bigpoppanils Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 Handing Out Hardship Is this the Bush administration's idea of fiscal discipline? By E. J. Dionne Jr.Let's get this straight: The administration wants $87 billion in new spending for Iraq, refuses to contemplate rolling back any of its tax cuts to pay for it -- and then proposes holding down new spending on child care for mothers trying to leave welfare. Oh, yes, and on Sunday, Vice President Cheney insisted that although he and President Bush have presided over a deficit that's reaching well beyond $500 billion this year, we shouldn't worry. Why? "I am a deficit hawk," Cheney explained. "So is the president." Don't you feel better? The way to reach a balanced budget, Cheney insisted on "Meet the Press," was "to have fiscal discipline on the rest of the budget." That presumably includes child care. Not to worry. It may be good for those poor working mothers not to have the child-care money. Warning against the idea of child care as an entitlement, Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, reassured us: "Making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing." You should be inspired by those words the next time you see a mother working behind the counter at an ice cream place or a Burger King with her kids in tow. Just tell her having the kids around is good for family values. Struggle will build character. The kids can always do their homework in the corner. Santorum spoke at a meeting of the Senate Finance Committee last Wednesday that backed the administration in voting down an amendment that would have added $11.25 billion in child care money over five years to the bill renewing welfare reform. (Kudos, by the way, to Elizabeth Shogren of the Los Angeles Times for covering the committee and Santorum's words.) Sen. Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat and the mother of 7-year-old twin boys, said she was astonished by Santorum's comment. "It put me in a bad mood all day," she said in an interview Monday. "It's almost as if it's an objective to make people struggle. There's plenty of hardship to go around. We don't need to create it for them. "It's so obvious when you're out there with these single moms that they want to give 150 percent to get off welfare and provide for their families and achieve self-sufficiency and pride. But they just can't do it without help, and especially without child care." The bill now goes to the Senate floor, where Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, is expected to try for a smaller add-on -- $5 billion to $6 billion -- for child care. You wonder: Is child care for mothers who are reaching for self-sufficiency one of those areas Cheney was referring to when he spoke of the need for "fiscal discipline on the rest of the budget"? What's certain is that the administration believes that making high-income taxpayers "struggle a little bit" is definitely a bad thing. On that "Meet the Press" appearance, Cheney was asked about freezing the administration's tax cut for the top 1 percent of Americans, which, as host Tim Russert pointed out, would generate enough money to cover the $87 billion for the war in Iraq. No way, said Cheney. "I think it would be a mistake," he replied, "because you can't look at that without considering what its impact would be on the economy. An awful lot of the returns in that top bracket are small businesses, and they provide an awful lot of job growth in this economy." In a nifty move, Cheney manages to hide all of the nation's millionaires and corporate CEOs -- New York Stock Exchange Chairman Dick Grasso and his $140 million compensation package come to mind -- behind the proprietor of your local laundry or the owner of the neighborhood machine shop. I guess that struggle is a real motivator for Burger King Mom, but not for guys like Grasso. It would be hard to find a clearer example of why the administration is running into increasing bitterness and opposition over its Iraq policies. By refusing to budge on any of its tax-cutting priorities, the administration is putting many of those who agree that more money needs to be spent on Iraq in an impossible position. If they vote for the money, they know they will be adding to the deficit -- and creating even more excuses to short the working poor. That's why Congress should reject the new money for Iraq -- beyond what's immediately needed by our troops -- until the administration gives some ground on its tax cuts. Making the administration struggle a little bit would not necessarily be the worst thing. postchat@aol.com © 2003 The Washington Post Company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted October 24 Report Share Posted October 24 Originally posted by bigpoppanils Handing Out Hardship Is this the Bush administration's idea of fiscal discipline? By E. J. Dionne Jr.Let's get this straight: The administration wants $87 billion in new spending for Iraq, refuses to contemplate rolling back any of its tax cuts to pay for it -- and then proposes holding down new spending on child care for mothers trying to leave welfare. Oh, yes, and on Sunday, Vice President Cheney insisted that although he and President Bush have presided over a deficit that's reaching well beyond $500 billion this year, we shouldn't worry. Why? "I am a deficit hawk," Cheney explained. "So is the president." Don't you feel better? The way to reach a balanced budget, Cheney insisted on "Meet the Press," was "to have fiscal discipline on the rest of the budget." That presumably includes child care. Not to worry. It may be good for those poor working mothers not to have the child-care money. Warning against the idea of child care as an entitlement, Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, reassured us: "Making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing." You should be inspired by those words the next time you see a mother working behind the counter at an ice cream place or a Burger King with her kids in tow. Just tell her having the kids around is good for family values. Struggle will build character. The kids can always do their homework in the corner. Santorum spoke at a meeting of the Senate Finance Committee last Wednesday that backed the administration in voting down an amendment that would have added $11.25 billion in child care money over five years to the bill renewing welfare reform. (Kudos, by the way, to Elizabeth Shogren of the Los Angeles Times for covering the committee and Santorum's words.) Sen. Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat and the mother of 7-year-old twin boys, said she was astonished by Santorum's comment. "It put me in a bad mood all day," she said in an interview Monday. "It's almost as if it's an objective to make people struggle. There's plenty of hardship to go around. We don't need to create it for them. "It's so obvious when you're out there with these single moms that they want to give 150 percent to get off welfare and provide for their families and achieve self-sufficiency and pride. But they just can't do it without help, and especially without child care." The bill now goes to the Senate floor, where Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, is expected to try for a smaller add-on -- $5 billion to $6 billion -- for child care. You wonder: Is child care for mothers who are reaching for self-sufficiency one of those areas Cheney was referring to when he spoke of the need for "fiscal discipline on the rest of the budget"? What's certain is that the administration believes that making high-income taxpayers "struggle a little bit" is definitely a bad thing. On that "Meet the Press" appearance, Cheney was asked about freezing the administration's tax cut for the top 1 percent of Americans, which, as host Tim Russert pointed out, would generate enough money to cover the $87 billion for the war in Iraq. No way, said Cheney. "I think it would be a mistake," he replied, "because you can't look at that without considering what its impact would be on the economy. An awful lot of the returns in that top bracket are small businesses, and they provide an awful lot of job growth in this economy." In a nifty move, Cheney manages to hide all of the nation's millionaires and corporate CEOs -- New York Stock Exchange Chairman Dick Grasso and his $140 million compensation package come to mind -- behind the proprietor of your local laundry or the owner of the neighborhood machine shop. I guess that struggle is a real motivator for Burger King Mom, but not for guys like Grasso. It would be hard to find a clearer example of why the administration is running into increasing bitterness and opposition over its Iraq policies. By refusing to budge on any of its tax-cutting priorities, the administration is putting many of those who agree that more money needs to be spent on Iraq in an impossible position. If they vote for the money, they know they will be adding to the deficit -- and creating even more excuses to short the working poor. That's why Congress should reject the new money for Iraq -- beyond what's immediately needed by our troops -- until the administration gives some ground on its tax cuts. Making the administration struggle a little bit would not necessarily be the worst thing. postchat@aol.com © 2003 The Washington Post Company Someone should tll this tool to read a economic report to realise that we are out of a recession and on our way to a full recovery because of those tax cuts..... Is the recovery here to stay? The third quarter looked like a blowout for economic growth, but there are concerns about the underlying strength of the recovery. In August, personal income rose 0.24%, but after the tax cuts went into effect it soared 0.9%. So just how strong is the economy if the tax cuts are factored out?“Clearly the tax cuts did work,” Jan Hatzius, senior economist at Goldman Sachs, told “Squawk Box.” “We thought the economy would do better in the third quarter, it did a lot better. But looking at the numbers, you see in consumer spending a surprisingly large share of the tax cuts are gone. About 75% of the tax cuts are already spent, and that’s got to make you a little nervous.”But Robert Barbera, chief economist at ITG/Hoenig told “Squawk Box” he’s not nervous and the tax cuts will act as good old-fashioned pump priming. In the third quarter there was a big drawdown in inventories, Barbera said. That means there will be increased production in the fourth quarter, leading to increased employment and rising incomes, he said.For 2004, Barbera is looking for gross domestic product growth of about 4%, but Hatzius said the difference between now and other business cycles is a lack of pent-up demand and growth will probably be around 2% http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/Dispatches/P63755.aspThis tool is playing class welfare politics. The majority of people are abusing welfare.. Open a classified section of any paper, jobs are available granted not what poeple want but if you are unemployed and unskilled ANYTHING will due until you either further your skills by education or good old hard work..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted October 24 Author Report Share Posted October 24 Originally posted by mr mahs This tool is playing class welfare politics. The majority of people are abusing welfare.. Open a classified section of any paper, jobs are available granted not what poeple want but if you are unemployed and unskilled ANYTHING will due until you either further your skills by education or good old hard work..... huh? she was not referring to the welfare program....she was referring to child care programs for people trying to leave the system. Let's get this straight: The administration wants $87 billion in new spending for Iraq, refuses to contemplate rolling back any of its tax cuts to pay for it -- and then proposes holding down new spending on child care for mothers trying to leave welfare."It's so obvious when you're out there with these single moms that they want to give 150 percent to get off welfare and provide for their families and achieve self-sufficiency and pride. But they just can't do it without help, and especially without child care." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted October 24 Report Share Posted October 24 Apparently mr mas, the only economy he is helping is not THE ECONOMY. Only YOUR ECONOMY. That fat corporate bank account.....yuppie boy.Capitalism must die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted October 24 Report Share Posted October 24 Originally posted by normalnoises Apparently mr mas, the only economy he is helping is not THE ECONOMY. Only YOUR ECONOMY. That fat corporate bank account.....yuppie boy.Capitalism must die. IF YOU PAY TAXES YOU GET A TAX CUT..They can't tax the welfare check you collect so YOU will not get a tax cut... Maybe you're parents can claim you, being that you still live at home :laugh:stop reading blender... rocker boy and pick up something remotley important you waste of AIR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted October 26 Report Share Posted October 26 Originally posted by mr mahs IF YOU PAY TAXES YOU GET A TAX CUT..They can't tax the welfare check you collect so YOU will not get a tax cut... Maybe you're parents can claim you, being that you still live at home :laugh:stop reading blender... rocker boy and pick up something remotley important you waste of AIR. Cost of the War in Iraqhttp://costofwar.com/^OUR US TAX DOLLARS AT WORKhttp://costofwar.com/numbers.htmlHow we got the numbersCost of Deployment and ReturnTo keep the Cost of War counter accurate, we periodically readjust our estimate to keep up with the the announced costs of the invasion. The most recent adjustment occurred on August 5, 2003. Department of Defense Comptroller Dov Zakheim on April 16, 2003 briefed the press on the Pentagon's estimate that to date the war had cost between $10-$12 billion in military operations, including the cost of airlift and sealift of troops and equipment, plus another $9 billion in the first 3 1/2 weeks of conflict. He added that the cost of returning troops and equipment to base would be another $5-$7 billion, for a total of between $24-$28 billion. We have taken the middle figure, $26 billion, and used it as the cost of the war up until April 17.The Fiscal 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill, (H.R. 1559) allocated some $8 billion to garner foreign support for the war (in further military and economic aid to several countries, including Jordan, Israel, and Egypt) and to help reconstruct Iraq (including over $400 million to ensure the proper functioning of Iraq's oil industry). The entire legislation is available through the Library of Congress legislative database; the Council for a Livable World published a useful summary. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Joshua Bolten, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 29 that by June 30 the US had already spent $2 billion in reconstruction funds, but Administration officials avoided saying how much would be spent on reconstruction in the coming months. We have included this $8 billion figure although it may be slightly high; if so, CostofWar.com will readjust it once the government provides more exact information. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 9 and in an interview on ABC's "This Week" on July 13 that the US military occupation is costing at least $3.9 billion a month.We began that rate on April 18. Interest CostsWith the government projected to run one of the largest deficits in history, it is not enough to simply consider the cost of the war today; we must also consider how much money we will be spending on it for years to come. To this end, we include the cost of interest payments in our total cost of war. We have chosen to use 10-year Treasury Notes for this calculation, and we use an interest rate of 4%. These decisions are explained in greater detail below. The net result, however, is that the cost of the war is 40% higher than the stated cost, due to 4% simple interest for 10 years. Therefore, although the stated cost of the war on April 17 was $34 billion, the actual cost was closer to $47.6 billion, due to the $13.6 billion we will be spending in interest. In addition, the cost of occupation is more accurately stated as $5.46 billion monthly, of which $1.56 billion is interest.The 10-year Treasury Note is not the only way to calculate interest, and it is true that shorter term instruments would result in lower interest costs. However, we chose the 10-year notes because Treasury Notes comprise the greatest component of the federal debt, and during the pre- and post-invasion periods, the government sold enough 10-year Treasury Notes to cover the buildup, war, and occupation. Without those costs, it would have been unnecessary to sell those securities. Overall, the average interest rate on government securities (used to finance the debt) is closer to 5 percent, but we have used an interest rate of 4% (or 40% over the term of the loan) because it more closely parallels the 10-year Treasury Note. Several visitors to the site have challenged the use of interest: Why add the deficit costs to the war's accounting? Why not add it to the cost of funding for the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Aviation Administration? Simply put, these type of programs are both essential and long-standing. The invasion and occupation of Iraq represents "new spending" by the Bush administration that goes above and beyond the existing budget. Thus, we feel it is safe to say that the war is being financed through deficit spending while other domestic programs are funded through tax dollars. Note that any social spending we might have done in place of the war would also have to be funded through deficit spending.The reason that war costs and social costs must both include interest is that if we were to spend the money used to wage the war to fund public housing, that money would still be incurring interest as it would still be above and beyond the existing budget. Therefore, we use a figure for the cost of war which does not include interest in order to compare against social programs. So, for example, if the total cost of war (including interest) is $70 billion, that is the equivalent of spending $50 billion on the war and $20 billion on interest. Therefore, we will show how many additional children could attend Head Start for $50 billion dollars, not $70 billion, and assume that the remaining $20 billion would have been spent on interest either way.We know that regularly tweaking the calculator may be a bit confusing ("last week the Cost of War calculator was at $72 billion, but now it's at $68 billion") but we prefer accuracy to inflexibility. And we hope that the underlying theme of this site, that the war not only comes at a social cost in Iraq but in the United States as well, remains clear regardless of the exact dollar amount.Elias Vlanton and Niko MatsakisJuly 7, 2003--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Comparative CostsPlease see this paragraph regarding the use of interest when comparing the cost of war and that of the social programs listed below. Head StartThe cost of a child in Head Start comes from the Head Start Program Fact Sheet issued by the US Department of Health and Human Services. The average cost per child for 2002 of $6,934 was raised by 2% to adjust for inflation to $7,073.Children's Health CareThe figure of $2,333 per child insured under Medicare is from the National Priorities Project's analysis of the trade-offs of military spending. The average cost of Medicaid per child is based on the most recent figures available (1998) and then adjusted for inflation by 10% a year (to compensate for the faster rate of inflation in health care). Affordable HousingThe figure of $70,000 per housing unit is based on the work of the National Priorities Project, and specifically their comparison of the costs of military spending and its alternatives: Military Spending and What it Could Really Pay For.TeachersThe US Department of Labor's 2000 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates gives the average wage for elementary and secondary teachers as $42,000. In line with the analysis of the work of the National Priorities Project, we have increased this number by $25% to reflect the cost of benefits for a total of $52,500. Four-Year College ScholarshipsThe College Board report Trends in College Pricing estimated that the cost of attending a four year public college or university in 2002 was $9,963, or $38,652 for four years. To this figure was added 2% to adjust for inflation, or $39,425.----------------------------http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/news/media/pressrel/031023p.htmIraq: the missing billions /23.10.03 A staggering US$4 billion in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds earmarked for the reconstruction of the country has disappeared into opaque bank accounts administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the US-controlled body that rules Iraq. By the end of the year, if nothing changes in the way this cash is accounted for, that figure will double.• Iraq: the missing billions - Transition and transparency in post-war Iraq The financial black hole, uncovered by a Christian Aid investigation, is revealed as delegates gather for the donors' conference in Madrid. Before pledging money from their own countries' coffers to boost the reconstruction efforts, as requested by the US and UK governments, these delegates should first demand: 'What has happened to the missing billions?' It is expected that a separate fund, managed by the UN and the World Bank, will be announced at the conference for donors' money, to allay fears of how this cash will be spent. But this should not stop donors from pushing for accountability of the original, massive reconstruction fund - most of it Iraqi oil money.In particular the British government, which has promised financial transparency in dealings with Iraqi oil funds, should use its influence to ensure that the missing money is accounted for. Christian Aid is calling on Prime Minister Tony Blair to deliver on his promises.The fact that no independent body knows where this cash has gone is in direct violation of the UN resolution that released much of it for the rebuilding of Iraq's shattered infrastructure. The agency that is supposed to oversee these funds has not even been set up yet.Christian Aid is calling for the full and immediate disclosure of how this money has been spent, and for urgent moves to establish a proper means of regulation. For the future, the British government should seek to ensure that a proportion of all Iraqi oil revenues are earmarked for the country's development - as a binding condition on future oil exploitation.'This is Iraqi money. The people of Iraq must know where it is going and it should be used for the benefit of all the country's people - particularly the poorest,' said Roger Riddell, Christian Aid's international director.The current situation goes to the heart of claims and counter-claims about how Iraqi oil revenue should be used. It can only fuel the serious suspicion in Iraq that a disproportionate amount of cash is being creamed off for the benefit of US companies - money that should be spent on alleviating the chronic unemployment and other serious problems faced by Iraqis, including the poorest and most vulnerable.Independent observers agree that, despite the huge amounts of money allocated to repair a country shattered by decades of war and sanctions, not nearly enough has been done and not nearly fast enough in the six months since the US announced an end to hostilities. There are still power cuts, fuel shortages, and a lack of medicine and equipment in hospitals. Clean drinking water is not available in many areas and raw sewage can be seen on the streets of many towns, including Basra - which is controlled by British forces.The fact that billions of dollars of Iraq's own money cannot now be accounted for can only add to a burning sense of injustice.'We have absolutely no idea how the money [from Iraqi oil revenues] has been spent,' one senior European diplomat to the UN told Christian Aid. 'I wish I knew, but we just don't know. We have absolutely no idea.'The missing billions are a combination of pre- and post-war oil revenues now controlled by the CPA, plus seized Iraqi government assets and funds vested overseas. Conservative estimates put the total at US$5 billion, of which less than US$1 billion can be accounted for. Estimated oil revenues between now and the end of the year are expected to total a further US$4 billion.This money is distinct from the reconstruction funds promised by the US and UK governments, and from any cash that is raised from other governments at the Madrid conference. This is Iraqi money that should be spent for the benefit of all Iraq's people, not sat on in secret by an unelected foreign administration.'The situation is little short of scandalous,' said Roger Riddell. 'The British government must use its position of second in command of the CPA to demand full disclosure of this money and its proper allocation in the future.'The dangers of such a situation persisting in the future were highlighted in the Christian Aid report Fuelling Poverty - Oil, War and Corruption, published in May. Compared with countries of similar size, the report found that oil-producing developing countries are characterised by greater degrees of: • Poverty (for the great majority of the population)• Dictatorial, authoritarian or unrepresentative government• War and/or civil strife• Corruption.'A properly constituted, democratic government must be established for all the people of Iraq as soon as possible,' said Roger Riddell. 'Otherwise, once again, oil could prove a curse rather than a blessing.'• Iraq: the missing billions - Transition and transparency in post-war Iraq • Spotlight: the Middle East• Christian Aid in IraqTo speak to a Christian Aid representative at the Madrid Conference contact Dominic Nutt on mobile +44 (0) 7720 467680 or + 44 (0) 7967 310024 or John Davison in London on 0207 523 2175 or mobile 07802 502155.-------------SHUT THE FUCK UP CLUB FAG! YOU KNOW NOTHING! CLUB FAGS KNOW NOTHING EXCEPT CIRCLE JERKING ON A DANCE FLOOR WITH OTHER FAGS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xpyrate Posted October 27 Report Share Posted October 27 Originally posted by mr mahs IF YOU PAY TAXES YOU GET A TAX CUT.. That is total complete bullshit!! I recieved a letter from the US Gov't specifically telling me that I am not getting a tax cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted October 27 Report Share Posted October 27 Originally posted by xpyrate That is total complete bullshit!! I recieved a letter from the US Gov't specifically telling me that I am not getting a tax cut. HOW MUCH DO YOU MAKE A YEAR?THE SECOND CUT WAS A REDUCTION IN THE MARGINAL TAX RATE MEANING IT WILL BE REALISED IN THE PAY CHECK YOU GET, IF YOU GET 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xpyrate Posted October 27 Report Share Posted October 27 Originally posted by mr mahs HOW MUCH DO YOU MAKE A YEAR? Crap ... and yes I pay taxes, so where's my cut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted October 28 Report Share Posted October 28 I pay taxes too. Where is MY cut??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted October 28 Report Share Posted October 28 How much do you idiots make a year.. 1 at a time please I don't want to fall over laughing.... It's not a refund check you scmucks it's a lowering of you're tax bracket so if you are in the 27% tax bracket which means if you make a min 28k you're previous bracket gets reduced to 25%. Now for the idiot section...take a guess how much this min (above 28k) or to 50% of earners pay? 96% of all taxes. SOOOOOOIf you make a LESS then 28k a year get a better job then a Librarian (normalnoises)Cleaning bowling shoes (xpyrate)..If you make more then 28k you're tax bracket was reduced....http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters/index.cfm?story=20030527http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted October 28 Author Report Share Posted October 28 Originally posted by mr mahs How much do you idiots make a year.. 1 at a time please I don't want to fall over laughing.... It's not a refund check you scmucks it's a lowering of you're tax bracket so if you are in the 27% tax bracket which means if you make a min 28k you're previous bracket gets reduced to 25%. Now for the idiot section...take a guess how much this min (above 28k) or to 50% of earners pay? 96% of all taxes. SOOOOOOIf you make a LESS then 28k a year get a better job then a Librarian (normalnoises)Cleaning bowling shoes (xpyrate)..If you make more then 28k you're tax bracket was reduced....http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters/index.cfm?story=20030527http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html so wait...if you are "poor" you are automatically stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted October 28 Report Share Posted October 28 Originally posted by bigpoppanils so wait...if you are "poor" you are automatically stupid? No I never said that..BUT if youmlive in the greatest country in the world anf don't take full advantage of that edge then yes you have issues.....ie. Normal & that other Tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted October 28 Author Report Share Posted October 28 Originally posted by mr mahs BUT if youmlive in the greatest country in the world anf don't take full advantage of that edge then yes you have issues..... http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM94so i guess US Soldiers have issues too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted October 28 Report Share Posted October 28 Originally posted by bigpoppanils http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM94so i guess US Soldiers have issues too? The armed forces perks are outsatnding and the experience is a stepping stone into a career that can be lucrative,why do you think when applying for a govt job they asked you if you were in the service ...They have balls of steel and my hat goes off to eevry one of them that's why they deserv every last thing they get like a better job either in civil sevices or governement or a federal home mortgage at 0% to name a few... DON'T PULL THAT REBUTTAL FROM YOU'RE HAT... I am talikng about people who blame they're poverty on this country instead of themselves.... This isn't a dess rehersal and every situation is diffrent but the tools and resources are out there especially if you are poor so don't give me that it's their life make the best of it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuturephunk Posted October 28 Report Share Posted October 28 Originally posted by mr mahs The armed forces perks are outsatnding and the experience is a stepping stone into a career that can be lucrative,why do you think when applying for a govt job they asked you if you were in the service ...They have balls of steel and my hat goes off to eevry one of them that's why they deserv every last thing they get like a better job either in civil sevices or governement or a federal home mortgage at 0% to name a few... DON'T PULL THAT REBUTTAL FROM YOU'RE HAT... I am talikng about people who blame they're poverty on this country instead of themselves.... This isn't a dess rehersal and every situation is diffrent but the tools and resources are out there especially if you are poor so don't give me that it's their life make the best of it.... ...Civil Service is inherantly an inefficient game, contributing to the immense spending irresponsibility that our government seems to love to participate in....Millitary service (with few exceptions, mainly becoming an officer, which usually means you're a lifer anyways..) doesn't necessarily guarantee you a job in the private sector.. Actually, to be completely honest, with all the HR dicksucking and good ole boy tactics in place, it means nothing... Again, officers are respected but they usually stay in for life, grunts on the other hand, are not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuturephunk Posted October 28 Report Share Posted October 28 ...Also, until you've lived in poverty, its probably best you not comment on it.. I doubt anyone on this board (myself included) could accurately convey what its like to live in a life of hopelessness.....Stating that the 'means' are out there is also bullshit.. If you don't start out in this life with at least middle standing, your chances of ever achieving an existence where you're not slaved to a paycheck to paycheck is slim.. Forget about professional jobs because, as stated above, there's a good old boy system thats firmly entrenched... That really doesn't matter though, most people don't have the access in this country to the level of education needed to excel..and that condition will only get worse over time as capitalism naturally consolidates wealth into very small concentrated segments of society... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted October 28 Report Share Posted October 28 Originally posted by phuturephunk ...Civil Service is inherantly an inefficient game, contributing to the immense spending irresponsibility that our government seems to love to participate in....Millitary service (with few exceptions, mainly becoming an officer, which usually means you're a lifer anyways..) doesn't necessarily guarantee you a job in the private sector.. Actually, to be completely honest, with all the HR dicksucking and good ole boy tactics in place, it means nothing... Again, officers are respected but they usually stay in for life, grunts on the other hand, are not... My best freind came out of the Marines as a PFC and walked on to the TSA making 40k because of his miltary service. He could have walked on to cutsoms which payed even more but decided to join a FDNY he is even closing on a house with a interest free mortgage all this occured because of his miltary service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted October 28 Report Share Posted October 28 Originally posted by phuturephunk ...Also, until you've lived in poverty, its probably best you not comment on it.. I doubt anyone on this board (myself included) could accurately convey what its like to live in a life of hopelessness.....Stating that the 'means' are out there is also bullshit.. If you don't start out in this life with at least middle standing, your chances of ever achieving an existence where you're not slaved to a paycheck to paycheck is slim.. Forget about professional jobs because, as stated above, there's a good old boy system thats firmly entrenched... That really doesn't matter though, most people don't have the access in this country to the level of education needed to excel..and that condition will only get worse over time as capitalism naturally consolidates wealth into very small concentrated segments of society... The life in poverty is hard correct but noone can say that the means of bettering you're situation doesn't exist because immigrants come here every day and SUCCEED. The promblem is ambition and confidence, the MAJORITY not all but the majority beleive they are trapped or oppressed but every day a self made millionaire defied the doom sentiment and made it, thats America for you....Professional jobs? I didn't know anybody to get my "Professional job" I went to school (haven't finished yet) sent my resumes out , showed up to the interview, presented myself like a human being not something from a rap video and I was hired. Now to say people don't have the access to the education to better themselves is incorrect because if you are poor enough you can go to a community college for next to nothing that's not enough? If that's not enough then the first point I made of lack of ambition or drive is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.