Alaska state employee's pull idiot move with Belarus birth certificate

[visaveteran1 33]

This raises the question: Especially when the coffee hits, how (and when, and where) does one relieve one's self? Without a catheter system of some sort, it would seem that responding to urgency (or an emergency) would be inconvenient, if not impossible.

I think some cats on here might be called pissy. You know, the kind of guys who use the sink for a urinal.

[visaveteran1 33]

He's not attacking the job. He's attacking the fact that this guy is on welfare when he's not working. (And yes, unemployment is welfare.)

No, he's attacking the man's choice of work...therefore, he attacks the man. As are you. Couch it as cleverly as you wish...you're on his case.

If you what to lecture us on taking freebies from Uncle Sugar, how do you feel about veteran's entitlement programs? Are you down with vets not paying their own way in college? Compensation for wounds OK with you? Special home loan benefits? Free medical? After all, the vets decided to join up, nobody made them. By your arguments, vets should man up and work and compete with everyone else sans benefits.

For the record, I totally support ALL veterans programs, even knowing some vets game the system for benefits. Unemployment? I judge it case by case. Much of it I don't like. Sometimes it makes sense. In Kip's case, we need men with certain skill sets to continue in their line of work in a harsh area for the good of the local or national interests. Kind of like how the military offers extra re-up money for certain MOS positions. Is it a great system? No. Is it necessary? Yes.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Veterans entitlement programs aren't "freebies," and we're talking about the defense of our country, not free-market capitalism. I think asking somebody to potentially die in the service of their country is a fair trade for the benefits. America compensates our fighting men and women fairly and justly, and the oil companies should do the same thing for their employees without subsidizing their profits on the backs of taxpayers.

Now, if somebody joined a privately funded military and then expected taxpayers to subsidize their entitlements, I'd have a problem with that.

Great I agree. So let the oil companies pay them. How can you possibly defend a system where Why_Me can't even make enough to get through the year without government handouts, and yet the executives who run his company are raking in hundreds of millions? You're paying these workers out of your own pockets, while the bosses at his company are buying Jaguars, yachts, and sending their kids to private schools. How can you possibly defend a system like that?

No, it's nothing like incentive programs in the military. Nothing at all. The military actually pays a living wage.

You know how much the oil work the oil companies account for in union trades? I would say less than 2% nation wide. Alaska and a few other states being well above that average. The private sector total? I would say 15 - 25% tops.

What's the meat and potatoes of union construction? Federal and state jobs. Who pays the ticket on those jobs? The tax payer. So up our wages, and cut off our unemployment and and chances are pudgy little people who troll are going to pay even more out of their pockets...like way more.

Hospitals, schools, court houses, military bases, air fields, docks, road system including bridges, ...who do you think builds that stuff? And who do you think pays for it?

I was in the army straight from high school. I would easily say that Iv'e done more for the defense of my country working the trades than I ever did when I served. I never saw any action when I was in the army, but in the trades Iv'e built underground missile silo's, radar stations, airplane hangers, runways, medical centers on base, you name it.

Fed jobs, state jobs, county jobs...it all comes to us and is built by us.

And about those "semantics". Post on here how much welfare recipients pay into it along with their employers and while your at it let me know how much taxes they pay on welfare.

Also I'm not sure where you get this 9 months out of the year estimate. Where did you pull that one from? We have snow on the ground by Oct. 1st and it stays on the ground until the middle of May...and I live in the southwestern part of Alaska, not the northern part. When their making their first cut in the hay fields back in the midwest, were still shoveling snow out of our driveways.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Why_Me

[visaveteran1 33]

The military actually pays a living wage.

Oh really? So why are so many enlisted folks on food stamps? And, hey, there's another "freebie" they're getting. How about giving GIs food stamps? Welfare!

[slim 1,533]

I think criticizing a means of survival in unique circumstances is way off base. Kip's not driving a beer truck in the lower 48...he's almost in a combat zone with Mother Nature the enemy, so to speak.

Then his employer should pay him what he deserves to be paid or he shouldn't do the job.

how do you feel about veteran's entitlement programs?

They're a condition of employment from the employer.

Why_Me's situation would be akin to Guardsmen working their drill weekend and then getting unemployment for the rest of the month. "But if you want guardsmen then you have to pay them what they're worth."

Oh really? So why are so many enlisted folks on food stamps? And, hey, there's another "freebie" they're getting. How about giving GIs food stamps? Welfare!

It always baffled me how guys could get married and have kids and get EXTRA money for being in the military. Yet another example of military spending that shouldn't be happening. If they can't support their kids, they shouldn't have them. Military folks aren't exempt from making stupid decisions. Stupidity is equal opportunity!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Oh really? So why are so many enlisted folks on food stamps? And, hey, there's another "freebie" they're getting. How about giving GIs food stamps? Welfare!

Ya I didn't get that one myself. I remember having great credit while I was in, but no cash. Broke didn't even begin to explain it. Maybe the army has changed...I'm sure it has, but when I was in none of us were making out money wise. The main reason I got out was because of the money. The economy took a turn for the good and I saw what everyone else was doing and I knew it was time to jump and jump quick.

[visaveteran1 33]

Veterans entitlement programs aren't "freebies," and we're talking about the defense of our country, not free-market capitalism. I think asking somebody to potentially die in the service of their country is a fair trade for the benefits. America compensates our fighting men and women fairly and justly, and the oil companies should do the same thing for their employees without subsidizing their profits on the backs of taxpayers.

Well, they're defending free market capitalism, so it must be important. Truth is, VERY few in the military have combat zone jobs, so why not just have benefits for combat zone veterans? Why should a desk clerk in San Diego get all the goodies the guy who got shot in Iraq gets?

Kip's job sounds dangerous to me. I don't know enough to state that strongly, but all big industry construction jobs are dangerous. You challenge his choice. Why not challenge the people entering the military as volunteers who never get close to combat? Defense is a huge cost. A lot of it goes to retirees and the VA services. We support them but it was their choice to work in the military. Why should I have to pay for that decision of some desk clerk who never got within 5 thousand miles of flying bullets?

BTW, the military does have a large number of mercenaries and "operators" that one could define as a "private army." Through great contracts, these operators make large salaries far beyond an 11 Bravo soldier. Our taxes pay for these guys...not just the corporations they work for.

[visaveteran1 33]

Then his employer should pay him what he deserves to be paid or he shouldn't do the job.

They're a condition of employment from the employer.

If the employers pays him more, then they just pass that cost on to us..whether as individuals or to the government. Pay me now...pay me later. Same result.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Then his employer should pay him what he deserves to be paid or he shouldn't do the job.

They're a condition of employment from the employer.

Why_Me's situation would be akin to Guardsmen working their drill weekend and then getting unemployment for the rest of the month. "But if you want guardsmen then you have to pay them what they're worth."

It always baffled me how guys could get married and have kids and get EXTRA money for being in the military. Yet another example of military spending that shouldn't be happening. If they can't support their kids, they shouldn't have them. Military folks aren't exempt from making stupid decisions. Stupidity is equal opportunity!

You should have read a few post up. You want to pay more taxes, up our wages and cut our unemployment. The government jobs are what accounts for 75% or more of our work...and I would easily say more.

Now who pays for those government jobs? ding ding ding...the tax payers.

If the employers pays him more, then they just pass that cost on to us..whether as individuals or to the government. Pay me now...pay me later. Same result.

Thank god someone on here gets it.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

All I hear is how hard you work and how much the rest of the country owes you. And yet I don't hear a thing about how much the executives and shareholders in your for-profit company pad their profits on the backs of the tax-payers. If you need assistance during downtime, why isn't your company paying you for it? Why do the taxpayers have to shoulder the burden? The taxpayers have to pay you for doing nothing, while the executives and shareholders in your company live in luxury. How is that fair to you or anyone? How in the world can you defend such a system?

