Gun Control Threads are SO Three Weeks Ago....

[ExiledInIllinois]

If you insist on calling people takers, you might as well include every single person in the country on medicare....and every military family...

 

Ut oh.. NOW you did it Bucko!

[dayman]

Ut oh.. NOW you did it Bucko!

 

Hey all I'm saying is anyone who gets more benefits than they pay in with cash money...technically taking...no disrespect to military families I know many of them and many of them are in my family...merely pointing out a fact

[TakeYouToTasker]

...

 

The "military families" bit is going to require a good bit of explanation.

 

Seriously.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Hey all I'm saying is anyone who gets more benefits than they pay in with cash money...technically taking...no disrespect to military families I know many of them and many of them are in my family...merely pointing out a fact

 

You might be right rabbit! My father has been out of the military for almost 50 years and his stay in the VA has to be costing a pretty penny! Man, in his late 70's... They did everything to get him up and walking and they did! :thumbsup:

 

I can't imagine what the medical bills would be? 250,000... 300,000???

[dayman]

You might be right rabbit! My father has been out of the military for almost 50 years and his stay in the VA has to be costing a pretty penny! Man, in his late 70's... They did everything to get him up and walking and they did! :thumbsup:

 

I can't imagine what the medical bills would be? 250,000... 300,000???

 

And just keep in mind here I'm not saying he shouldn't have that service or anything against him or military families at all...

[Rob's House]

If you insist on calling people takers, you might as well include every single person in the country on medicare....and every military family...

Thank you for illustrating the incremental step towards full blown socialism. I know you guys, in your infinitely obtuse arrogance like to scoff and chortle at the idea that your bloated government entitlement schemes could ever amount to anything more than reasonable and measured attempts to help the helpless, but medicare as much as anything shows how your plans end up. Medicare was supposed to be a safety net for elderly people who couldn't afford treatment. Now it has become the default health care plan for elderly, and has swallowed that industry such that everyone except the very rich has to use medicare. I know in the wilfully unimaginative mind of a common lib, a mind that is incapable of understanding that the system would have evolved differently had medicare never been created as it was, that without medicare everyone currently receiving medicare would be left out in the cold, but that's not the reality. The system would have evolved differently and it's hard to envision a system that would have been less efficient. Plus, medicare is included in FICA taxes, so unlike the overwhelming majority of government entitlement programs, at least those on medicare can argue that they paid into a system. Sure it may be a ponzi scheme, but they weren't given the choice of whether to pick that system or another. So your analogy here fails miserably.

 

And the military are employees being paid for a job. It's hardly similar. Actually it's not at all similar. It couldn't be more dissimilar. You're really grasping at straws here.

[dayman]

Thank you for illustrating the incremental step towards full blown socialism. I know you guys, in your infinitely obtuse arrogance like to scoff and chortle at the idea that your bloated government entitlement schemes could ever amount to anything more than reasonable and measured attempts to help the helpless, but medicare as much as anything shows how your plans end up. Medicare was supposed to be a safety net for elderly people who couldn't afford treatment. Now it has become the default health care plan for elderly, and has swallowed that industry such that everyone except the very rich has to use medicare. I know in the wilfully unimaginative mind of a common lib, a mind that is incapable of understanding that the system would have evolved differently had medicare never been created as it was, that without medicare everyone currently receiving medicare would be left out in the cold, but that's not the reality. The system would have evolved differently and it's hard to envision a system that would have been less efficient. Plus, medicare is included in FICA taxes, so unlike the overwhelming majority of government entitlement programs, at least those on medicare can argue that they paid into a system. Sure it may be a ponzi scheme, but they weren't given the choice of whether to pick that system or another. So your analogy here fails miserably.

 

And the military are employees being paid for a job. It's hardly similar. Actually it's not at all similar. It couldn't be more dissimilar. You're really grasping at straws here.

 

just saying...more money out than in...technically taking

[dayman]

And not pile on the military b/c I don't care to do so but if you all insist it's crazy to even speak of that...it's really not if you are consistent about identifying "takers." I mean bases are their own little bubble, independent law enforcement, grocery stores, big-box stores, school system, child care, housing and health care....all run by the government. Obviously in the past this was important people were drafted, pay was low, and many most bases were no where near civilization and/or overseas....but today these factors remain a huge part of retention for personnel certainly those with dependents.

