Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

  1. #11
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Maybe they could do that if Democrats weren't killing off small Business, killing job creation and expansion thru regulations while increasing the ranks of the Unemployed and those on food stamps and making things so miserable that 1/3rd of the country wont even look for a job. All the while partying and living off the misery of others and all others money as well.

    Course if they just quit trying to think for everybody else. Something might get accomplished.

    Show me the fact that regulations stopping cancer causing pollution and requiring workers to have affordable health care are really stopping the small businesses from growing. See, because this mimicked right wing talking point of yours that has gone on for decades and makes us one of the most polluted countries in the technological countries is a lie. Small businesses are closing because Republicans REFUSE to pass the bill and resolution the democrats have presented three times which would TAX American corporations from taking jobs overseas at a HIGHER rate and give tax BREAKS to American corporations to keep jobs here. AND if republican tea party governors would QUIT slashing government jobs that supported the middle class, then maybe the private sector would have enough customers so that they wouldn't fold and go under.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    Show me the fact that regulations stopping cancer causing pollution and requiring workers to have affordable health care are really stopping the small businesses from growing. See, because this mimicked right wing talking point of yours that has gone on for decades and makes us one of the most polluted countries in the technological countries is a lie. Small businesses are closing because Republicans REFUSE to pass the bill and resolution the democrats have presented three times which would TAX American corporations from taking jobs overseas at a HIGHER rate and give tax BREAKS to American corporations to keep jobs here. AND if republican tea party governors would QUIT slashing government jobs that supported the middle class, then maybe the private sector would have enough customers so that they wouldn't fold and go under.
    Nah.....their closing, can't hire and cant expand because of Obamacare.

    Moreover perhaps you should look up all those new regulations. U can't just blame Republicans course when you do. I am going to bring you all that the Democrats do.

    Which none of this has to do with the Topic.

  3. #13
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Nah.....their closing, can't hire and cant expand because of Obamacare.

    Moreover perhaps you should look up all those new regulations. U can't just blame Republicans course when you do. I am going to bring you all that the Democrats do.

    Which none of this has to do with the Topic.
    No. It has nothing to do with health insurance. There are plans out there employers can afford for their workers. It has to do with sabotaging a Black President and nothing more.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/he...says.html?_r=0


    The requirement for employers to provide health benefits to employees is a cornerstone of the new law, but the new rules proposed by the Internal Revenue Service said that employers’ obligation was to provide affordable insurance to cover their full-time employees. The rules offer no guarantee of affordable insurance for a worker’s children or spouse. To avoid a possible tax penalty, the government said, employers with 50 or more full-time employees must offer affordable coverage to those employees. But, it said, the meaning of “affordable” depends entirely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.”

    The new rules, to be published in the Federal Register, create a strong incentive for employers to put money into insurance for their employees rather than dependents. It is unclear whether the spouse and children of an employee will be able to obtain federal subsidies to help them buy coverage — separate from the employee — through insurance exchanges being established in every state. The administration explicitly reserved judgment on that question, which could affect millions of people in families with low and moderate incomes.

    Many employers provide family coverage to full-time employees, but many do not. Family coverage is much more expensive, and the employee’s share of the premium is typically much larger.

    In 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,615 a year for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $951 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,316, for family coverage.

    Starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to have health insurance. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer.
    All those republican pundits just lied to you. To get you to bash the Affordable Health Care Act and keep health care insurance premiums higher.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,119

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    i'm pretty cool with giving veterans almost anything they want.

    what i'm not cool with is a perpetual state of war which creates an endless amount of veterans and which requires more money than the rest of the world spends combined.

  5. #15
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    i'm pretty cool with giving veterans almost anything they want.

    what i'm not cool with is a perpetual state of war which creates an endless amount of veterans and which requires more money than the rest of the world spends combined.
    Especially war fought to make the rich richer.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    No. It has nothing to do with health insurance. There are plans out there employers can afford for their workers. It has to do with sabotaging a Black President and nothing more.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/he...says.html?_r=0




    All those republican pundits just lied to you. To get you to bash the Affordable Health Care Act and keep health care insurance premiums higher.

    Right.....try looking over Chicago Politics and then get back to me over Obama and being a Black thing.

    Moreover you should talk to your Man Obama about helping those Insurance Companies out and their Higher premiums. He has a few of them On that 15 man panel of his.

    Naturally Republicans would point out those falsehoods by Democrats and Obama.....why would you even be surprised.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    It's not an unrelated point. Your point is to try to draw attention to how much money it is, my point is that if we're really interested in cutting spending, which we should be, there are literally a million better places to start than veteran benefits.
    A bad excuse. if you look back at the single page post trail you will see what actually happened. You claimed it did not actually happen that way and i pointed out that the military and unemployment sites both confirmed what the story said. There was no claim in the original about how much money was being cut or better places to do so, even by you. you tried to say it did not happen and were caught up in it because you brought up what you called a completely different thing to prove that what they said happened never actually did. Now you are changing the argument because you cannot admit you were wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    How about the trillions we're spending on these dumbass wars that scar veterans bad enough psychologically that they end up on the street after they get out in the first place?
    Again, that argument is also a failure as you have to start somewhere. I agree they should continue on, but that doesn't mean they should not do any cuts because you happen to not like one of the places they started. really, if you wanted to make that argument in the first place you probably should have. Then i would not have pointed out you were incorrect claiming it doesn't happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I had never even heard of this program until now, and I was in the Army for 7 years. I definitely had never heard of anyone actually using it. It's really not very common. Even still, you can subtract a large portion of that 1 billion from what it would cost for normal welfare.
    OK, and that would seem to be why you made the initial mistake. But you see changing the argument and pretending i was making a point you wanted me to was a bad move. Also, i was easily able to confirm the program by simply cutting and pasting the program name into the search bar common to most internet browsers. You might have wanted to do that. Oh, and finally many people are poorly informed as to how unemployment works, but that does not mean others don't find out about these programs and use them. It seems the military is probably much like most employers in that they don't advertise easy ways to get money off of unemployment. I know many people who are quite surprised to find out that you can get unemployment even after being fired for cause.
    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    A billion dollars to take care of our veterans, who our country has ****ed so god damn hard over the past decade, isn't anything. We give more to Kenya than that. How ****ed up are our priorities?
    Had you made such an argument i would have agreed we should be getting rid of many of our foreign aid programs along with full benefits, but that was not the argument you made. Still, I could agree to partial benefits for people in this program, just like regular unemployment. It covers them, saves money, and encourages job seeking by making things less convenient for the recipient. So really my only argument with you wa your mistake in saying the original article was wrong simply because you have not heard of it.

  8. #18
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,587

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    A bad excuse. if you look back at the single page post trail you will see what actually happened. You claimed it did not actually happen that way and i pointed out that the military and unemployment sites both confirmed what the story said. There was no claim in the original about how much money was being cut or better places to do so, even by you. you tried to say it did not happen and were caught up in it because you brought up what you called a completely different thing to prove that what they said happened never actually did. Now you are changing the argument because you cannot admit you were wrong.


    Again, that argument is also a failure as you have to start somewhere. I agree they should continue on, but that doesn't mean they should not do any cuts because you happen to not like one of the places they started. really, if you wanted to make that argument in the first place you probably should have. Then i would not have pointed out you were incorrect claiming it doesn't happen.


    OK, and that would seem to be why you made the initial mistake. But you see changing the argument and pretending i was making a point you wanted me to was a bad move. Also, i was easily able to confirm the program by simply cutting and pasting the program name into the search bar common to most internet browsers. You might have wanted to do that. Oh, and finally many people are poorly informed as to how unemployment works, but that does not mean others don't find out about these programs and use them. It seems the military is probably much like most employers in that they don't advertise easy ways to get money off of unemployment. I know many people who are quite surprised to find out that you can get unemployment even after being fired for cause.


    Had you made such an argument i would have agreed we should be getting rid of many of our foreign aid programs along with full benefits, but that was not the argument you made. Still, I could agree to partial benefits for people in this program, just like regular unemployment. It covers them, saves money, and encourages job seeking by making things less convenient for the recipient. So really my only argument with you wa your mistake in saying the original article was wrong simply because you have not heard of it.
    I'm going to ignore this wall of straw because almost all of it is based on a false premise. I never said the article was wrong, not once. I did however say that the program was well deserved. When I found out that I was talking about a different program, I immediately adjusted but had the same exact view point: it is more than well deserved, and we have about a million better places to make cuts than with the very veterans we've boned for the past decade.

    When you're ready to address what I actually did say, and not want you want me to say, I'll be here.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I'm going to ignore this wall of straw because almost all of it is based on a false premise. I never said the article was wrong, not once. I did however say that the program was well deserved. When I found out that I was talking about a different program, I immediately adjusted but had the same exact view point: it is more than well deserved, and we have about a million better places to make cuts than with the very veterans we've boned for the past decade.

    When you're ready to address what I actually did say, and not want you want me to say, I'll be here.
    See, now you are making a completely different argument. Still, it begs the question of why shouldn't we apply standard unemployment type rules and save some money? I am talking about doing things like not paying full salary like what happens when people go on regular unemployment, and limiting it for people who actually lose their jobs instead of people who simply resign? Unemployment is not supposed to be a full paycheck. You can allow people to pay their bill;s and keep on surviving in the safety net while saving some money, just like they do with everyone else. plus, where is the drive to get a new job when we are paying for people like they are in a full time job? Also, why the hell should we pay for people who simply resign? Those people had a job that paid for them, so why open the door for them to sit on their butts and do nothing? Again, your argument we could start elsewhere is nice, but we need to start somewhere. I will agree they shoul not stop there, but it makes no sense to continue to pay out money when we could be saving.

