Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I look forward to when you find your 2nd book title.
Perhaps you could start a thread on Economic Theories or Practices, Policies. To make a repository of reference material to be found?

---

Good idea.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

As far as Yanis Varoufakis is concerned, his activities can best be described as "whinging for money". Now, I agree that Greece was done hard by Goldman, the ECB/EC/IMF ("troika") and its own dirty politicians. But urging overextension is just what banks do, because when they come to collect they not only get the money that you already paid on your too-big loan, they ALSO get the collateral on which the loan was based. Real property for pennies on the dollar! Austerity for the population, as the lenders squeeze out that last possible Euro from Greece, short of bankrupting the entire nation!

Yanis' argument, as best as I can tell, was that Greece needed more money for further development so that it could compete more effectively (in the EU? In the world?) and pay back its loans. But he overlooks the fact that is not a solution for ALL national debts: That simply raises the overall level of productivity, but in the resulting hyper-competitive world there will STILL be winners and losers, and the losers will STILL have unpayable debt. So Greece may come out better than Portugal, but Portugal will be left in even worse shape than before because it's income production will be relatively less, having been "out-competed" by Greece. So what is Yanis' solution for Portugal? Or Brazil? Or the USA?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I had a VERY SPECIFIC suggestion as to how to improve people's lives without trying to create a worker's utopia or have massive redistribution of wealth, and it involved re-purposing the military. SECOND has managed to not actually discuss my post at all.

But it does certainly snark and troll at every post.

SECOND is a troll.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
So what date did you put on your check to house Democrats for your $30 Million check to to make sure that they put higher taxes on you next year, Second?

---

Quote:

---

For those who have read history or lived through the 20th century, it’s hard to forget the tens of millions of people who starved to death under Mao Zedong; the tens of millions purged, starved or sent to gulags by Joseph Stalin; or the millions slaughtered in Cambodia’s killing fields. Even if Marx himself never advocated genocide, these stupendous atrocities and catastrophic economic blunders were all done in the name of Marxism. From North Korea to Vietnam, 20th century communism always seem to result in either crimes against humanity, grinding poverty or both. Meanwhile, Venezuela, the most dramatic socialist experiment of the 21st century in a nation with the world’s largest oil reserves, is in full economic collapse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
So what date did you put on your check to house Democrats for your $30 Million check to to make sure that they put higher taxes on you next year, Second?

---

I have never been subtle about this: no matter which party controls America, I win. If it is Democrats, I win because I dislike the beliefs of the GOP Texans I am familiar with. If it is Republicans controlling government, I win because I am getting a tax cut. Win/Win for me!

---

Quote:

---

Signym, the real story is not what you wrote. I am both sorry and irritated to tell you, but your wonderful writing gifts are being misused to sell a false story on fireflyfans.net.

---

Quote:

---

I have never been subtle about this: no matter which party controls America, I win. If it is Democrats, I win because I dislike the beliefs of the GOP Texans I am familiar with. If it is Republicans controlling government, I win because I am getting a tax cut. Win/Win for me!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I have never been subtle about this: no matter which party controls America, I win. If it is Democrats, I win because I dislike the beliefs of the GOP Texans I am familiar with. If it is Republicans controlling government, I win because I am getting a tax cut. Win/Win for me! -Second

---

A PERFECT example of why the Democratic party is just as corrupt as the GOP! Any party which does not disturb your comfortable position as a rentier capitalist is a party that does not deserve affiliation.

What you are fighting 150% of your time is any change to the rules of the of the game by which you remain in privileged status. So you'll play the financial conservatives against the social liberals and the social conservatives against the financial liberals until the cows come home. Meanwhile, you keep collecting your rentier checks. What a deal! [for you]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Before you 2 (Six and Sig) get to far ahead of yourselves, there is a lot to be learned by observing the concept of negative space. In this case it shows that no matter who wins Second also loses. If Reps are in power his neighbors are even more unbearable, and if Dems win he gets no tax cut. Sorry to spoil your rants, hope I made your day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Before you 2 (Six and Sig) get to far ahead of yourselves, there is a lot to be learned by observing the concept of negative space. In this case it shows that no matter who wins Second also loses. If Reps are in power his neighbors are even more unbearable, and if Dems win he gets no tax cut. Sorry to spoil your rants, hope I made your day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Before you 2 (Six and Sig) get to far ahead of yourselves, there is a lot to be learned by observing the concept of negative space. In this case it shows that no matter who wins Second also loses. If Reps are in power his neighbors are even more unbearable, and if Dems win he gets no tax cut. Sorry to spoil your rants, hope I made your day.

---

It's like I am watching a sitcom from Russia that has been dubbed into English. Five minutes of these Republicans clowning around, then I turn off Trump TV because I've got better things to do with real people.

---

Quote:

---

Before you 2 (Six and Sig) get to far ahead of yourselves, there is a lot to be learned by observing the concept of negative space. In this case it shows that no matter who wins Second also loses. If Reps are in power his neighbors are even more unbearable

---

Quote:

---

and if Dems win he gets no tax cut.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Before you 2 (Six and Sig) get to far ahead of yourselves, there is a lot to be learned by observing the concept of negative space. In this case it shows that no matter who wins Second also loses. If Reps are in power his neighbors are even more unbearable

---

Oh boo hoo. That's a loss? SECOND hates everyone.

Quote:

---

and if Dems win he gets no tax cut.

---

Oh boo hoo. SECOND is very happy with 'the way things are' that keep him so near the top of the pile.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND brings up Veblen, who (btw) points out that it is people LIKE SECOND who are the real parasites who are disrupting the system. Why are people LIKE SECOND allowed to be parasites? Because the rules of the game allow it.

A REAL loss, for SECOND, would be something like nationalization of gas fields, where the rules of the game are knocked out from under SECOND. But neither establishment Dems nor Repubs are about to change the rules of the game, because they too sustain the crooked politicians, who parasitize the parasites.

---

Quote:

---

You'd want the US gov to run our oil and gas? You expect anyone to believe that?

---

Quote:

---

Do you think all rental land owners are parasites?

---

Quote:

---

Where would people live if they couldn't rent or lease?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SECOND brings up Veblen, who (btw) points out that it is people LIKE SECOND who are the real parasites who are disrupting the system. Why are people LIKE SECOND allowed to be parasites? Because the rules of the game allow it.

A REAL loss, for SECOND, would be something like nationalization of gas fields, where the rules of the game are knocked out from under SECOND. But neither establishment Dems nor Repubs are about to change the rules of the game, because they too sustain crooked politicians, who parasitize the parasites. It's a whole ecology of parasites!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So here I am, making a simple suggestion that we redirect the military - from pointless, money-wasting adventures overseas, to useful, value-producing work at home.

It seems a modest proposal, and non-partisan, in that neither side has any financial or cultural reason to be more against it than the other.

And SECOND doesn't seem to have anything negative to say about it, because he has done nothing but ignore, mis-direct, misrepresent, and post ad hominems - ie, troll. It looks like he's doing everything BUT address the point.

But I'm curious what other people think.

Set aside your preconceptions about whether or not it might be implemented.

Would it work?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
You missed one important aspect of redirecting the military proper - jobs.

"The projected active duty end strength in the armed forces for fiscal year 2017 was 1,281,900 servicemembers, with an additional 801,200 people in the seven reserve components."

The military proper is a total of roughly 1.3 million jobs. That's 1.3 million people not receiving unemployment.

Thanks for not answering the question.

Perhaps someone else could chime in, since SECOND can't address the actual topic.

We could redirect the military - from pointless, money-wasting adventures overseas, to useful, value-producing work at home.

It seems a modest proposal, and non-partisan, in that neither side has any financial or cultural reason to be more against it than the other. Set aside your preconceptions about whether or not it might be implemented.

Would it work? Is this a way to improve the value the members of this society receive from the society, within the bounds of our current economic system?

---

Quote:

---

[ SECOND brings up Veblen, who (btw) points out that it is people LIKE SECOND who are the real parasites who are disrupting the system. Why are people LIKE SECOND allowed to be parasites? Because the rules of the game allow it.

A REAL loss, for SECOND, would be something like nationalization of gas fields, where the rules of the game are knocked out from under SECOND. But neither establishment Dems nor Repubs are about to change the rules of the game, because they too sustain crooked politicians, who parasitize the parasites. It's a whole ecology of parasites! - SIGNY

The Communists called Capitalists intestinal parasites - SECOND

---

Quote:

---

The better analogy, which is nastier yet truer, would be Capitalists are Dairymen with the Workers being Milk cows. When there is a drought and the pastures aren’t producing enough grass to keep the entire cow herd fed, Dairymen send part of their herds to the slaughter house because paying for grain (instead of free grass) to feed the excess cattle is expensive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I had a VERY SPECIFIC suggestion as to how to improve people's lives without trying to create a worker's utopia or have massive redistribution of wealth, and it involved re-purposing the military. SECOND has managed to not actually discuss my post at all.

But it does certainly snark and troll at every post.

SECOND is a troll.

---

I'm a troll because I have no respect for your thinking? Too bad.

www.vox.com/2018/5/10/17339180/sheldon-adelson-congressional-leadershi
p-fund

Most recently, he has reportedly threatened to veto the upcoming farm bill unless it imposes stringent new work requirements on recipients of SNAP — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, still commonly referred to as food stamps.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that new work requirements plus other restrictions proposed by House Republicans would end up denying or reducing nutritional aid to around two million people, mostly in families with children.

As Paul Ryan put it, SNAP and other programs create a “hammock” that “lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.”

Able-bodied SNAP recipients who should be working but aren’t are very hard to find: A vast majority of the program’s beneficiaries either are working — but at unstable jobs that pay low wages — or are children, elderly, disabled or essential family caregivers.

www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/opinion/trump-food-stamps-agriculture.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Thanks for not answering the question.

Perhaps someone else could chime in, since SECOND can't address the actual topic.

---

Quote:

---

First, an economy in depression could stay there. There was nothing inherent in the economic mechanism to pull it out. One could have “equilibrium” with unemployment, even massive unemployment.

Second, prosperity depended on investment. If business spending for capital equipment fell, a spiral of contraction would begin. Only if business investment rose would a spiral of expansion follow.

And third, investment was an undependable drive wheel for the economy. Uncertainty, not assurance, lay at the very core of capitalism. Through no fault of the businessman it was constantly threatened with satiety, and satiety spelled economic decline.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

[ SECOND brings up Veblen, who (btw) points out that it is people LIKE SECOND who are the real parasites who are disrupting the system. Why are people LIKE SECOND allowed to be parasites? Because the rules of the game allow it.

A REAL loss, for SECOND, would be something like nationalization of gas fields, where the rules of the game are knocked out from under SECOND. But neither establishment Dems nor Repubs are about to change the rules of the game, because they too sustain crooked politicians, who parasitize the parasites. It's a whole ecology of parasites! - SIGNY

The Communists called Capitalists intestinal parasites - SECOND

---

They did? I never knew that, Why don't you find me some quotes, seeing as you seem to know a lot more about it than I do.

Quote:

---

The better analogy, which is nastier yet truer, would be Capitalists are Dairymen with the Workers being Milk cows. When there is a drought and the pastures aren’t producing enough grass to keep the entire cow herd fed, Dairymen send part of their herds to the slaughter house because paying for grain (instead of free grass) to feed the excess cattle is expensive.

---

Hmmm... I think it's a stupid analogy. It would only work if, in your analogy the dairy herd plowed the fields; grew harvested and siloed their own grain; built their own milk barn and milking equipment; milked themselves and trucked the milk to market; and managed the operation ... and THEN the dairyman took money from the sales for himself, and selected some of the herd for slaughter.

Because in reality producers do all the work of production. THAT's the problem with the rentier class, as Veblen saw it ... they don't do anything productive. Put another way, they can't possibly justify their outsized wealth based on their production.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You'd want the US gov to run our oil and gas? You expect anyone to believe that?

---

Did I say that? No, I didn't. How about this: THE GOVERNMENT becomes the ultimate "rentier" for natural resources, and companies pay THE GOVERNMENT for the right to "develop" these natural resources. That would allow the government to stop collecting income taxes, for example.

If you don't think that's a realistic idea, that's how things work in MOST oil- and gas-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and the North Sea nations Norway, Britain, Denmark, Germany, Nederlands.

Quote:

---

Do you think all rental land owners are parasites?

---

Yes.
Next?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Where would people live if they couldn't rent or lease?

---

In their own homes, which they could afford if they weren't being parasitized from morning to night?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Clearly, in your vigorous defense of "consumers" (instead of "producers") you too consider yourself to be a parasite. No wonder you defend parasitism so vigorously!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"just try to put 1.3 million soldiers patrolling up and down the streets of the country"

I wasn't thinking of any military-style work. Just work on public lands like restoration and conservation, or for public projects like infrastructure, or in public hospitals in underserved areas.

---

Quote:

---

SECOND brings up Veblen, who (btw) points out that it is people LIKE SECOND who are the real parasites who are disrupting the system. Why are people LIKE SECOND allowed to be parasites? Because the rules of the game allow it.

A REAL loss, for SECOND, would be something like nationalization of gas fields, where the rules of the game are knocked out from under SECOND. But neither establishment Dems nor Repubs are about to change the rules of the game, because they too sustain crooked politicians, who parasitize the parasites. It's a whole ecology of parasites! - SIGNY

The Communists called Capitalists intestinal parasites - SECOND

They did? I never knew that, Why don't you find me some quotes, seeing as you seem to know a lot more about it than I do. - SIGN

---

Quote:

---

The better analogy, which is nastier yet truer, would be Capitalists are Dairymen with the Workers being Milk cows. When there is a drought and the pastures aren’t producing enough grass to keep the entire cow herd fed, Dairymen send part of their herds to the slaughter house because paying for grain (instead of free grass) to feed the excess cattle is expensive. - SECOND

Hmmm... I think it's a stupid analogy. It would only work if, in your analogy the dairy herd plowed the fields; grew harvested and siloed their own grain; built their own milk barn and milking equipment; milked themselves and trucked the milk to market; and managed the operation ... and THEN the dairyman took money from the sales for himself, and selected some of the herd for slaughter.

Because in reality producers do all the work of production. THAT's the problem with the rentier class, as Veblen saw it ... they don't do anything productive. Put another way, they can't possibly justify their outsized wealth based on their production. - SIGNY

You're wrong, Signym. Producers do NOT do all the work of production. As one example, Ford's F150 truck production line is temporarily closed because a supplier of magnesium parts is closed.- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

You seem to have understood zero of what I posted - I may not get use to that.

Quote:

---

You'd want the US gov to run our oil and gas? You expect anyone to believe that? - GSTRING

Did I say that? No, I didn't. How about this: THE GOVERNMENT becomes the ultimate "rentier" for natural resources, and companies pay THE GOVERNMENT for the right to "develop" these natural resources. That would allow the government to stop collecting income taxes, for example. If you don't think that's a realistic idea, that's how things work in MOST oil- and gas-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and the North Sea nations Norway, Britain, Denmark, Germany, Nederlands.

Quote:

---

Do you think all rental land owners are parasites?- GSTRING

Yes. Next? SIGNY

---

More examples of your "let's just wing it" thinking, completely devoid of any real logic or real world experience. You say you didn't say you want the Gov to run our oil business, just own and rent the land. Then you say you think all land renters are parasites. Owning the land and renting it would in effect put them in charge of our oil since they would be the arbiters of who gets to drill where, how and other such rules.- GSTRING

---

---

Quote:

---

I continue to think you are just eating up our time here with no real intent other than to practice your typing.= GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Where would people live if they couldn't rent or lease? - GSTRING

In their own homes, which they could afford if they weren't being parasitized from morning to night? - SIGNY

How would they earn enough capital to afford these housing resources?- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Clearly, in your vigorous defense of "consumers" (instead of "producers") you too consider yourself to be a parasite. No wonder you defend parasitism so vigorously! - SIGNY

Another complete miss - just the opposite. I never defended consumers. I pointed out that you and Kiki never (that I recall) hold them accountable for their actions. I have no idea what you mean by "parasite" - it seems to keep shifting and might even be used just as a place holder for "insult." - GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

PARASITE: In evolutionary biology, parasitism is a relationship between species, where one organism, the parasite, lives on or in another organism, the host, causing it some harm, and is adapted structurally to this way of life.[1] The entomologist E. O. Wilson has characterised parasites as "predators that eat prey in units of less than one".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"just try to put 1.3 million soldiers patrolling up and down the streets of the country"

I wasn't thinking of any military-style work. Just work on public lands like restoration and conservation, or for public projects like infrastructure, or in public hospitals in underserved areas.

---

I'd rather see unemployed citizens get those jobs. The Dems are proposing Gov jobs, but it will probably be shot down and maybe even for good reasons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Since we're already spending the money for the military, it makes sense to simply give them different assignments.

As for this being a "good job", "the initial monthly pay for the lowest rank, E-1, is $1,531.50 per month" or somewhat less than $6.50 an hour. And then, you live on base, go to bed when they tell you to, get up when they tell you to, run when they tell you to, eat what they give you, and so on. On top of that, they have some very specific rules covering things you and I might think of as our personal life, like no adultery. Violating that, and other rules they have, will get you kicked out.

There's one individual advantage to my plan above and beyond military service and above a private job, which is the training to get good skills. 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:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Since we're already spending the money for the military, it makes sense to simply give them different assignments.

As for this being a "good job", "the initial monthly pay for the lowest rank, E-1, is $1,531.50 per month" or somewhat less than $6.50 an hour. And then, you live on base, go to bed when they tell you to, get up when they tell you to, run when they tell you to, eat what they give you, and so on. On top of that, they have some very specific rules covering things you and I might think of as our personal life, like no adultery. Violating that, and other rules they have, will get you kicked out.

There's one individual advantage to my plan above and beyond military service and above a private job, which is the training to get good skills. 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.

---

One thing women aren't attracted to are men that make $6.50 an hour. That's a fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"just try to put 1.3 million soldiers patrolling up and down the streets of the country"

I wasn't thinking of any military-style work. Just work on public lands like restoration and conservation, or for public projects like infrastructure, or in public hospitals in underserved areas.

---

I'd rather see unemployed citizens get those jobs. The Dems are proposing Gov jobs, but it will probably be shot down and maybe even for good reasons.

---

Well if we got the decrease in military like almost all of us want in here, there are going to be a lot more unemployed people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Since we're already spending the money for the military, it makes sense to simply give them different assignments.

As for this being a "good job", "the initial monthly pay for the lowest rank, E-1, is $1,531.50 per month" or somewhat less than $6.50 an hour. And then, you live on base, go to bed when they tell you to, get up when they tell you to, run when they tell you to, eat what they give you, and so on. On top of that, they have some very specific rules covering things you and I might think of as our personal life, like no adultery. Violating that, and other rules they have, will get you kicked out.

There's one individual advantage to my plan above and beyond military service and above a private job, which is the training to get good skills. 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.

---

One thing women aren't attracted to are men that make $6.50 an hour. That's a fact.

---

Fake News, that's a Fake Fact.
Your delusions, ignorance, and Libtard Maths are showing.

Pay grade for E-1 in 2018 is reportedly 1,638 per month. Which would be about $9.45/hr at 40 hours/week. E-2 is $1,836/mo, or about $10.59/hr.
E-1 lasts 6 months max, unless the recruit starts at E-2, and that lasts 9 months max.
After 3 months of Boot Camp, the accumulated pay is issued in one check. So those not promoted have 3 months remaining at E-1, usually in further training.
Twice per month, The Eagle Poops and they get paid, with nothing to spend it on. Bills? None. Food? Already fully Fed, as much as you can eat. Lodging? Already supplied. Work clothes? Already in the closet. Fitness clubs? Gyms on every base. Discount pricing at every PX and base theater. Maybe your stoner bimbos cannot comprehend, but many 18 year old women understand that having $400 per week (less taxes) to spend on nothing but women can color a guy attractive. A lot of Marines are Babe Magnets, lots of eye candy seen around. Marine graduation from Boot Camp generates a huge influx of the hottest babes you'll see at any given time. Some women also think a guy who has a few future years of steady employment and pay is further enticing.

Some thought is required to find stuff to throw your cash at. Buying food is merely a way to avoid standing in line at the Chow Hall. When you can't find enough targets, you end up with something like 10 paychecks to sift through whenever you want to cash one, which actually presents problems.

I'm sure the Spacey bimbos you hang with cannot stand healthy, trained, steadily Employed, organized men with pockets full of untethered cash, but those do not account for all women.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I was going with the numbers that Kiki posted. I didn't do any research on it.

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. And as I said before, if people (not you) think the gun nuts are bad now, they'd have a field day with this one.

I would only support this for soldiers who have finished their tour of duty and chose to have a job when they came back home. It would have to be a good paying one though, and $10.xx/hr isn't shit when you have to buy your own housing and food.

Women aren't attracted to men who make $10.00 and have nothing left to spend on them after basic survival bills are paid for. Even if they were, you could go to Walmart and make that money pushing carts and have a much easier job.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

One thing women aren't attracted to are men that make $6.50 an hour. That's a fact.

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

... we'd be massively undercutting what the pay for that work should be with our own taxpayer dollars.

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

Pay grade for E-1 in 2018 is reportedly 1,638 per month.

---

Quote:

---

Which would be about $9.45/hr at 40 hours/week.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe your stoner bimbos cannot comprehend, ...

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

One thing women aren't attracted to are men that make $6.50 an hour. That's a fact.

---

Uh ... what does that have to do with anything? What point are you addressing? None that I made.

---

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:

---

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:

---

Army doesn't get as many people as they used to.

---

Quote:

---

Nobody is going to sign up for this as their only military duty.

---

Quote:

---

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:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Maybe your stoner bimbos cannot comprehend, ...

---

Why are you arguing that point with me? I didn't make it. Six did.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Army doesn't get as many people as they used to.

---

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
cans-are-joining/

And that topic leads in to this:

Quote:

---

Nobody is going to sign up for this as their only military duty.

---

If you remove combat duty from the equation, death and permanent disability DISincentives disappear.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---