 

Today of course the situation is a bit different, volunteer services and higher pay (CBO estimates military pay averages 75% percentile compared to civilian jobs w/ comparable skill sets)...and other CBO studies show that a simple a cash allowance could easily get military personnel the same level of groceries for instance at way lower cost than running a government grocery store (but every time this is brought up you can bet a free-market fiscal hawk conservatives beat it down to support our troops)...etc etc...I mean YES THESE ARE EARNED BENEFITS but it's still subsidized by the taxpayer it's still "taking" and it is a somewhat "socialist institution" so to speak. It is ultimately, more money out than in...they do work as medicare people pay in...but it's still more out than in...and if you compare it to the private sector than can be no mistake about that...

 

(also...this is not an original point credit to mike lofgren)

Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills

[3rdnlng]

And not pile on the military b/c I don't care to do so but if you all insist it's crazy to even speak of that...it's really not if you are consistent about identifying "takers." I mean bases are their own little bubble, independent law enforcement, grocery stores, big-box stores, school system, child care, housing and health care....all run by the government. Obviously in the past this was important people were drafted, pay was low, and many most bases were no where near civilization and/or overseas....but today these factors remain a huge part of retention for personnel certainly those with dependents.

 

Today of course the situation is a bit different, volunteer services and higher pay (CBO estimates military pay averages 75% percentile compared to civilian jobs w/ comparable skill sets)...and other CBO studies show that a simple a cash allowance could easily get military personnel the same level of groceries for instance at way lower cost than running a government grocery store (but every time this is brought up you can bet a free-market fiscal hawk conservatives beat it down to support our troops)...etc etc...I mean YES THESE ARE EARNED BENEFITS but it's still subsidized by the taxpayer it's still "taking" and it is a somewhat "socialist institution" so to speak. It is ultimately, more money out than in...they do work as medicare people pay in...but it's still more out than in...and if you compare it to the private sector than can be no mistake about that...

 

(also...this is not an original point credit to mike lofgren)

 

According to you Obama is a taker, along with every other government employee.

[dayman]

According to you Obama is a taker, along with every other government employee.

 

If you want to throw around "taker" then you have to name a lot of people, as Rob did. I just was pointing out while he listed many, he left out the 2 biggest groups. Medicare participants, and the military (both the complex and the personnel)

[3rdnlng]

If you want to throw around "taker" then you have to name a lot of people, as Rob did. I just was pointing out while he listed many, he left out the 2 biggest groups. Medicare participants, and the military (both the complex and the personnel)

 

Again, according to your definition, Obama is a taker. So is your postman. So are the city sanitation workers and the county assessor.

[Rob's House]

just saying...more money out than in...technically taking

With the medicare part you can make that argument. I somewhat agree except there's a fundamental difference between a policy that gives entities X, Y, and Z something for being them as opposed to a policy that forces people against their will into a program where they're promised X for paying Y and then giving them Y despite it not being in the government's financial intersts.

 

With the military part your analogy still doesn't work because the benefits, whether disproportionate to what you or I may find reasonable, is part of the benefits that is part of their military compensation. That would be like saying anyone who has insurance as part of their employment compensation, and has an insurance claim that exceeds the cost of their premiums, is a "taker" - an assertion that would really only assert a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of insurance.

 

(also...this is not an original point credit to mike lofgren)

If you've done Mike Lofgren's theory justice, I can only say that Mike Lofgren is an idiot.

[B-Man]

Hey, we have another voice railing against the "takers" in this country, why must these outspoken jerks be so selfish and unfe.....................oh wait, it's Bill Maher

 

Never mind.................if the star ofCannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1989) says it, it must be true.

 

 

"Okay, so basically what Mitt Romney was saying was, you know, “These spongers, these grifters, these people, I wouldn't piss on them if their ass was on fire because they don't pay in.” But it's not really 47 percent. But I, here’s my question: It's not zero percent either, takers. I mean, there are a lot of dirt bags in this country, and I think it's somewhere in between 47 and zero. I think we should split the difference and say we have 23.5 percent dirt bags in America. I do. Like the Octomom. California pays, we pay to, you know, feed and cloth and spay and neuter her children. And she's not giving back to society."

