Financial incentives are not even close to redistribution of wealth. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.

Exactly.

[ChiefKN]

You at least recognize this as a redistribution of wealth. Something George refuses to accept. You also rationalize there is a greater good being served and are willing to accept that as well.

Your point at the end is well taken.

You can call it redistribution of wealth. But it's not in the Marx sense of the term.

Either way, it's silly to argue the semantics like this.

[scfire86]

I don't find your encarta link anywhere in the first 5 pages. That OK, we're all getting used to you inventing things to support your ideas.

If you don't need know the definition of a "laff riot" you need to get out more often.

Umm, they hire people who work hard, rather than just show up.

So folks that enlist in the DoD are doing so just to show up and get a paycheck?

If you don't produce, then they might fire you, or at least transfer you somewhere else. The .gov doesn't do this nearly enough. It's cheaper to pay top salaries to 1 or 2 good workers, rather than paying average wages to 3 or 4 substandard ones. Labor remains the most significant cost of almost any operation.

And you have proof this occurs in .gov? I'd like to see it.

Effective management of that labor is crucial to profitability. And while the private firms cost of materials may be the same, better management of better workers means they waste less materials, which in the end, costs the private firm less money.I don't have the answer to that, and it's way off topic from this thread.

Does that include private companies whose sole source of income is government contracts?

Your "redundancy" argument has merit, but it's trumped by the individual needs of each service. You can't expect for a USAF commander to effectively manage a squadron of Harrier's. They're capability would most certainly be underutilized.

I could expect that if the USAF commander was trained in the capabilities and operations of Harriers.

And your suggestion to put USAF commanded planes on boats commanded by the USN is lunacy. In general, the Marines invade from the sea. The Army does it from the ground or air. The training and toys required for each task vary greatly.

Has the Army ever invaded from the sea? Ever hear about that whole event on the Normandy coast? Or the Italian peninsula. Or northern Africa, or Sicily?

If anything, you should thank the Germans, and Ike for his desire to copy them. The Feds didn't build it, most of it was bid out to private contractors. And how would you propose a private company, by itself, go about building the Interstate Highway System, without any guidance or legal assistance from the government?

I don't. Government oversaw and funded the construction ensuring the project was built to uniform standards a la the autobahn instead of just sending monies to the local government and letting them build it according to local standards.