To all the liberals tonight....

[5.56X45mm]

Top Ten most Dangerous Jobs in America, Aug 28th, 2010

Cops and fire fighters aren't on that list...

The three top most dangerous are Fishermen, loggers, and pilots. That's across the board from most lists and studies.

Cops and fire fighters are usually after the number 10 spot.

Sorry but cops (me included) should rape the tax payer for years and years. The more of us retire and the more get hired simply creates a situation in which the tax payer will be having to pay more and more.

Standard operating procedure is to do their twenty and retire to a place where they can live like Kings.

California is a prime example. The state is so broke they're very close to going bankrupt and I (the tax payer) will have to bail them out. That state is dieing under the government retirement plans for government workers.

It used to work like this....

You either work in the private sector and make a ton of cash but have a lower retirement because you made more money during your twenty-thirty years. You work as a government employee for less pay then the private sector and get a better retirement plan.

But now it's this....

You work in the private sector and make less then government employees and also have a crappy retirement. On top of that you get taxed more and more to finance the pay raises and retirement plans for the government employees.

If you work in the government sector you have a fire proof job, get huge pay raises and a huge retirement plan along with great benefits.

Why should it be that way? The current system of government is a business that makes no product or provide any service yet they demand profits and no corporate competition. Some cities have farmed out their government jobs to private sector industry and have gotten a better bang for their buck. Better services, cheaper prices, and a happier citizenry. Should bus driver's be government employees? What about trash collectors? What about road workers?

As for my taxes and my income. The government should not have the right to get any of it. I work hard for my money..... remember other then being a cop I also work in the private sector. Gun Store...... Under our current system I basically work from January to April to simply cover my taxes. Four damn months of hard work to pay the FED. This is in Florida.... a state with no income tax.

If I lived in NYC I'd be paying a City Income Tax, State Income Tax, and a Federal Income Tax. That amounts to 40-60% of my income depending on what tax bracket I would qualify in. &#@% THAT!

If you want a stronger economy and a better general welfare of the population. Reduce the government and allow me, the private citizen to decide what to do with my money. If I have more money I can spend it on more goods. Thus I support more business and jobs. Thus they make more money and do the same, etc, etc.... The poor does not create jobs and industry. It is the rich that does it. Why? Because they make more money and spend it on more goods thus supporting more businesses and creating more growth and jobs.

Government intrusion into the private sector does nothing except grow government power and reduce the private sector's ability to produce goods and services. That is what makes the economy go..... As a former business owner and a current business partner we're filing chapter 7 bankruptcy and closing down Pirates Cove Bait a Tackle and Homestead Guns and Ammo. My gun store..... I have $50k invested in it. But in the last two years the Federal Government has raised the taxes that I as a FFL holder have to pay along with creating new mandates that my employees have to have healthcare that I have to pay for. Guess what.... those dollars that I paid to the Fed used to go to my employees and my business partners. The businesses that I bought my goods from. The bait dealers, ammo companies, gun companies, fishing rod companies, etc...

On the gun side we had six employees and on the fishing side we had twelve. We had to cut it down to two on the gun side and four on the fishing side. We tried to stay afloat but we can't so we're closing shop. This is a business that I have been in since I was 21. I'm going on 27. That was every single penny I made as a soldier thrown into it. I sold the business to a friend so I can become a cop. I threw in an additional $50k when I became a silent partner because I achieved my career as a cop. Why? Because that store was my life and I poured my heart and soul into it. But that's ending now.....

If you don't have your skin in the game you don't understand the risks. I do... I have since I was 18 years old. I've done my duty and continue to do my duty to support my country and my community and I have worked damn hard for the American dream. Yet there are those here in America that are trying to screw me out of that dream because they feel since I make a certain amount I should be forced to give to those that don't.

Guess what.... I'm not a college graduate. A piece of paper doesn't mean you're educated. I've dealt with people that are dumber then a box of ricks yet they have a PHD. Yet me, as a high school graduate have been able to start a business and become a cop. Why do I have to run my life debt free yet the government doesn't? WHY?!?!

This is why I'm getting out of Florida and moving to Texas. Because it's over for me here and I need to start somewhere that is more business friendly. I'm going to try again and I'm not going to quit, but I'm getting mighty pissed at the scumbags that live better then I do and yet they don't do jack crap.

IF YOU GIVE A MAN A FISH YOU FEED HIM FOR A DAY. IF YOU TEACH A MAN TO FISH YOU FEED HIM FOR LIFE.

Understand that and let it sink in real deep. You want people to be better off? Cut off the welfare and tell them to suck it up and man up. If they fail. Tough cookies. My family came over from Cuba with out a pot to piss in and we've worked damn hard for what we have. We did it without any government help. Other can do it to. Life isn't fair and once you understand you'll live better.

 

[Damien435]

I wasn`t going to assume anything. Yes, college does add to life experiences. You can`t teach intelligence.

No, but college can impart knowledge on an individual. Intelligence without knowledge is like an engine with no fuel. Having witnessed numerous debates, I am not convinced that Noem has either or that she will be representing her constituents in SD but rather marching to the tune set forth by soon to be Speaker Boehner.

 

[Hook160th]

No, but college can impart knowledge on an individual. Intelligence without knowledge is like an engine with no fuel. Having witnessed numerous debates, I am not convinced that Noem has either or that she will be representing her constituents in SD but rather marching to the tune set forth by soon to be Speaker Boehner.

Yes it can, as well as many other things can. Don`t misunderstand what my point is. If someone wants to, and has the opportunity, by all means they should go to college. Being educated by ANY means, and especially that one, is never a bad thing. I just don`t think it`s a requirement for making sound decisions.
As far as anyone marching to the tune of someone else.....most (if not all) politicians do that. They are beholden to their party, lobbyists, and special interest groups before they even consider what you and I want.

 

[A Can of Man]

I hope the Republican Party does a better job this time around.
But I got a feeling that years from now, it'll be more disappointments and more reshuffling after another round of emotion charged elections.
So basically, same ol' same ol'.

 

[Seehund]

European socialist style government and programs.

5.56x45mm you're talking about European socialist style government and programs. But this is were we as Europeans and Americans don’t have the same understanding of socialism.

Socialism for a European refers to a broad range of political movements seeking a socio-economic system in which the means of production (e.g. factories, financial institutions, infrastructure, etc.) are subject to political control and benefit all members of society. This control of the means of production may have different expressions. Examples could be talking about state ownership, cooperatives or workers direct ownership over their own workplace. Socialism is thus primarily in contrast to capitalism as an economic system, and liberalism as a political system. None of the European countries practice this form of socialism.

Socialism, as practiced in the U.S., is a social rather than a political system. The U.S. interpretation of socialism is closer to what one might call popular socialism or democratic socialism in Europe.

The Danish society is a welfare state that works within the framework of a market economy. This Denmark has in common with many others, especially European, countries. There are three aspects in particular that are worth noting by the Danish welfare model:

The State has assumed a major responsibility for public welfare.
The public sector is performing many of society’s common tasks.
Welfare are made widely available to all citizens when they meet certain conditions to receive it.

Welfare benefits are financed by the entire population of the community through taxes, etc.. So there is no direct correlation between what you pay and what benefits you receive or use. The way to adapt the welfare state is to allow both men and women to participate actively in the labor market. But it is also necessary, otherwise there would not be paid enough in taxes to finance the cost of childcare, schools, hospitals, elderly care, unemployment benefits, social assistance, social pensions, etc. The Danish welfare model is therefore based on a specific interaction between the state and the Danish labor market. The state pays benefits to those who are unemployed. It also helps the unemployed to get a job, including providing activation, training and job placement. By contrast, in Denmark a strong tradition of pay and working conditions is agreed directly between two sides. That is, trade unions and employer organizations. It’s not something the state as such has something to do with. And agreement and arrangements are used in place of legislation. This model has developed a close interaction between workers and employers. It has also ensured that Denmark has a more flexible labor market than many other countries.

The first step for the welfare state, as we know today, was taken in the late 1800s. It happened at a time when there were many changes in Danish society, economically, politically and socially. Democracy began to take shape. All this changed in a relatively few years the Danish society dramatically, including the social situation. With the changes of the old agricultural and artisan communities a number of private social security schemes disappeared. Instead, the state began increasingly to take care of those citizens who needed help. There were more and more strict rules on who could be awarded benefits for sickness, accident, unemployment and old age. There were also more and more people who gained access to benefits. Welfare Society was slowly on its way. In the early 1930s a major social reform was carried out. The reform was 55 social policy laws grouped in four public insurance laws, and conducted more clear rules under which individuals could get help. The main track towards the current welfare state was laid in the 1950s and 1960s. Here several of the basic principles of welfare society were established. It was also during this period that the extension of welfare benefits really took off, and the social safety net was strengthened. Earlier the state had especially helped individuals who were affected by unemployment, sickness and accident and old age. But in this period the state began to include a range of services within particular social and health sectors. This applied, for example, childcare, elderly care and hospital care. Help for the needy citizens were gradually supplemented by services that all people could benefit from; the rich as well as poor.

The Danish welfare society is founded on the principle that individual citizens have both rights and duties. Citizens, who meet certain conditions, are entitled to welfare state benefits. But each citizen has an obligation to contribute to the community. First, by paying taxes, partly by working. If one is left inactive and receive help, you have an obligation to make an active effort to get back to work. This applies to both men and women. The Danish model of welfare society has many features in common with the other Nordic countries. Often people talk about the Nordic model. Welfare Society is changing and renewing itself constantly. Today, virtually all collective agreements include a pension. There is also a large private market where individuals can save up for his retirement. In some areas, users have free choice between public and private providers. This includes homecare. In the health sector private hospitals and clinics have been set up. They work to some extent as an alternative or complement to public offerings.

Is it socialism? Not to the Danes.

 

[Ted]

Not to the Dutch either.... And even the ones receiving welfare have to pay taxes for the money they get. Actually quite funny isn't it

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

The idea of the small state, when the government is taking care of defense, law enforcement, and creation of the laws is a liberal theory and an epistemological approach to the political and the economic theory called liberalism, this is called the night watch man state. Read John Staurt Mill, Robert Nozick, and perhaps even John Rawl.

This is high school level, have you passed through that?

 

[Seehund]

Yes but, liberalism is not an expression of any definitive doctrine but a practical application of scientific understanding of the social processes that people are part in.

Liberalism in America is simply another word for social liberalism, the concept is linked to a desire for the establishment of a strong welfare state, support for governmental assistance programs such as Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal program and Keynesian economics in general, in contrast, liberalism in Europe is still characterized by being in tune with the classic view.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Yes its a difference in between the US and Europe, but the conservatives are using the approach from the liberalism about how they view the state and the two of these scientists (Rawl and Nozick) created these ideas based upon Locke`s theories. Its actually a contrast toward Roosevelt and Keynes and the two major thinkers of the liberal ideas were from the US. Last time I checked were Harvard and Princeton in the US What Roosevelt implemented was a reaction toward the depression (1929) also to save the companies in the state and bring people from the streets, The new deal had nothing to do with social liberalism, it was rather a mercantilist approach to the economic situation.

I rasie question marks about the level of education when the conseravtive supporters are using the thoughts of the small state and view that as the goal when the theory about the small state is very liberal and from two American scientists.

 

[George]

Yes its a difference in between the US and Europe, but the conservatives are using the approach from the liberalism about how they view the state and the two of these scientists (Rawl and Nozick) created these ideas based upon Locke`s theories. Its actually a contrast toward Roosevelt and Keynes and the two major thinkers of the liberal ideas were from the US. Last time I checked were Harvard and Princeton in the US What Roosevelt implemented was a reaction toward the depression (1929) also to save the companies in the state and bring people from the streets, The new deal had nothing to do with social liberalism, it was rather a mercantilist approach to the economic situation.

I rasie question marks about the level of education when the conseravtive supporters are using the thoughts of the small state and view that as the goal when the theory about the small state is very liberal and from two American scientists.

To oversimplify...Conservatives want a small unintrusive State, & Liberals want a large Nanny State that gets involved with every facet of life. Libertarians view themselves as Classic Liberals & view the Democrat Party as Socialists/Statist who've hijacked the Liberal Title. Back in the 40s the Head of the Socialist Party said there was no need for them to field a candidate as the Democrats had adopted all of thier positions. Most of the positions advocated by the Communist Manifesto on how to take over a society has or is being implemented by the Democrats or is part of thier Platform. The US Govt, after the New Deal programs & a virtual, though temporary, takeover of industry during WWII, has left a far more intrusive Govt than pre Depression, & it's only getting worse.

 

[Ted]

To oversimplify...Conservatives want a small unintrusive State, & Liberals want a large Nanny State that gets involved with every facet of life.

And what would you like? A government that does virtually nothing until the moment you need them? And then they have to be at the ready! I just don't understand your fear of a big bad government. What are you so afraid of, that they will curtail "the American Dream"? This is happening regardless who is governing. Perhaps you should opt for anarchy, then noone will do anything no more...

 

[A Can of Man]

And what would you like? A government that does virtually nothing until the moment you need them? And then they have to be at the ready! I just don't understand your fear of a big bad government. What are you so afraid of, that they will curtail "the American Dream"? This is happening regardless who is governing. Perhaps you should opt for anarchy, then noone will do anything no more...

If you think about it, this is what they're really asking for.
Said there's a place like that. It's called Somalia.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

So Somalia is the norm.

What many Americans´are doing is to mix up the socialist theory with the liberal, (not at the universities)

All the ideologies have their theory about the creation of the state. What I have read here is not a liberal theory, its a socialist theory, in Europe they are called Social Democrats

The socialst theory about the state has two paths. The Social Democratic approach is the change the society with reforms. The other path is the Lenin Marxistic approach, when the revolution shall take place in three stages. The first stage is the avantgarde, which shall lead the revolution, and then implement the prolitarian dictatorship-then communism, there all parts of the society share the means of the production. Will it work in reality? The social democratic approach is more or less the same, but instead of using violence, they want to change the state by reforms

The classical Liberal theory is focused on the individual, and his freedom is absolute, the government has no right to reduce his freedom with taxes, laws, etc. The night watch man state is very liberal, which the conservative is using in the US, so are the conservative in the US conservative? No, in reality they are liberal.

the democratic party is more social democratic than liberal, the health care programme, which is a major policy change in the US, to increase the taxes, reduce the spending with a reduced defense budget. They are also institutionalist, both domestically and international.

Btw, do you when you serve in the armed forces get an opportunity to study and get college degree?

 

[George]

If you think about it, this is what they're really asking for.
Said there's a place like that. It's called Somalia.

And what would you like? A government that does virtually nothing until the moment you need them? And then they have to be at the ready! I just don't understand your fear of a big bad government. What are you so afraid of, that they will curtail "the American Dream"? This is happening regardless who is governing. Perhaps you should opt for anarchy, then noone will do anything no more...

Going off the deep end again, eh? The states created the Fed. Govt. to handle things of national importance. The sates handles things that weren't of national importance, including assistance(welfare). Now we have such things as the Feds telling towns what size letters have to be on street sings, absolutely non of thier business. Education was @ the County level, the more the Feds have gotten involved, the worse the results. I could ask why your side has such absolute faith in big govt. They're not geniouses, they just think they can run everybodys lives better than the individual can. Like Rob sorta said in a Thread...a guy who is smart enough to makes millions, 10s or 100s of millions isn't smart enough to spent it "the right way" (in the view of Libs) so the Govt has to sieze the money from the productive so these people, who choose to try to run other people lives for them, can in thier delusional state, spend other peoples money in what they think is "the right way". I have more faith in the people making the right decisions, that together forms the free market that has benefits to the whole is far greater than any from a planned economy. Way too uch belief in a wise govt working for the benefit of the people vs the probablility that they're just a bunch of control freaks. The Anarchist movement pretty much died out a century ago.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Going off the deep end again, eh? The states created the Fed. Govt. to handle things of national importance. The sates handles things that weren't of national importance, including assistance(welfare). Now we have such things as the Feds telling towns what size letters have to be on street sings, absolutely non of thier business. Education was @ the County level, the more the Feds have gotten involved, the worse the results. I could ask why your side has such absolute faith in big govt. They're not geniouses, they just think they can run everybodys lives better than the individual can.

In a country this big, a large, involved national government is ESSENTIAL. The states are not countries unto themselves, they are STATES. They are not capable of running themselves completely. They need the federal government. Now, if you find someone in the United States who is satisfied with the government the way it is, let me know, so I can punch them in the face. The government right now is in DESPERATE need of reformation, but reformation of the current government doesn't necessarily mean the view of the government that Republicans want (note: I did not say conservatives. Libertarians and Liberals have a SCARY amount in common.).

Like Rob sorta said in a Thread...a guy who is smart enough to makes millions, 10s or 100s of millions isn't smart enough to spent it "the right way" (in the view of Libs) so the Govt has to sieze the money from the productive so these people, who choose to try to run other people lives for them, can in thier delusional state, spend other peoples money in what they think is "the right way". I have more faith in the people making the right decisions, that together forms the free market that has benefits to the whole is far greater than any from a planned economy. Way too uch belief in a wise govt working for the benefit of the people vs the probablility that they're just a bunch of control freaks. The Anarchist movement pretty much died out a century ago.

I never said they weren't *smart* enough. I said they weren't *generous* enough. Instead of realizing how fortunate they are in their situation and giving back to a community and country that was able to provide the opportunities for their success, they horde their money and watch with no remorse as their fellow men are forced to live in squalor and poverty.


George, if the wealthiest people all over the world give back as much as you think they do, why is there still poverty? Don't you think if allll those movie stars and allll those athletes and allll those billionaire executives gave back a real chunk of their salaries, we would have enough money to at least greatly *diminish* poverty in the United States?

Do you want to know why there's still poverty? BECAUSE THE RICH DON'T CARE.


Side note: The Anarchist Movement is not dead. It just has a new name........

 

[George]

In a country this big, a large, involved national government is ESSENTIAL. The states are not countries unto themselves, they are STATES. They are not capable of running themselves completely. They need the federal government. Now, if you find someone in the United States who is satisfied with the government the way it is, let me know, so I can punch them in the face. The government right now is in DESPERATE need of reformation, but reformation of the current government doesn't necessarily mean the view of the government that Republicans want (note: I did not say conservatives. Libertarians and Liberals have a SCARY amount in common.).
I never said they weren't *smart* enough. I said they weren't *generous* enough. Instead of realizing how fortunate they are in their situation and giving back to a community and country that was able to provide the opportunities for their success, they horde their money and watch with no remorse as their fellow men are forced to live in squalor and poverty.


George, if the wealthiest people all over the world give back as much as you think they do, why is there still poverty? Don't you think if allll those movie stars and allll those athletes and allll those billionaire executives gave back a real chunk of their salaries, we would have enough money to at least greatly *diminish* poverty in the United States?

Do you want to know why there's still poverty? BECAUSE THE RICH DON'T CARE.


Side note: The Anarchist Movement is not dead. It just has a new name........

I think you underestimate generousity. You're probably overestimating the actaull amout held by the waelthy & how far it would go if dispersed. Not only would economic progress stop, no one would have enough money in hand to invest, but the poor would be looking @ the "give em a fish, vs teaching them how to fish' senario. The money just wouldn't be enough for long term prosperity & they must likely wouldn't change habits from a loosing way to a winning way for long term sucsess. Generosity in the form of the Welfare State is going a long way twords bankrupting us.
Libertarians want as much personal freedom as possible & as little govt interference as possible. They have positions that attract & repel both Liberals & Conservatives. Liberals seem to want as intrusive a govt as possible, except in certain areas like recreational drugs. There are control freaks on both Left & Right, the trick is trying to figure out who they are.

 

[A Can of Man]

Liberals seem to want as intrusive a govt as possible, except in certain areas like recreational drugs. There are control freaks on both Left & Right, the trick is trying to figure out who they are.

No.
They want a government that invests in its own people.
Educating and giving healthcare coverage to the public is an investment. Giving some sort of parachute to those who lost their jobs so they don't end up becoming homeless is an investment.
Once you're out on the street, it's pretty much for life. Would you hire a homeless man even if he knew how to do the work? Practically no one will.

 

[George]

No.
They want a government that invests in its own people.
Educating and giving healthcare coverage to the public is an investment. Giving some sort of parachute to those who lost their jobs so they don't end up becoming homeless is an investment.
Once you're out on the street, it's pretty much for life. Would you hire a homeless man even if he knew how to do the work? Practically no one will.

"Invest" is a word that Dems found out during the Clinton Era that could be used to sucker people into favoring programs that wouldn't sell under the old Titles.

 

[mmarsh]

"Invest" is a word that Dems found out during the Clinton Era that could be used to sucker people into favoring programs that wouldn't sell under the old Titles.

George

Such as? Please state these programs you mention.

And its a really weak argument to state people are "suckers" because they don't happen to buy the BS you are selling. The painful truth to you is that Clinton left office a very popular president (about 60%), the guy after him who embraced the "limited government" ideology you embrace...much less popular.

And on that subject, "limited government" is a crock of bull. The largest governments to date have all been republican governments. The GOP believes in limited government only when its the Democrats who are in office, you don't hear them mention "limited government" when the conservatives are in office. Funny coincidence isn't it?

Whose the "sucker" George? The vast majority of the public who would kill to return to the Clinton era or someone like you who promotes a radical ideology without question that has proven time and time again to be totally wrong, and self-destructive. As for Ted going off the "deep end", you need to take a good look in the mirror. Even to establishment republicans your views would be considered nuts.

And COM is correct, your self-described paradise of a place with no government actually already exists its called Somalia. Is that what you have in mind for us? Thanks, we will pass.

I absolutely believe that the government is required to protect its citizens from ALL threats and not just that carry a gun or bomb. Poverty/unemployment is a threat, lack of a healthcare system is a threat, illiteracy is a threat, capitalism is a threat, inequality is a threat, organized crime is a threat, etc...

 

[Rob Henderson]

I think you underestimate generousity. You're probably overestimating the actaull amout held by the waelthy & how far it would go if dispersed. Not only would economic progress stop, no one would have enough money in hand to invest, but the poor would be looking @ the "give em a fish, vs teaching them how to fish' senario. The money just wouldn't be enough for long term prosperity & they must likely wouldn't change habits from a loosing way to a winning way for long term sucsess. Generosity in the form of the Welfare State is going a long way twords bankrupting us.

Hardly. Ever watched the MTV show "Cribs"? A different color Ferrari for each day of the week is a common occurrence. And they don't cover ALL wealthy people.

However, you're right. The "teach a man to fish" ideology will always apply. I'm still a believer in hard work and elbow grease going a long way. But sometimes working hard still doesn't cut it. Especially in an economy where minimum wage can barely sustain a 20 year old college student with no bills to pay. THAT'S where government assistance comes in. When a person is trying to make ends meet, and they still don't. That's where the government fills in what's left. ACoM is right, too. Welfare should never come in the form of a blank check. Food stamps are a WONDERFUL idea. I also like the idea of gas cards that can only be used at the pump. When I come across a homeless man, I don't give him a $5 bill, I give him a coupon for a free item at a fast food restaurant.

I guess the point is, generosity isn't always throwing around money. Sometimes it can be as simple as buying a man a meal or a piece of clothing. That goes a LOT farther than some spare change.

Libertarians want as much personal freedom as possible & as little govt interference as possible. They have positions that attract & repel both Liberals & Conservatives. Liberals seem to want as intrusive a govt as possible, except in certain areas like recreational drugs. There are control freaks on both Left & Right, the trick is trying to figure out who they are.

And that would be the new name for the Anarchist Movement. Nobody telling me what to do, I can do whatever I want. How is that NOT anarchy?

American Liberals want the government to work efficiently for the people. They want the government to take care of the people. For example, in social issues like gay marriage... Liberals think the federal government should take the stance that it should be made legal because it is no one's business but the two getting married. Conservatives think the federal government should take the stance that it should be up to the states because that is clearly not something that should be blanketed. Libertarians think the federal government shouldn't take a stance at all.

How is that an intrusive government?


By the way, George. Just a little tidbit for you to munch on till the morning... The latest standardized testing scores just came out... Wanna know who's on top in EVERY CATEGORY?

Shang Hai, China. But government involvement in education is bad, right?