 

Moments later, he continued:

 

MAHER: And here, listen to this about disability. People who take disability, who are on disability, in 1968 it was 51 to1, people on disability to people who worked. In 2001, not that long ago, it was 23 to 1. Now it's 13 to 1, 13 people to one who are on disability. Now, of course, you know, some of that is real. We are an overworked, overstressed, polluted, ripped off and lied to people. So, I mean, obviously there are some people who really do have disabilities. But 13 to 1?

 

You know, it just seems like there’s less people pulling the wagon and more people in the wagon, and at some point the wagon is going to break.

 

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/26/bill-maher-agrees-country-has-takers-we-have-235-dirt-bags-america#ixzz2JCWts2zD

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

Hey, we have another voice railing against the "takers" in this country, why must these outspoken jerks be so selfish and unfe.....................oh wait, it's Bill Maher

 

Never mind.................if the star ofCannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1989) says it, it must be true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://newsbusters.o...a#ixzz2JCWts2zD

 

 

Maher's not all bad. I used to be a huge fan, back when he was more of a libertarian; back before he got his HBO show and started shamelessly pandering to the far left. And Maher was great in the movie. That was probably the best T & A cable B-movie of its time.

 

Most of what he's saying here is basic common sense. The only reason I can figure the left pushes so hard against the idea is partisan identification and unconditional support for the party-line and reflexive opposition to anything that runs counter to that.

[dayman]

With the military part your analogy still doesn't work because the benefits, whether disproportionate to what you or I may find reasonable, is part of the benefits that is part of their military compensation. That would be like saying anyone who has insurance as part of their employment compensation, and has an insurance claim that exceeds the cost of their premiums, is a "taker" - an assertion that would really only assert a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of insurance.

 

Just for the sake of discussion b/c this is a little interesting to me...so long as it is in some way linked to a job, even if it's the establishment of what can fairly be described as an extensive gov't funded socialist bubble....then it somehow has a special status relative to your conservative views?

[We Come In Peace]

 

Maher's not all bad. I used to be a huge fan, back when he was more of a libertarian; back before he got his HBO show and started shamelessly pandering to the far left.

So you were a fan of BM before 9/11. Before the fundamentalists took over the GOP and drove the party off the crazy cliff, taking over 6 thousand American soldiers lives and our economy with it -- not to mention our civil liberties and privacy.

 

Did Bill go hard left to pander to a new audience or did it merely appear he went hard left simply because the right's agenda changed so drastically over the past decade? It's an honest question. Bill was forced off the air for asking a question that made the country uncomfortable. It wasn't a scandalous question by any stretch of the imagination nor was it any more controversial than his normal debate topics but it was enough to get him labeled public enemy number one by the GOP, who for all their alleged love of the constitution are never more happy than when they get to abuse the 1st amendment rights of people who disagree with them.

 

His HBO show is no different from Politically Incorrect. He chose sides, but no more so than the rest of the country did after 9/11. Bill went to the left of the trend as Dennis Miller went to the right. 9/11 changed a lot of things in this country, including comedy -- and people's abilities to think for themselves.

[Rob's House]

Just for the sake of discussion b/c this is a little interesting to me...so long as it is in some way linked to a job, even if it's the establishment of what can fairly be described as an extensive gov't funded socialist bubble....then it somehow has a special status relative to your conservative views?

Dude, forgive me if you're trolling again, but it seems you're serious. I can appreciate the idea of trying to make dissimilar things seem similar for the sake of making a false equivalence, but you're really pushing it here. We can debate the merits of various government jobs, but trying to eliminate the distinction between government employees and those on the government dole is beyond the pale. And if you're trying to make the argument that at the fringes there are some government jobs created for the sole purpose of rewarding political allies, I agree that happens, and that it is a problem, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that government employees are paid by the government and that somehow makes them indistinguishable from people who are paid by the government who are not government employees. I'm not trying to be cruel here, but that's a really stupid point. If I'm misinterpreting you please correct me.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Rob's House

[Rob's House]

So you were a fan of BM before 9/11. Before the fundamentalists took over the GOP and drove the party off the crazy cliff, taking over 6 thousand American soldiers lives and our economy with it -- not to mention our civil liberties and privacy.

 

Did Bill go hard left to pander to a new audience or did it merely appear he went hard left simply because the right's agenda changed so drastically over the past decade? It's an honest question. Bill was forced off the air for asking a question that made the country uncomfortable. It wasn't a scandalous question by any stretch of the imagination nor was it any more controversial than his normal debate topics but it was enough to get him labeled public enemy number one by the GOP, who for all their alleged love of the constitution are never more happy than when they get to abuse the 1st amendment rights of people who disagree with them.

 

His HBO show is no different from Politically Incorrect. He chose sides, but no more so than the rest of the country did after 9/11. Bill went to the left of the trend as Dennis Miller went to the right. 9/11 changed a lot of things in this country, including comedy -- and people's abilities to think for themselves.

You're wrong about conservatives costing Maher his job. It was primarily liberals who called for his head. In fact, conservatives were the people who came to his defense: Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, etc. all came out to defend him, not because they agreed with what he said, but because they didn't approve of firing people for making unpopular statements.

 

As far as this business of the conservatives moving to the right after 9/11, I'd like to hear an explanation for this. Normally when someone says the conservatives have moved to the far right I assume I'm just listening to a brain dead (*^*&%^$^#ass hole whose depth of thought goes no further than a recognition that he's a Democrat and should therefore mindlessly mimic the idiocy spewed by fellow Democrats, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring specifically to the nation building effort in Iraq as the "far right" movement. And if the only distinction I saw from Maher was his anti-war stance, which I never really held against him because he was one of the more logical opponents of the effort and I was never really sold on it from the outset anyway. I limit this "move to the right" analysis to Iraq b/c lefties were fully on board with Afghanistan, so much so that yalls hero-in-chief has said recently that "Afghanistan was the right war."

 

Where I have a problem with Maher is he's gone from more of a libertarian to a full-fledge liberal who, contrary to his recent statement, has bought into all the absurd fiscal liberalism that is crushing our economy. And no, that is not how he portrayed himself when doing Politically Incorrect.

 

Also, if I'm wrong about this move to the far right being specifically about Iraq, can you share with me the positional changes that have taken place in conservative circles over the last 10+ years, because I can't figure what they are, and despite repeated requests for clarification none of the enlightened left have been able to tell me.

[dayman]

Dude, forgive me if you're trolling again, but it seems you're serious. I can appreciate the idea of trying to make dissimilar things seem similar for the sake of making a false equivalence, but you're really pushing it here. We can debate the merits of various government jobs, but trying to eliminate the distinction between government employees and those on the government dole is beyond the pale. And if you're trying to make the argument that at the fringes there are some government jobs created for the sole purpose of rewarding political allies, I agree that happens, and that it is a problem, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that government employees are paid by the government and that somehow makes them indistinguishable from people who are paid by the government who are not government employees. I'm not trying to be cruel here, but that's a really stupid point. If I'm misinterpreting you please correct me.

 

What I'm saying is the American military is probably the largest and most well funded socialist institution on planet earth today. Yes there there are people who pay into a program and take much more out, they too are taking, a lot. Then there are people who are poor, and get checks in the mail, also takers. This isn't to argue there is no distinction that you can draw, it's to argue that particularly when you look at the amount of money these different categories of people cost, it's a distinction with no practical difference. Unless you are on a moral crusade and just standing on your high horse looking down at some while not minding others and claiming it's only about fiscal issues...which by the way is an excellent way to gain a certain kind of political support, then it's just dumb to talk about takers in the way most people do today. If you want to make it about takers..., then the reality is...looks at all those who "take" from the dole and how much...when you ultimately do you may be less uppity about it and more practical about how and what is needed and what/how different things are possible moving forward as opposed to mindless yelling about the lazy people who refuse to work and supposedly zap the entire wealth of this nation...

 

It's really just a round about way of saying what everybody knows and says all the time...if you want to talk about takers you have to talk about medicare and military and you really should talk about them first if you are serious about "takers zapping the wealth of our nation"

Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills

[dayman]

And btw I'm not suggesting there aren't people on welfare that are scum, or that all people on welfare are scum, but the general attitude that there is a mass horde of lazy takers on welfare and not working and that's the reason we have financial problems...it's stupidity. And from a political standpoint, this stupidity has created more passion and momentum than is worthy of it and hampered reasoned debate.

Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills