Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    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.
    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
      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.
      Last edited by jasper45; 08-20-2008, 09:57 AM.

      Comment


      • 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.
        Member IACOJ

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
          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.
          PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            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.
            PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • 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?
                Member IACOJ

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
                  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!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                    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.
                    Last edited by scfire86; 08-20-2008, 02:05 PM.
                    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                    Comment


                    • 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.
                      Member IACOJ

                      Comment


                      • 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
                        Member IACOJ

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
                          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.
                          Last edited by jasper45; 08-20-2008, 12:50 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
                            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.
                            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                            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.
                            Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                            Financial incentives are not even close to redistribution of wealth. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.
                            Exactly.
                            Last edited by txgp17; 08-20-2008, 04:08 PM.
                            The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                              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.
                              I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                              "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                              "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                                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.

                                Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                                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?

                                Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                                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.

                                Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                                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?

                                Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                                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.

                                Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                                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?

                                Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                                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.
                                They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                                I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X