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

[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.

[mox 298]

You know...

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?

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 picking fruit in the midwest, were still shoveling snow out of our driveways.

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.

[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.

[mox 298]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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.

[mox 298]

But who is our employer? Uncle Fckng Sam, that's who.

You don't work for the government. You work for a non-government corporation. They may be hired by the government, they may derive a major source of their income from the government, but they are not the government. It's terribly twisted logic to justify a practice you yourself have criticized in the past, i.e. single welfare moms.

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.

But it sure sucks when the troll is right. Here's mox, he's supposed to be the token liberal elite socialist thumb-sucker, and yet here you guys are, defending not just taxpayer-mandated welfare as an income supplement, but corporate welfare designed to keep you in poverty, while the shareholders and executives at your company live in luxury. You freeze your nuts off in some of the harshest environments in the world, making a fraction of what you really should be making, living off taxpayers for half the year, just so your CEO can buy his little girl another pony. That's a shame.

[visaveteran1 33]

So you agree with me then.

Don't think that's ever going to happen.

[mox 298]

Don't think that's ever going to happen.

I agree.

Wait.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

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?

It is called unemployment insurance for a reason. His company DOES pay for it. Yje cpompany I wor for pays Unemployment Insurance premiums to the Federal and State goverment. Also if there is anyone here that b*tches about corporate suits getting the profit more than Kip I haven't seen them.

The ONLY reason taxpayers have to pay for any of this is because Deocrats keep extending benefits beyond what the premiums covered and refuse to allow the Republicans to "pay for it" with cuts to other programs.

I do not understand how miserable someone and empty must be to support programs such as this over and over and then bash someone who simply makes use of the program that was put in place. If you do not like it CHANGE THE PROGRAM

How do YOU defend such programs? You want to end unemployment insurance?