Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Jobs bill for vets bogs down in Senate

  1. #21
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Like many liberals you DISTORT!!

    I reread warfish's reply to you twice but may have missed it though.
    NOWHERE does he say he is for REDISTRIBUTION.
    He indicated he is willing to provide aid for some and he outlined who he thinks may be eligible. In theory I agree with him. There can always be some discussion on what person(s) need assistance.
    THAT is not redistribution which is taking MINE and giving it to some (in most cases unworthy) other person.
    What the hell is an aid program for the poor if not redistribution.

    Maybe read it a third time...

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    I know you've stated several times on this board that you served. My question is, did you serve during a time of war? And question two would be, do you have an issue with veterans of a war receiving more benefits than veterans during peace time?

    I'm not sure this bill was "veterans need to be treated with a delicate touch". I think one could safely say that it's more of a "1% of Americans were away fighting our wars of choice for us while we recked the economy back home... maybe we should help vets a bit more than we normally do in this instance."

    I served during the Vietnam War in combat with the 101st Airborne in a command capacity. Obviously proud of that. I was in numerous engagements to include the invasion of Laos (which wasn't supposed to be a U.S. op).
    A veteran is a veteran - war or peace. Combat or not combat. No difference in benefits after the fact. While in a combat area I received combat pay which people stateside did not. Because of my assignment, I also received flight pay which many in Vietnam did not receive. Some of my friends had postings in Europe or stateside or in units types not used in Vietnam - missiles and armor (tanks). Their fortune.
    Veterens do not need anything special after they separate. All are eligible for some educational benefits. Medical care also if an injury was sustained during service. That is fine. Anything else and you are treating this group like incapable - hence the delicate touch comment.
    When I returned form overseas, the economy was a total mess. The unemployment rate was over 6% and inflation was running 6+% - no picnic.
    I, like everyione in the same boat, went out and got a job. No help, no programs. Just like my father did and all his fellow servicemen. I asked for nothing and expected nothing. Today, I ask for nothing and expect nothing.
    More people need to take it on their own shoulders. We you achieve, you'll have a greater appreciation for what YOU have done by your OWN efforts.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    What the hell is an aid program for the poor if not redistribution.

    Maybe read it a third time...

    Aid is not redistribution. You are using Bill Clinton semantics.
    Redistribution (Obama's mantra) is wholesale taking my wealth and giving it to the losers in our society. The leeches who provide nothing but take. Illegal immigrants (aliens) and welfare queens come to mind here.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    So we agree that some redistribution is fundamental to our society, but disagree on the degree?

    Good.

    Now we can move on to specific instances from here on out in our discussions, as you already did in your post.

    But before we do, I'd like to adress the second half of your post. It was the Democrats who proposed the debt deal, it fell through because Obama and Boehner were/are douchebags - and because of a Grover Norquist pledge.

    When we talk about compromise and fiscal responsibility, lets be clear about it - the Democrats are in agreement that cuts and raises of revenue are their position. The Republicans only want cuts, and their current Presidential nominee wants a 5 trillion dollar tax cut over ten years coupled with an increases in military spending.

    Whether or not you agree with the degree with which the Democrats are willing to cut and the degree to which they'd like to raise revenue, those were not the issue for congressional Republicans. They will not raise taxes, regardless.

    It doesn't matter that we spent the last ten years cutting taxes while fighting two wars in the middle east (on credit), nor does it matter to them that wealth inequality is at its highest degree since the early 1930's - the point being if we are to raise revenue, we must logically start with the rich, because they are the ones with it, and they are the ones who have benefitted most from the previous tax cuts.

    And this 1 billion dollars to help American war veterans get jobs is a smaller representation of the same problem. This wasn't just a "lets give a billion dollars to Vets, regardless of where that money comes from". It was to be paid for by "fees on Medicare providers and suppliers who are delinquent on their tax bills" which was written into the legislation.

    It wasn't just "entitlement without fiscal responsibility".
    I don't believe you understood my post. Redistribution is not "fundamental". The Aid many of us tax payors are willing to give is just that, aid, charity, a willingness to help those in real need, if those in need show the effort to help themselves (the disabled excluded). Redistribution and wealth equallity as State policy is not charity, it's Communism. The only thing fundamental is the difference between mutually agreed upon aid to the truly needed and effort-expending, and a system where redistribution and fiscal equallity is industrialize, codified, state policy and purpose.

    I think your reply is effectively a restatement of talking points unrelated to my post.

    I don't believe anything is to be gained by replying further. All I can say is you personify much of what I wrote regarding Democrats and Compromise, and no amount of dishonesty, conscious or otherwise, will change the fact that Government and Entitlements never get "cut", and the system never gets smaller. Only larger, more inclusive and more expensive to the dwindling net tax payors in our system with each and every "compromise". So much soi that we now have men who pay 2 million in taxes, give 4 million to charity, being described by net-recipients of entitlements and tax policy as "greedy", "selfish" and too outright evil to be President.

    When you can show me a year where Government spents less total dollars on entitlements, and whole entitlement rpograms get cut in total, then we can talk.

    Till then, it's the same old round and round. You demand compromise, you claim to be giving things on your side, yet Govt. and entitlement are not, in fact, cut (at the very best they grow 6.9% instead of 7%, and add 10 new programs/laws instead of 14 new ones) and no one is ever removed from elligibillity for the programs, only added as the entitlement class grows, and the tax paying class shrinks.

    I can't see where any further compromise will ever lead to smaller, more efficient Government spending less, giving less away to those who can and should be earning it for themselves.

    It's not just a "matter fo degree". It's a matter of ideology, Socialism/Collectivism, vs. Freedom and Self-Reliance/Responsabillity.

    Too much time wasted already, tldr, agree to disagree. Debate between us is counterprodutive, it will never result in agreement of any kind whatsoever.
    Last edited by Warfish; 09-22-2012 at 01:04 PM.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Absolutely false.

    The Senate rules we have now are not the same rules that this country started out with. Read about it here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibus..._States_Senate

    and look at the consequences -





    I said "some redistribution of wealth" is fundamental to our society and you then reply with "Some redistribution may be part of our policy, but unlimited and unfettered redistribution blah blah blah".

    When the f*** did I say "unlimited and unfettered"?

    What the hell is that, Jetpotato?

    That's the type of bullsh*t that's killing civil discourse. When you take "some" and replace it with "unlimited and unfettered", you change the entire meaning of my position.



    Compromise cannot be had because there are those of you that seemingly refuse any and all wealth redistribution.

    There are no "degrees" with people of your position - libertarianism and nothing else.
    No, what you clearly fail to realize is that "some" is a meaningless word in the conversation because unless you're prepared to define exactly what the limit of that "some" is, then there is no limit. There literally is no difference between "some redistribution" and " unlimited distribution"

  6. #26
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    No, what you clearly fail to realize is that "some" is a meaningless word in the conversation because unless you're prepared to define exactly what the limit of that "some" is, then there is no limit. There literally is no difference between "some redistribution" and " unlimited distribution"
    Unlimited redistribution is pure communism.

    The rest is degrees of socialism, which we as a nation have been a part of for all of the 20th century.

    And then there's the complete laissez free market, which basically only worked before the industrial revolution.

    I'm not interested in adopting Hugo Chavez socialism. There's a large difference between his degree of socialism and say Canada or Germany. Tax rates, regulations and monetary policy are far more similar in Canada and Germany than either of those countries and Venezuela.

    There are many degrees of "some", from America then the UK then Canada then Germany than France and then a place like Venezuela. Unlimited is the Soviet Union.

    And there have been differing degrees in our own country's history. We've had greater redistribution than we have now the for most of the last century.

    The question is, if you believe in no wealth redistribution as "some" = "unlimited, unfettered", how far back in our own country's economic history are you looking to return to? 18th century?

  7. #27
    How about a BUDGET? We have been waiting FOUR years. But that is the Republicans fault. Plz get your head out of the donkeys butt!

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Aid is not redistribution. You are using Bill Clinton semantics.
    Redistribution (Obama's mantra) is wholesale taking my wealth and giving it to the losers in our society. The leeches who provide nothing but take. Illegal immigrants (aliens) and welfare queens come to mind here.
    Aid from a government that obtains revenue via taxation of income is, by definition, redistributive; the bulk of the funds come from people who have more, and the bulk of the aid goes to people who have less.

    More, so is any government provided service. Education is free to all - but it costs money. If education was provided by the private sector (without price support from government in the form of vouchers; I'm talking about purely private education, not potential reforms of how the government provides/enables it), then certain people would be unable to pay that cost. Public education, then, is a redistributive policy in effect; money comes from those who have more, in order to pay for those who have less to share in a particular public good. The same analysis applies to any publicly funded project (from roads to the army).

    That said, policies that are redistributive in effect are not the same thing as "redistribution as policy". Policies that are redistributive in effect are policies adopted for the public good - such as roads, schools, etc. - that are funded by the public and therefore draw unequally from various income levels. Even aid programs are only redistributive in effect; the goal is to accomplish the public good of caring for citizens in need and ensuring a certain basic standard of living so long as citizens are meeting certain basic responsibilities. Redistribution itself is a byproduct, not the goal.

    Redistribution as policy is different. Redistribution as policy has redistribution itself as the goal. It looks at the current distribution of wealth and says "the gap is too wide, the curve too skewed, we need to fix that somehow, we need to enact laws to change the way wealth is distributed in this country".

    That, SB, is a very different animal.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Aid from a government that obtains revenue via taxation of income is, by definition, redistributive; the bulk of the funds come from people who have more, and the bulk of the aid goes to people who have less.

    More, so is any government provided service. Education is free to all - but it costs money. If education was provided by the private sector (without price support from government in the form of vouchers; I'm talking about purely private education, not potential reforms of how the government provides/enables it), then certain people would be unable to pay that cost. Public education, then, is a redistributive policy in effect; money comes from those who have more, in order to pay for those who have less to share in a particular public good. The same analysis applies to any publicly funded project (from roads to the army).

    That said, policies that are redistributive in effect are not the same thing as "redistribution as policy". Policies that are redistributive in effect are policies adopted for the public good - such as roads, schools, etc. - that are funded by the public and therefore draw unequally from various income levels. Even aid programs are only redistributive in effect; the goal is to accomplish the public good of caring for citizens in need and ensuring a certain basic standard of living so long as citizens are meeting certain basic responsibilities. Redistribution itself is a byproduct, not the goal.

    Redistribution as policy is different. Redistribution as policy has redistribution itself as the goal. It looks at the current distribution of wealth and says "the gap is too wide, the curve too skewed, we need to fix that somehow, we need to enact laws to change the way wealth is distributed in this country".

    That, SB, is a very different animal.
    Doggin, you getting too lawyerly here. Simplicity for the jury if you don't mind. LOL.
    Taxes, of course, to an extent are redistributive. As you suggest, however, this is not what Obama and his disciple, SB, want. The want a Robin Hood scenario. Not aid to those in SHORT TERM need but wholesale theft.
    Reward losers for being losers and punish winners for being winners.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us