Oh. Okay. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but ok. So let's say you work 6 months on, and 6 months off. That means if you worked 85 hours for six months, averaged over an entire year you're talking about a 42 hour work week. Heck, that's less than I work.

You keep trying to justify government handouts by saying how skilled, dangerous, and necessary the work is, but it's completely beside the point. The problem is that the taxpayers are subsidizing private business. Your company knows this, so they pay you less than they would have to if they weren't subsidized by the government.

What's worse is that it keeps you down. It forces you to take handouts for doing nothing. It keeps you in poverty, keeps you from steering your own course. What a horrible way to live, you might as well have been sent to the gulags for all the dignity that entails.

I'm find with welfare for what it was intended for--to give people in need a hand up. I'm not ok with welfare being used to keep people addicted to public handouts. Anyone who believes in free markets will say the same thing.

Ever see an air craft carrier? Those are built in the ship yards by union hands. Mill Wrights, Pipe Fitters, Boiler Makers, Electricians, etc.. same with the subs...same with all navy craft.

Now up our wages because our employer isn't paying us enough...which I believe is true...we should be payed more. But who is our employer? Uncle Fckng Sam, that's who.

[visaveteran1 33]

They're a condition of employment from the employer.

Why_Me's situation would be akin to Guardsmen working their drill weekend and then getting unemployment for the rest of the month. "But if you want guardsmen then you have to pay them what they're worth."

The employer is the Defense Department...which has nothing to do with the VA. There really is no employer...there are the whims of the Congress when it comes to benefits. "The lord giveth; the lord taketh away." With the private sector, you have a contract which can not easily be broken. With Uncle Sugar, there is no safety in promised benefits.

[tmma 467]

I got ' Imminent Danger Pay' in addition to regular military salary.

It was like $200 or so a month.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Maybe you should suggest that to your congressman. I tend to support all of our fighting men and women equally, but it's a free country. If you thnk our troops should be paid according to their distance from danger, you should suggest it. Sounds kinda socialist to me though. I bet they have that in France.

The only choice I challenge is why he would continue to work for a company that doesn't respect him or his dignity. I'm glad there are people out there willing to work dangerous jobs, but it doesn't make me happy that the companies they work for are taking advantage of them and the American taxpayers.

So you agree with me then. Because these mercenaries are paid by the companies who employ them. They are entitled to zero veteran benefits. You're certainly not suggesting that a mercenary who makes magnitudes more than a US warfighter be entitled to government veteran benefits are you?

There's good trolls...those are the ones who have some facts along with a clue on the thread they chose to troll. Then there's the others. The others are the ones who don't have a clue but post anyways just to get a response from others.

[visaveteran1 33]

It always baffled me how guys could get married and have kids and get EXTRA money for being in the military. Yet another example of military spending that shouldn't be happening. If they can't support their kids, they shouldn't have them. Military folks aren't exempt from making stupid decisions. Stupidity is equal opportunity!

That's quite a broad stroke brush you're painting with. Given the hellish life military families live, being uprooted every few years and constantly facing new schools, news jobs for the spouse, and expenses that are not covered that are incurred when you move to a new locale, they justly deserve EXTRA money. Do you dislike combat pay too? I could argue we're already paying them a salary (which you seem to feel is overly generous). Why more money for jump school, combat, hazards? A job's a job...right?

There's good trolls...those are the ones who have some facts along with a clue on the thread they chose to troll. Then there's the others. The others are the ones who don't have a clue but post anyways just to get a response from others.

You nailed it.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It's obvious by reading slim and mox's post on here that not only do they think I should be payed more, but they think the tax payer should pay more.

My Road Dawgs!!! Ya man, pay me more and charge it to Joe Plumber and company.