    i know you like soldiers or something like that, but your personal preferences are just a bias in this argument. i also understand that the argument may seem a bit cold because of your admiration of these people, but perhaps this gives you some insight into the realities faced by most people who get fired from their job because some rich guy wants to save a few bucks on the bottom line while making millions of dollars. This is how we never get cuts to socia entitlement program like this. there are always people it is going to hurt. Just because you don't admire those people as much does not mean their lives are not effected. it is always about cutting that guys entitlements, but leave the ones i agree with alone. this is why the bickering and the blame game gets started because no one really wants to make the sacrifice themselves. it is always make that guy over there suffer before you make me suffer. if I am to believe the conservatives we have to ignore that attitude and make everyone suffer. not that they actually want to do that, but that is the ideology they are pushing. Like any entity with an overspending and debt problem it eventually will be time to pay the bills. So we either make entitlement cuts now, push the economy downward by limiting spending further by the people who are on these programs, and go through the actual paying pains of our credit with everyone losing, or we up some taxes and close some loopholes so the rich can pay their fair share and see if that helps us pay our bills. Personally, I think both approaches would be the best idea. that way everyone hurts a little bit, and everyone shares the burden of our excess. It also leaves the demand base intact, aka the mass of consumers who would not be spending without help from the government due social safety net programs, and the rich who can afford to pay more without losing their stuff also get to pay for the upkeep of the country which allows them their success.

    It still has to start somewhere, and you are never going to find a painless place to cut. It is the definition of cutting that it hurts.

  10. #20
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,587

    Re: Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    See, now you are making a completely different argument.
    My argument hasn't changed from the beginning. The veterans deserve the benefits they have, and there are a million better places to start making cuts than veteran benefits. If you'd like to provide some quotes where I've changed arguments or positions, go for it. Otherwise, stop saying it in every post, it's getting ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Still, it begs the question of why shouldn't we apply standard unemployment type rules and save some money? I am talking about doing things like not paying full salary like what happens when people go on regular unemployment, and limiting it for people who actually lose their jobs instead of people who simply resign? Unemployment is not supposed to be a full paycheck. You can allow people to pay their bill;s and keep on surviving in the safety net while saving some money, just like they do with everyone else. plus, where is the drive to get a new job when we are paying for people like they are in a full time job? Also, why the hell should we pay for people who simply resign? Those people had a job that paid for them, so why open the door for them to sit on their butts and do nothing? Again, your argument we could start elsewhere is nice, but we need to start somewhere. I will agree they shoul not stop there, but it makes no sense to continue to pay out money when we could be saving.

    i know you like soldiers or something like that, but your personal preferences are just a bias in this argument. i also understand that the argument may seem a bit cold because of your admiration of these people, but perhaps this gives you some insight into the realities faced by most people who get fired from their job because some rich guy wants to save a few bucks on the bottom line while making millions of dollars. This is how we never get cuts to socia entitlement program like this. there are always people it is going to hurt. Just because you don't admire those people as much does not mean their lives are not effected. it is always about cutting that guys entitlements, but leave the ones i agree with alone. this is why the bickering and the blame game gets started because no one really wants to make the sacrifice themselves. it is always make that guy over there suffer before you make me suffer. if I am to believe the conservatives we have to ignore that attitude and make everyone suffer. not that they actually want to do that, but that is the ideology they are pushing. Like any entity with an overspending and debt problem it eventually will be time to pay the bills. So we either make entitlement cuts now, push the economy downward by limiting spending further by the people who are on these programs, and go through the actual paying pains of our credit with everyone losing, or we up some taxes and close some loopholes so the rich can pay their fair share and see if that helps us pay our bills. Personally, I think both approaches would be the best idea. that way everyone hurts a little bit, and everyone shares the burden of our excess. It also leaves the demand base intact, aka the mass of consumers who would not be spending without help from the government due social safety net programs, and the rich who can afford to pay more without losing their stuff also get to pay for the upkeep of the country which allows them their success.

    It still has to start somewhere, and you are never going to find a painless place to cut. It is the definition of cutting that it hurts.
    Your entire argument is that cuts are supposed to hurt, and that all programs should be viewed equal. 71 billion in foreign aid should be considered equal to veteran's benefits. If everything's equal, and it's supposed to hurt, why don't we cut food stamps while leaving 92 billion in corporate welfare intact? Everything's equal and we should cut indiscriminatively right?

    So let's cut:
    - Food stamps
    - Social security
    - Medicare
    - Veterans benefits

    And leave in place:
    - 71 billion in foreign aid
    - 92 billion in corporate welfare (non-Tarp)
    - 25 billion annually in rennovating and maintaining vacant and unused federal properties. [1]
    - 295 billion in defense weapons projects overruns [2]
    - 3 billion resanding beaches [3]
    - 2.5 billion for broadband internet research (that actually didn't even get used)[4]

    But no, you're right, let's start with veteran's benefits. After all, they're cuts and they should hurt right?

    Why not downsize the military (like we're doing) so that fewer potential veterans will need benefits, instead of trying to bone the current vets? How is that not more rational of a move?
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 03-17-13 at 07:08 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •