|
| Thread: If your still in the BUSH, get out now |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
posted July 05, 2007 07:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That dont nessasarily mean it that way Jake.
He seems to take things out of context.
**smiles dryly**
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 05, 2007 08:11 AM |
|
|
What?
I do?
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted July 05, 2007 08:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I do?
As far as I have noticed, yes you do sometimes.
You dont think so?
Then again, that is just my opinion.
You said:
"Using fear as a weapon? How does that seperate us from a homicidal terrorist or an imperical dictatorial regime? Fear is the weapon of choice for those who are probably the most afraid."
Fear doesn't HAVE to be weapon...the weapon in question can simply be the American people standing up to Capitol Hill and saying "This is enough".
Don't you think that is is even a little bit off that service men and women serving our country and fighting and dying in Iraq and other parts of the world should receive better treatment/payment/benefits/etc. by the people (our government) that send them out into the conflicts with the possiblily that they might not return?
People don't have to lynch the President or use fear in any form to get the message across that these things that Violent_Flower writes about are simply unacceptable.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2007 10:37 AM |
|
|
I'm having a hard time tracking down the exact numbers, but I've seen enough to be convinced that what Rush Limbaugh says is highly misleading.
I didn't even know before this that there was federal compensation for the 9/11 families. The numbers Rush states appear to be somewhere in the ballpark, but that's NOT all federal money. The majority is insurance, chartable contributions, etc. Still the federal portion is sizable.
The numbers he states for Congressional compensation appear to be way off, or at least misleading. For example: "Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month.". That's just plain wrong. Like most pensions, they become vested after 5 years which is three terms in the house or one term in the senate. But there is no way they are getting 15K per month after that short length of time. 15K sounds like it might be right for a lifelong congressman.
I'm not completely sure about this, but I think the congress uses the same formula and retirement system as the military does. And they DO pay into social security.
"most are now equal to being millionaires plus."
And they SHOULD be millionaires. If they've been in for any length of time and they aren't millionaires, then they shouldn't be in office because they're irresponsible with their own money, so how can I trust them with mine?
____________
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 03:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And they SHOULD be millionaires. If they've been in for any length of time and they aren't millionaires, then they shouldn't be in office because they're irresponsible with their own money, so how can I trust them with mine?
I highly disagree with that. I don't think people in office should be millionaires, not when so many people in the US, people they are supposed to serve, are living at or below the poverty line. (Including a lot of military families)
Maybe some of the Rush numbers ARE wrong, but you can't dispute that people in office are paid more and largely appear to have better benefits and pensions than the people protecting this country.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 03:13 AM |
|
|
Thats the way life is.
The rich get super richer & the poor gets super poorer.
Thats just the way it is.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 06, 2007 06:31 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 06:34, 06 Jul 2007.
|
No...
I do not accept that axiom. That is not simply the way life is. If we're going to discuss public official salaries then I expect to hear something about the weight and responsibility of their jobs from you people.
Leadership
What price should we pay for good leadership? And furthermore Why do we need leadership at all? At least one example can be: September 11th vs. Katrina. Look at both city mayors and who did what to enact a sense of stability.
In New Orleans look at the secondary damage due to a loss of order. How much did it cost us to let choas reign free? How many fellow americans died after the hurricane by other people? Some people were panicked and looted and fought and trampled those less physically able or whom were simply in the way. Some people died because the rescue parties didn't get there in time. Some police fled and others stayed. Did anyone coordinate the rescue efforts of all the local and outside agencies? Where was the mayor?
In New York, how many police fled? How soon did the rescue teams arrive? I seem to recall something someone once said about the fire fighters: "They went up as the buildings came down." How many lives were saved because of their courage and bravery? How many people were trampled by a stampeding frightened mob? I seem to recall police in the streets guiding persons along pointing them in the right direction while holding their posts. And who was there coordinating the efforts of all the local rescues and incoming aid from all the other outside agencies ready to lend a hand? The mayor--a good leader.
A good leader can be immeasurably helpful. A good leader can inspire economic growth. A good leader can bring about change when it's needed. A good leader can mobilize people in such a way as to make history! And when children look back and read about what their ancestors did in some situations, they can be proud of what little each and every person contributed. From the common man woman and child on the street to the lofty well-paid nicely dressed educated office manager....They leave this world better than when they found it all because of a good leader who can help focus their talents and contributions into one unified singular goal and effort. United we stand, Divided we fall.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 08:46 AM |
|
|
I don't think that the members of Congress are overpaid. They are paid well compared to the average person. But the pay basically sucks compared to the earning power of the equivalent private sector job. I'm sure a lot of them take pay cuts when they get the job. They certainly aren't going into it for the money. If they have the qualifications for the job and the capability to get elected, they almost certainly can make more doing something else.
I understand that people in low income levels think Congressmen make a huge sum of money. People tend to think that anyone who makes more than them is "rich". But the truth is that there are LOTS of jobs that pay as much or more money. The pay sounds like the ballpark pay for a doctor fresh out of college with no experience. And there are thousands and thousands of doctors...and that's only starting pay. Heck, even an engineer can make more than that with bonuses/profit sharing.
As for them being millionaires, so what? A millionaire isn't any big deal these days. Someone currently in their 30s in this country needs to have at least a million dollars just to retire at a reasonable age. And someone in their 20s will probably need at least 2-3 million to retire. I'm willing to bet that the majority of the younger people here at HC will become millionaires in their lifetime.
I also think the pay for military is reasonable. To put it another way, a career enlisted man should be able to become a millionaire in their lifetime. Since they got rid of the draft and went to an all volunteer military, the pay and benefits have gone up tremendously. It has to be reasonable or they would never get anyone to join. It's basically supply and demand and the military will pay whatever it takes to meet their quotas for enlistment and re-enlistment.
____________
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 09:03 AM |
|
|
Greed Jake.
Human nature of rich people are usually greedy.
There are some who will do whatever it takes to get over on you.
You know it's true Mr. Bachlor.
Car Insurance.
Phone Bills.
Apartment payments.
Work.
The higher people always try to take advantage of the people who are not up there.
Maybe not everyone but a good majority of them.
Not just in America either.
Stealing robbing.
It happens.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 04:39 PM |
|
|
There are several problems with all of this "revolution" crap.
1. It's impossible for a country this large. The last major revolutions(I think) that had most of the country behind them, were the French and American revolutions. Both of those countries then were many times smaller then the USA today, and they still had many dissenters. It would be impossible to unite the whole country for a "revolution" again.
2. Assuming you somehow manage to start a revolution, if you do it the way VF's friend proposed, and the way the other two were conducted, it's going to be extremely bloody. Why? Because most of the military will end up fighting against the revolutionists. And there's a much bigger technology gap between today's military and anything civilians have access to then there was in 1776. Thus, it wouldn't get anywhere.
3. Finally, assuming it succeeds, the country is doomed. A revolution that overthrew all local, state and federal governments would throw the country into a permanent state of anarchy. This would, most likely, cause more pain and suffering then the entire revolution, and eventually, people would become so upset that they would end up reinstating the old system, just because it worked.
So to sum it up, a revolution would be a step backwards, not forwards.
____________
They can take my swamp, they can take my town, but they will never take my FREEDOM!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 07:41 PM |
|
|
Then let's partition the US. The South can live in a stagnating theocracy and the Southwest can be given back to Mexico. The rest should join Canada.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 07:44 PM |
|
|
Or, Canada can join the rest of the US.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So my patient suggested that in order to have some serious change we need about eighty percent of the American people to surround all the government building containing higher ups. We need to drag them out and give them a public hanging demanding that we have clean government, one that works for us and the good of the people.. Revolution!
(Uh oh.....)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then let's partition the US. The South can live in a stagnating theocracy and the Southwest can be given back to Mexico. The rest should join Canada.
What are you talking about?
Mexico is already on the move of taking back SOme of thier states.
Just tell them to remember the Alomo & they flip out .
They are already over populating California now.
They are killing our people, robbing & hurting us with racism & hatred.
No one is doing nothing about it.
Not like any of us embarrassed them when we read about the Alamo.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 09:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So to sum it up, a revolution would be a step backwards, not forwards.
Most, if not all changes start with a painful transition phase, before they grow into something good.
There are also peaceful revolutions. For instance, I think if 1/3d of the US population would go on strike, the government would be on its knees in a few days.
Ps. Long time no seen Peacemaker 
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 09:57 PM |
|
|
Maybe thats why everything costs so much.
They dont want a whole population to start a revolution.
People simply have kids & a family.
They cant afford to go on strike.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 10:09 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I suppose most people think they have too much to lose. They have a mortgage to pay, kids who are going to school, and are afraid someone else might take their job...
Then again, if you can rally enough people for your cause, others would let go of their fear and join in, even to go on a strike. Revolution can really unite people. But maybe I'm just being idealistic and naive 
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted July 06, 2007 11:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So to sum it up, a revolution would be a step backwards, not forwards.
Most, if not all changes start with a painful transition phase, before they grow into something good.
There are also peaceful revolutions. For instance, I think if 1/3d of the US population would go on strike, the government would be on its knees in a few days.
Ps. Long time no seen Peacemaker
My point is, a revolution like the one VF's friend described, killing all higher-ups in the government, would be an extreme step backwards. A massive strike would not be, because the country can still function after the strike.
____________
They can take my swamp, they can take my town, but they will never take my FREEDOM!
|
|
dkolb
Promising
Known Hero
Nay Nay and Aslan Protector
|
|
posted July 08, 2007 01:42 PM |
|
Edited by dkolb at 13:44, 08 Jul 2007.
|
I think America needs a Ron Paul revolution.
He's the last champion of the constitution.
He'd cut all the pork and get rid of all the government agencies that are draining the countries lifeforce.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2007 03:56 PM |
|
|
Yeah, Ron Paul is good. Too bad he's against free trade and wants to give states more rights (how are states any better than the federal government)?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
