A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 110 of 725
Quote:Uh ... what does that have to do with anything? What point are you addressing? None that I made.
One thing women aren't attracted to are men that make $6.50 an hour. That's a fact.
Quote:That's why I specified skills such as carpentry, electrician, heavy machinery operation, various medical technician jobs etc. It pays to read what people post so you don't waste both our time going over silly arguments.
First of all, the training is worthless if those skills are learning things that could only get you a job making $6.50 an hour.
Quote:Which is why I specified public works type jobs, and service in public institutions, that are not now being performed. Again ... read what people post.
... we'd be massively undercutting what the pay for that work should be with our own taxpayer dollars.
Quote:But people join the army and put health, limb, brain, their individual identity, and life on the line for that rate of pay. I'm not seeing your point on this either.
At that rate of pay, nobody would do it. It's hard work. Sometimes even grueling work. I can't think of a single person who would do it for $6.50 an hour when they could go to Walmart and push carts for almost twice as much money.
Quote:http://work.chron.com/much-enlisted-army-soldiers-make-28798.html for my figure. Note that my figure was for 2014, not 2018.
Pay grade for E-1 in 2018 is reportedly 1,638 per month.
Quote:But you are on base at the army's beck and call and on their schedule 24/7. *IF* your time 'at work' was limited to 40 hours per week, it would be about 9.40 an hour for an average roughly 30.5-day month.
Which would be about $9.45/hr at 40 hours/week.
Quote:Why are you arguing that point with me? I didn't make it. Six did.
Maybe your stoner bimbos cannot comprehend, ...
My point was that if you are married you cannot fool around. IF YOU ARE SINGLE you can't fool around with a married person either. Both are adultery and will get you canned.
Some people might find those 'hey, it's MY personal life' restrictions will cramp their style.
Quote:Some people* would argue that, Constitutionally, we're not supposed to have a standing army at all. (*This has never been addressed in the courts.) And yet, through the miracle of reauthorization, we get to re-support the military every two years, as per the Constitutional limit.
This would all be a lot different if we were talking about putting military to work in non military infrastructure jobs at home.
I for one, would not support the free room and board for these people on taxpayer dime. It would be far too close to having a standing army on our own shores.
When it comes to deployment, the army is not supposed to be deployed within US borders and take action against citizens (Posse Comitatus act, not part of the Constitution) although Eisenhower used an exception during school desegregation. I agree with the act, which is why I would call this non-military service 'training', not 'deployment'.
SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:Uh ... what does that have to do with anything? What point are you addressing? None that I made.
One thing women aren't attracted to are men that make $6.50 an hour. That's a fact.
My mistake. I misread this part of your post.
Whether you made the argument or not, none of what you're suggesting is a very wise life choice in the long run.
Quote:
A potential social advantage is that females may be more attracted to a non-combat army, and would acquire weapons expertise, putting them in a less disadvantaged position to men re guns in civilian life.
Quote:Quote:That's why I specified skills such as carpentry, electrician, heavy machinery operation, various medical technician jobs etc. It pays to read what people post so you don't waste both our time going over silly arguments.
First of all, the training is worthless if those skills are learning things that could only get you a job making $6.50 an hour.
You're proposing drastically under cutting the value of this work by having it all done on taxpayer dime. This essentially amounts to taxpayer funded "scabs" doing the work for 1/5th of the actual value of the work. Regardless of how you see things, this is a valid argument and would have impact beyond what you're projecting.
Quote:Quote:Which is why I specified public works type jobs, and service in public institutions, that are not now being performed. Again ... read what people post.
... we'd be massively undercutting what the pay for that work should be with our own taxpayer dollars.
Who cares if they're not currently being performed? What happens when that work is done? The answer is they will start doing jobs that are already currently being performed by people who make a living at it. They would eventually take over those sectors of jobs as well because A) they'd be cheaper than anyone else and B) they're the gummint.
Quote:Quote:But people join the army and put health, limb, brain, their individual identity, and life on the line for that rate of pay. I'm not seeing your point on this either.
At that rate of pay, nobody would do it. It's hard work. Sometimes even grueling work. I can't think of a single person who would do it for $6.50 an hour when they could go to Walmart and push carts for almost twice as much money.
Not as many as you'd think today. Army doesn't get as many people as they used to. The only reason they haven't gone to a draft is because there are still enough people joining up because the danger of the job still really isn't all that much.
There's a lot of appealing things about the army to young people, particularly ones that had a shitty childhood. Living on the other side of the world being a major one of them. They're not doing that here.
Quote:
Some people might find those 'hey, it's MY personal life' restrictions will cramp their style.
Right. I can't imagine a bunch of people signing up for a non-combat army that stays at home and fixes bridges and in exchange for free room and board and a few bucks over minimum wage they're going to hand 24/7 control over their lives to the Government.
Quote:Quote:Some people* would argue that, Constitutionally, we're not supposed to have a standing army at all. (*This has never been addressed in the courts.) And yet, through the miracle of reauthorization, we get to re-support the military every two years, as per the Constitutional limit.
This would all be a lot different if we were talking about putting military to work in non military infrastructure jobs at home.
I for one, would not support the free room and board for these people on taxpayer dime. It would be far too close to having a standing army on our own shores.
When it comes to deployment, the army is not supposed to be deployed within US borders and take action against citizNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You're proposing drastically under cutting the value of this work by having it all done on taxpayer dime. This essentially amounts to taxpayer funded "scabs" doing the work for 1/5th of the actual value of the work. Regardless of how you see things, this is a valid argument and would have impact beyond what you're projecting.
Quote:I can't imagine what are essentially government workers being used for private-sector work while they're still government workers. Yanno, maybe it happens in some movie version of a corrupt dictatorship, where the generalissimo has the troops build his gold mansion with private landing strip on the pristine mountain, instead of hiring contractors ... but we're not that. At least not yet.
Who cares if they're not currently being performed? What happens when that work is done? The answer is they will start doing jobs that are already currently being performed by people who make a living at it. They would eventually take over those sectors of jobs as well because A) they'd be cheaper than anyone else and B) they're the gummint.
Quote:To some extent that's due to the aging of the population as a whole. But many people don't volunteer for the simple reason that 1) they saw people get redeployed over and over in Afghanistan and Iraq, in what I call a 'use them until they break, then throw them away' policy; and 2) nobody with any sense wants to risk their life. https://www.politico.eu/article/the-militarys-real-problem-fewer-ameri
Army doesn't get as many people as they used to.
cans-are-joining/
And that topic leads in to this:
Quote:If you remove combat duty from the equation, death and permanent disability DISincentives disappear.
Nobody is going to sign up for this as their only military duty.
Quote:Yeah, why would a young person who can't get a job want to 1) get a job, 2) be provided for, 3) move out of the house and hood, 4) not risk life and limb, and 5) LEARN A VALUABLE TRADE OR SKILL for when they leave?
I can't imagine a bunch of people signing up for a non-combat army that stays at home and fixes bridges and in exchange for free room and board and a few bucks over minimum wage they're going to hand 24/7 control over their lives to the Government.
You seem to think that people would be more eager to join the military if only they just could have the fantabulous opportunity of dying or being disabled BEFORE they get their training, instead of skipping the risk and going straight to the training.
I'm not saying it would be for everybody. But the combined services are ~1.3M strong. Even under today's circumstances, it attracts a significant number of people. I can imagine it would continue to attract at least as many, if not more.
SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ACA falters across Texas. Uninsured rises after attacks on Obamacare
www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Number-of-uninsured-A
mericans-on-the-rise-12914114.php
The historic gains in Texas and the rest of the nation are now slipping away as the uninsured rate starts to rise again, a new national health care report has found.
The rate of working age adults without health coverage — those between age 19 and 64 — has ticked up to about 15.5 percent so far in 2018, up from 12.7 percent in 2016, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey released this month.
Texas continues to lead the nation in the rate and number of uninsured, according to health statistics. About 4.5 million people in the state are uninsured, including nearly 700,000 children.
Still, Republicans do not see the report as necessarily grim. Dr. Deane Waldman, director for Health Care Policy at the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, complained “Obamacare” creates bureaucratic bloat and is unduly restrictive on types of affordable coverage available, calling the individual mandate “government coercion.”
Under the ACA, the individual mandate was considered a necessary pillar to help broaden the risk pool. The idea was that if everyone, including those who did not use much health care, were required to buy broad coverage it would help offset the cost to cover those who were sicker and needed more treatment.
The national uninsured rate prior to Obamacare was about 16 percent. The situation was even more dire in Texas when more than one in four people — by some estimates as many as 26 percent — lacked coverage, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
But by last year as the law entered its seventh year the national rate had dropped to a historic low of around 9 percent nationally and around 17 percent in Texas.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Removing the mandate was the best thing Trump has done so far.
If we want to fix healthcare in this country, removing insurance from the equation is what needs to be done. Forcing everyone to have insurance is regressive to the goal.
Health insurance has risen by more than 300% since the ACA was enacted, and deductibles have doubled.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Interesting to know some parts of the nation have a brain.
Originally posted by second:
For wealthy Texas Republicans relied upon by national party officials for vital campaign cash, the GOP’s inability to repeal Obamacare last summer wasn’t just a disappointing legislative low point.
It became a reason for them to turn off the money spigot.
“It was super frustrating,” said Houston energy executive Dan Eberhart, a Trump supporter and national GOP donor. “They used that line for 10 years: ‘Repeal and Replace.’ They raised money on it, and then they just flopped.”
But since then, Eberhart has come around.
“I feel like maybe I’ve done a full revolution,” he said. “In October, I was very upset. I felt like ‘You guys raised all this money and just completely failed on Obamacare repeal and replace.’ That’s where my head was at. Once they passed tax reform, I guess maybe I fell in line and came back into the fold.” . . .
Texas Republican donors tightened their wallets in 2017 when they saw little return from the Trump administration’s early chaotic months with Congress.
But some top donors say that changed with December’s tax cut bill, which also ended the individual mandate penalty under the Affordable Care Act. Big Republican money has started flowing again, starting with Texas, the honey-pot of national GOP fundraising.
www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Republican
-donors-beginning-to-reopen-the-money-12911446.php
And you have made a reasonable post. Are you ill again, or still?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My reply was to 6ix. I was not replying to you.
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:Why are you arguing that point with me? I didn't make it. Six did.
Maybe your stoner bimbos cannot comprehend, ...
6ix replied to you, I replied to 6ix.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
You're proposing drastically under cutting the value of this work by having it all done on taxpayer dime. This essentially amounts to taxpayer funded "scabs" doing the work for 1/5th of the actual value of the work. Regardless of how you see things, this is a valid argument and would have impact beyond what you're projecting.Quote:I can't imagine what are essentially government workers being used for private-sector work while they're still government workers. Yanno, maybe it happens in some movie version of a corrupt dictatorship, where the generalissimo has the troops build his gold mansion with private landing strip on the pristine mountain, instead of hiring contractors ... but we're not that. At least not yet.
Who cares if they're not currently being performed? What happens when that work is done? The answer is they will start doing jobs that are already currently being performed by people who make a living at it. They would eventually take over those sectors of jobs as well because A) they'd be cheaper than anyone else and B) they're the gummint.Quote:To some extent that's due to the aging of the population as a whole. But many people don't volunteer for the simple reason that 1) they saw people get redeployed over and over in Afghanistan and Iraq, in what I call a 'use them until they break, then throw them away' policy; and 2) nobody with any sense wants to risk their life. https://www.politico.eu/article/the-militarys-real-problem-fewer-ameri
Army doesn't get as many people as they used to.
cans-are-joining/
And that topic leads in to this:Quote:If you remove combat duty from the equation, death and permanent disability DISincentives disappear.
Nobody is going to sign up for this as their only military duty.Quote:Yeah, why would a young person who can't get a job want to 1) get a job, 2) be provided for, 3) move out of the house and hood, 4) not risk life and limb, and 5) LEARN A VALUABLE TRADE OR SKILL for when they leave?
I can't imagine a bunch of people signing up for a non-combat army that stays at home and fixes bridges and in exchange for free room and board and a few bucks over minimum wage they're going to hand 24/7 control over their lives to the Government.
You seem to think that people would be more eager to join the military if only they just could have the fantabulous opportunity of dying or being disabled BEFORE they get their training, instead of skipping the risk and going straight to the training.
I'm not saying it would be for everybody. But the combined services are ~1.3M strong. Even under today's circumstances, it attracts a significant number of people. I can imagine it would continue to attract at least as many, if not more.
SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).
Your whole premise is based upon spending just as many taxpayer dollars as we do today, but to train troops at home and give them low paying jobs. I don't see any point at all to any of this.
It would make sense to do this for a short period to give our currently enlisted members of our ridiculously bloated army something to do while paring down the size of our military and expenditures, but you're suggesting that instead we subsidize our own military by enslaving citizens to cheap labor and 24/7 government dictatorship over their lives in exchange for low paying jobs and a little bit of training, and it seems like you're endorsing making this a new thing that we just continue to do.
Sorry Kiki, but you're speaking from your own position of financial privilidge. This almost sounds like an idea that Second would think was a good one.
Do Right, Be Right
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Trump helps banned Chinese phone maker ZTE after China delivers a big loan to a Trump project.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Sorry Kiki, but you're speaking from your own position of financial privilidge. This almost sounds like an idea that Second would think was a good one.
Many Republicans in Congress are clearly aware that something fishy is happening with ZTE. But while they have extensive oversight powers that could be used to check Trump’s conflicts of interest, they decline to use any of them, leaving America to depend on nothing more than Trump’s say-so.
Trump stands to gain from an Indonesian project that got a $500 million loan right before he flip-flopped on ZTE, a banned phone maker. A Chinese state-owned company came through with hundreds of millions of dollars which will pay for construction of Trump-branded properties in Indonesia.
Asked at Monday’s press briefing about the business deal in Indonesia, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah punted questions to the Trump Organization, saying, “You’re asking about a private organization’s dealings.”
And the Trump Organization, as a privately held business, has no obligation to answer skeptical questions from the public. The obligation to answer questions rests with the White House, and the questionable conduct is on the part of the US president.
Way back in January 2017, Trump attorney Sheri Dillon reassured the public that “no new foreign deals will be made whatsoever during the duration of President Trump’s presidency.” Ha-ha-ha!
She was, obviously, misleading people about that and doing so on behalf of Trump. A company that he owns and that is run by his sons — sons who also serve as close political advisers — is doing business all around the world, including with foreign governments, at the same time that Trump is doing multifaceted international negotiations with those same governments.
The chronology of the Chinese loan to Trump and Trump's flip-flop on banning ZTE, a Chinese company, are here:
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/15/17355202/trump-zte-indonesia
-lido-city
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why quote me then post that?
Is the simple fact that your name brought up in the previous post justification enough to segway into whatever random thought pops up in that little pea brain of yours?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME