Aren't they trespassing? If they are, they should be arrested and charged. If they aren't, well, I've been mistaken before.Originally Posted by motorfirebox
There's nothing wrong with using the NG to fill in for state employees who go on strike. There is, however, a threat inherent in talking about calling up the NG in response to a strike.
As for rioting, well, even if I agreed that throwing rocks is a killing offense, I don't see how it applies in this situation. The protests in Wisconsin have been, by all accounts, peaceful.
Aren't they trespassing? If they are, they should be arrested and charged. If they aren't, well, I've been mistaken before.
I haven't heard anything about trespassing. A Google search for "Wisconsin protest trespassing" doesn't return any relevant results, so I'm inclined to believe that trespassing is not a part, or at least not a significant part, of the action taking place.
If this line of thought about free-loading civil servants running up the deficit is taken to its logical conclusion maybe some will decide that armed forces pay should be cut by two-thirds. Then perhaps military retirements could be ended as well and a legal mechanism for ending the ones that now exist could be found. If you don't make the cut to be a U.S. executive in charge of factories located overseas you could always earn minimum wage at a convenience store or in fast food. Do you want fries with that? People aren't loading their guns yet -- but if this keeps up just wait 10 or 20 more years.
Pete, I think your right but it want take anywhere near that long. I give it 2 years, people are hurting like they have not hurt in nearly a generation, after awhile hurt will turn to anger.If this line of thought about free-loading civil servants running up the deficit is taken to its logical conclusion maybe some will decide that armed forces pay should be cut by two-thirds. Then perhaps military retirements could be ended as well and a legal mechanism for ending the ones that now exist could be found. If you don't make the cut to be a U.S. executive in charge of factories located overseas you could always earn minimum wage at a convenience store or in fast food. Do you want fries with that? People aren't loading their guns yet -- but if this keeps up just wait 10 or 20 more years.
That earlier generation that hurt,
those that endured the recessions of 50-75 and the one before that which went through the Depression didn't get angry. Why should the current crew get angry when this is no worse than the 53 and 74 recessions and nowhere near the 30s...
Could it be that years of 'entitlement' lead to spoiled recipients?
Posted by Ken,
I nominate Ken for President, but the President doesn't have the power to eradicate the culture of white collar crime in our Congress, only the people do and as Ken stated we're all about voting out politicians in other districts, but not the ones in our districts who bring in the government cheese.They also try to protect themselves by essentially buying Votes. Many US social welfare programs and the recently passed Affordable Health Care Act are aimed at providing not sorely needed but certainly welcome cash benefits to middle class voters while throwing crumbs at those near or below the poverty line (obviously every penny sent to someone who doesn't need it takes away from someone who desperately needs help -- but the Politicians don't seem to worry about that). Politicians at all levels also bring jobs and new highways, bridges, etc. to their States, Counties, Cities and and Districts so most voters are all for voting out other politicians but not theirs...
Sadly, as Ken stated that cheese is too often directed at the middle class (because that is where the votes are) who doesn't need government handouts, but enjoy them too much to do without them. The upper class are bought with tax breaks they don't need. The lower class is underaddressed (schools, welfare, health care, etc.), because they don't vote and they can be controlled by redrawing district lines.
Political pundits on the right and left have too often distorted the truth to fit their narrative to win votes. Their goals are too often disassociated with solving real problems, and instead focused on staying in office. The history of welfare has been distorted, it actually served and continues to play a key role in providing a safety net. It is much easier to integrate someone on welfare back into the mainstream ecomony than trying to rescue masses from the slums like India. Our values differ from nations like India that let their people starve. Yes we believe in self made people, but it is also true that kids in some districts where there is high crime and enduring poverty have much less opportunity to do that. Welfare provides a safety line and nothing more. Some people abuse it, but what program doesn't have people that abuse it?
As Dayuhan accurately pointed out, the labor unions played a key role in limiting corporate abuse. Collective bargaining was and remains a powerful tool for labor, but unfortunately it went from countering obviously labor abuses to pampering labor (to win votes), which in fact makes labor so expensive now that it has pushed many jobs overseas. Labor leaders are wealthy, they really don't care. Wiser heads saw it coming, but wise people are rarely elected into office, only those who beat the drum on emotional issues.
Now it is once again time to pay the bill for promises based on money that never existed. Some people will be hurt, some politicians won't be reelected for doing the right thing, and too many politicians will continue to do the wrong thing just to stay in office so they can enjoy their share of the government cheese and associated benefits.
The people need to organize, but every time they attempt to, like the recent Tea Party Movement, the movements seem to be misled by popular politicians who like to ride the groundswell. Sarah killed the credibility of the Tea Party. Other parties have been crushed by politicians riding their coattails. Maybe we need to organize real non-partisan movement focused on solving problems (using social media), but can we really expect it not to get hijacked by a partisan, which will undermine its credibility?
It will probably have to get worse before it gets better, but I don't believe this is a passing economic cycle. I think the problems we have are structural in nature and won't self correct until we fix the structure.
My main concern is that we're not merely going through a spell of bad weather -- rather, it's that disturbing structural changes to the U.S. economy are taking place. There is no revolution in the cards but kids born now might have a lot less to look forward to than their parents. The old Free Trade orthodoxy that discourages protectionism doesn't work when places like China offer generous subsidies for corporations to move their manufacturing facilities there. Perhaps we should defend our economy by fighting dirty as well.
Heard they only want to increase tricare $60 a year. Too much for a $50K retiree?
Pete, the federal civil servants are not the problem. With FERS, their retirement is far less lucrative than either military, police, or state civil servants. My wife is a lowly GS-5 Step 10 and will never make more and now her pay is capped the next two years despite being post MWR employee of the year two years ago. What makes it worse is some other DAC with a masters degree in D.C. is constantly finding new ways to make her life more difficult forcing her to do paperwork on her own time and supervise multiple other child care providers and rooms of kids and drive the bus for a fraction of the D.C. DAC's pay and workload.
Call in sick? She has to be told to leave when she is under the weather. Then you see these Wisconsin teachers fabricating sick slips and neglecting their kids education and you want to puke. They said their AVERAGE pay is around $57K but when you add benefits it is over $100K...for 9 months work. Then I see starting police officers in San Jose making over $80K before overtime.
So the coming problem will be the attempted bail out of all these blue states that overextended their pension, benefit, and wage obligations and expect all state taxpayers to bail them out. This Wisconsin bit is the tip of the iceberg. They believe you can keep increasing property taxes to cover inflated state/city civil servant pay and taxpayers are revolting.
The one thing I don't get is why Republicans refuse to increase taxes on those making over $250K. I don't wanna hear it about small business owners. They already hide income left and right. They are the major solution to solving many of the problems...not just slashing budgets and adding to the deficit. Remember, back in Ike's day, the highest tax bracket was paying 90%. When did we let the rich take total control of the Republican agenda.
Last edited by Cole; 02-21-2011 at 12:09 AM. Reason: typo
Again. unions did it to themselves. Plenty of foreign carmakers make a profit with factories in the south. Littoral Combat Ship and possibly KC-X built in Mobile will cost taxpayers a fraction of a left or right coastal manufacturing facility.
Before we start talking protectionism, let's look at the source of stateside manufacturing jumping ship. 8 times out of 10 it is unions. Steel down the drain? A German company just invested $4 billion in a site near Mobile. Hyudai has two plants in Alabama. Kia just built a plant just across the border in Georgia. Toyota built a plant in Mississippi. Boeing will manufacture 787s in South Carolina along with nearby BMWs and Michelins.
Last edited by Cole; 02-21-2011 at 12:16 AM.
Perhaps. But many working people who now regard themselves as being Republicans or even Tea Party activists may start changing their minds when their rice bowls start going away. You see a lot of them on gun forums pointing out how they've always made it on their own and never collected welfare, sort of a cleaned-up George Wallace message that goes back to resentments left over from the 1960s.
Well... have you looked at how much of the Tea Party movement is funded and directed by the Koch brothers?
We're veering into pure political talk.
Best we leave Parties and people by name out of the discussion lest it degenerate into an ideological flame war. Unlike here there are other discussion Boards on the net which encourage that...
True enough.
Frankly, I don't see how you can separate discussions of small wars, foreign policy, domestic policy related to budgets that fund our military, etc from discussions of politics. I find it particularly puzzling that the censorship is only related to this particular thread.Best we leave Parties and people by name out of the discussion lest it degenerate into an ideological flame war. Unlike here there are other discussion Boards on the net which encourage that...
I voted for a democratic Congressman in November. I just bashed Republican policy on taxing the rich. Could care less about the Tea Party. Watched George Soros on Fareed Zakaria today and Geraldo tonight who was the first correspondent I've heard to admit that those who sexually assaulted Lara Logan were pro-democracy demonstrators.
COL Bob regularly advocates Democratic foreign policy. A California professor publishes an article here in Spanish knowing full well very few here can read it.
I've heard you say a pox on all party houses. Also heard you mention you have sons who are police officers so feel you have a conflict of interest...plus you are a double dipper. Do you really want to turn censor?
The problem with "ideological flame wars" is ...
that they soon cease to be "ideological", and degenerate into ad hominem attacks. Cole's last post amply proves that to this reader.
If you can, argue the "law" (ideology). If you can't argue that, argue the "facts" (preferably prejudicial). If you can't argue that, call your opponent a schmuck.
Which is not uncommon among quibbling lawyers. Here are two:
We don't need such crap.kanBARoo - 86th Installment
...
Friday, January 7, 2011
....
What occurred between them is sometimes termed a “flame war”, an escalating exchange of insults, often attributed to the absence of the inhibitions direct contact would foster.
The only significant difference between the two attorneys’ conduct consists in the political incorrectness of Mitchell’s mockery of Mooney’s handicapped offspring: While I am sorry to hear about your disabled child, that sort of thing is to be expected when a retard reproduces. Compare with Mooney’s strongest: Then check your children if they are even yours. Better check the garbage man that comes by your trailer to make sure they don't look like him. .....
Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. My point was that I have no axe to grind for/against any particular political party. There was no slam against Ken who I admire immensely. I'm just puzzled that he would censor this particular thread when it did not appear to be out of control.
I'm not even going to return ad hominem attacks against you because you apparently misunderstood my point. My bad if that was the case.
Censorship? Censorship is when a thread gets shut down with no warning...
You can't. However, it is quite possible to discuss without espousing a particular political position, without supporting or denigrating a particular party, parties or ideology. That is IMO discussing politics rather than policy. There's a place for that, I just would hate to see it take hold here and as the stated purpose is to discuss policy relating to warfare in general and small wars in particular, wandering afield into political parties and such becomes a judgment call. I believe it should be minimal. YMMV.Not so, I and others have nudged on other threads; I and others have also shut threads down. This is the first one where I've intruded twice -- and that is as much due to the thread title and initial tone as anything. My suspicion is that many other Moderators don't read this one simply due to the subject matter and tone.I find it particularly puzzling that the censorship is only related to this particular thread.
I believe if you'll check, you'll find that Moderators only intrude when they sense some heat building or read a post that looks as if it might lead to a political flame war. Small War or large war flame battles are okay here -- even encouraged. Domestic political preference flame wars are not because they tend to lead to excessive heat on topics often not terribly germane.
I call it nudging, you call it censorship. Either way it is a fact that this is not a political Board. There are plenty of them out there.Good for you and yes to the rest of that. Though I do tend to ping COL Bob on that very fact every now and then. He's cagey enough not to get overtly political even if he does favor Nye...I voted for a democratic Congressman in November...COL Bob regularly advocates Democratic foreign policy. A California professor publishes an article here in Spanish knowing full well very few here can read it.In order, true; I don't understand the conflict of interest point -- I have none to my knowledge and am unsure what the sons who are cops have to do with anythingI've heard you say a pox on all party houses. Also heard you mention you have sons who are police officers so feel you have a conflict of interest...plus you are a double dipper. Do you really want to turn censor????; Actually, since my Dad was in the Navy, before ,during and after WW II and when I first went in the Marine Corps I guess I'm really a triple dipper. In almost 80 years, I only had three years of pure civilian employment.
No, I do not want to turn Censor-- I don't even like or want to 'nudge.' Nor do I want this Board to descend into the pure partisan political backbiting that is all to prevalent on the internet. The help of you and others on this thread in achieving that would be appreciated.
Last edited by Ken White; 02-21-2011 at 05:09 AM.
I think jmm99 was trying to say what I didn't say well.
The censorship you see, suggestion IMO, made both this time and earlier was simply to suggest that we not let it get out of control, no more...
No interest in throwing flame, but...
Maybe when we figured out that rich people invest their surplus income, and that money invested does the economy more good than money given to the government, aesthetically displeasing though it may be.
If you graph maximum tax rate vs federal revenue you will see that the trend of decrease in maximum tax rate did not produce a decrease in federal revenue. Au contraire, federal revenues increased quite dramatically. Unfortunately, federal spending increased even more dramatically. The answer to that problem is not to give more to a beast that will always, if allowed, spend more than it earns.
If we're looking at the economic stature of the US vs the rest of the world, the bottom line is that the US emerged from WW2 with a stupendous advantage. All potential competitors were either devastated, saddled with economically destructive ideologies, or both. That advantage is now gone, probably forever. The rest of the world is in play, and the US has to buckle down and compete. Trying to hide behind protectionism, blame, and half-assed politicking is not gonna help. We have to compete. Did I repeat myself? Good, I meant to. We have to compete.
I have read some of his stuff. Not impressed.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks