Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Toussaint · Feb 24, 2004, 02:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
If this is true, then the person who relied on welfare can in no way compare in extent of crime to the businessman. The welfare case only takes in a few hundred dollars a month, the businessman rakes in millions in tax breaks and entitlements.

When we also look at tax flows in terms of where that money is spend in resource usage, the wealthy take more in when compared with the common worker or the poor.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, surprise! Look at what happens when the government is given redistributive powers. Politics becomes a battle over who can use the government to steal from whom. And the best thing about the government is (unlike businesses) that when they decide to make claims on your money, you have no choice!

So, would it not be a good idea to at least take these powers away from the government and forbid them from committing theft on behalf of lobbyists?

Impenitent · Feb 24, 2004, 04:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)
Look, I'm not a fan of the military in general. I think its bloated beyond any reasonable size. But honestly, we've screwed so much with our foriegn policy that the truth is, people hate the US. Of course there's countries that support us, but if WE disamrmed, we would be a target. We already are a target (see the past ?? years of anti-US terrorism).

:rolleyes: I know you aren't a fan of the military, but it is that military that keeps you free to complain about this stuff, and it is that military that allows the left to steal via taxes and create programs...

My point, which is now completely buried in a petty argument about the military, is that the government spends most of the taxpayers' money on the military. If you're considering social programs to be theft, consider the military to be theft on a grand scale, because about 50-100 times the amount being spent on social programs goes to the military (see http://www.truemajority.org/oreo)) Personally, I would like to continue paying taxes and see social programs increase while military decreased. I'd like to see the buget deficit and the federal debt removed (which would be real economic stimulus, no bullshit tax cuts).

:rolleyes: without the military, you'd have no social programs, you'd be dead

To bring it full circle back to the topic, arresting people asking for welfare checks is so stupid (read my earlier post). If you're concerned about people consentually robbing you, you have to look at the military, cause thats where about 90% of what they rob from you goes to.

:rolleyes: if only that were the case...the military has been and continues to be cut by the democRATS...

Peace,
B

Edit: Are you all incapable of grasping liberal sarcasm? In the post where i recomended using the money you get from not having to arrest people to buy yourself a shotgun, i wasn't implying that I want to shoot poor people. By saying that you should start with the military, i was implying that the military is where all the stealings going on, not that I wanted the US government to disolve and give us all blingin' shotguns to defend ourselves with. Learn to recognize a sarcastic tone.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

:rolleyes: there was nothing sarcastic behind that post nor mine

LiveAndLetLive · Feb 24, 2004, 05:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Theft is a crime. Since people can use the threat of government punishment to steal from taxpayers, every single social program recipient should be arrested, prosecuted and made to reimburse the taxpayer with interest. Those who create social programs should be imprisoned for no less than 20 years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, Kyran, this is a profoundly unworkable idea. First off, virtually everyone uses government programs, some more than others, to be sure. So what this implies is that the vast majority of Americans would end up in prison under your scheme. Many corporations take government contracts. Virtually everyone over 65 takes Social Security.

While the idea that "taxation is theft" is interesting philosophical concept, few accept it. And who's doing the stealing, the government program recipient, or the "revenuer"?

The US Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws, laws passed after the fact. It's simply unreasonable to try someone for a "crime" that was "committed" AFTER a law is enacted.

I'm with you on rolling back the State, but this isn't the way to do it.

Live

Kyran · Feb 24, 2004, 06:13 pm

Makeshift, by public I don't mean to to redefine anything. I'm just talking Americans. Military protects our citizens, illegal aliens, poor and rich and imprisoned whether they pay taxes or not just by virtue of being within our borders.

Military is not an interest, it is a constitutional requirement. Welfare is only in the interest of a few. You're right. We can't have a government that runs things for the Specially Selected.

Look, we're not in argument over the spending amount of military or social programs. Which one would I consider a need? Military. Do we need Star Wars? Not unless Darth Vader comes to take over planet Earth.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
One more question: How broad a definition of "Social Programs" do you want to use? Would you incorperate education? Would you say that perscription drugs for the elderly are social programs? Or would you just stick it to welfare checks and social security, which, in all honesty, are very cost-effective, as opposed to the chaos we'd have on our hands without.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Social Programs must include all federal departments where individual recipients voluntarily consent to accepting product, service, or money. School children are exempt because education is a mandate of the state. Unfortunately, I do not know whether Prescription Drug Benefit recipients enter into the program voluntarily or not.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LiveAndLetLive,)
Well, Kyran, this is a profoundly unworkable idea. First off, virtually everyone uses government programs, some more than others, to be sure. So what this implies is that the vast majority of Americans would end up in prison under your scheme. Many corporations take government contracts. Virtually everyone over 65 takes Social Security.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It is only unworkable if you believe everyone uses government programs by choice, and that I want to arrest unwilling participants. In my opinion, you have to have really given up on justice to think this won't work.

Government contracts do not apply because contractors perform a public service.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
While the idea that "taxation is theft" is interesting philosophical concept, few accept it. And who's doing the stealing, the government program recipient, or the "revenuer"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That concept is not in discussion. The topic concerns individuals who use legal might to obtain the property of other Americans for free without consent; and how to stop this. Social programs are one-half of the equation; eminent domain abuse by corporations is the other. The voluntary beneficiary is responsible when this abuse occurs, because they have to enroll and accept the plunder.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The US Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws, laws passed after the fact. It's simply unreasonable to try someone for a "crime" that was "committed" AFTER a law is enacted<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Hired larceny is already a crime in every state. You are correct. We can begin filing charges immediately. Thank you for pointing this out.

LiveAndLetLive · Feb 24, 2004, 06:26 pm

Kyran: Social Programs must include all federal departments where individual recipients voluntarily consent to accepting product, service, or money. School children are exempt because education is a mandate of the state. Unfortunately, I do not know whether Prescription Drug Benefit recipients enter into the program voluntarily or not.

Live: Well, OK, then, let's lock up ALL Social Security recipients and everyone who drives on roads. They meet your tests, I think. What purpose that will serve, I'm not sure. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is you've set up an absurbist, reducio ad absurdum construct, and now you attempt to play it out, without any sense of moderation and practicality. You simply have to grant that it ain't gonna happen, because, really, it won't, I assure you! It's a clever concept that is completely disconnected from how things are. You call it "larceny," but virtually no one would agree with that, period.

There are ways, perhaps slower ways, to reduce coercion in our society. This one ain't one, I'd strongly suggest.

Poetic_Justice · Feb 24, 2004, 06:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
Hmm.. It's usually said that the punishment should fit the crime, yes?

It follows then that the punishment of theft should be proportionate to the ammount stolen and how much harm had been done in the process of that crime, yes?

If this is true, then the person who relied on welfare can in no way compare in extent of crime to the businessman. The welfare case only takes in a few hundred dollars a month, the businessman rakes in millions in tax breaks and entitlements.

When we also look at tax flows in terms of where that money is spend in resource usage, the wealthy take more in when compared with the common worker or the poor.

So I say yes, let us punish those criminals who take the most from us! Let us punish those consumers of pork! Let the punishment fit the crime, and let us imprison those theiving dogs for life!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Very well said packratt. For once, I must agree with you! Although I will temper that by saying that at some point we msut forgive and forget because all of us have probably been a recipient of government enforced unfairness and thievery at some point or another, so lets jsut get rid of government and start with a blank slate.

But if we were to punish welfare recipients, then you are right, we msut also punish the businessman who reap tax exemptions and bribe politicians through 'campaign contributions'

Kyran · Feb 25, 2004, 03:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LiveAndLetLive,)
Well, OK, then, let's lock up ALL Social Security recipients and everyone who drives on roads. They meet your tests, I think. What purpose that will serve, I'm not sure. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is you've set up an absurbist, reducio ad absurdum construct, and now you attempt to play it out, without any sense of moderation and practicality. You simply have to grant that it ain't gonna happen, because, really, it won't, I assure you! It's a clever concept that is completely disconnected from how things are. You call it "larceny," but virtually no one would agree with that, period.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That has to be judged on a case-by-case basis by a jury. So what if the majority won't agree with me on this? You think I care? I'm focused on victims demanding just retribution for damages rendered.

Do you believe Wal-Mart corporation can be brought to justice? Do you have any faith at all that the court system can do something right? You should consider your logic. "Won't, can't, and ain't" never got the job done. Your pessimism will not cause you to fight for your property rights. Maybe Wal-Mart needs to steal your home before you change your mind. Or maybe you're a doormat, and won't do anything then either. I hate to be that mean, but at least you heard it from me and not one of the victims out there.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
But if we were to punish welfare recipients, then you are right, we msut also punish the businessman who reap tax exemptions and bribe politicians through 'campaign contributions'<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I guess you don't care what Wal-Mart is doing either. Stay focused people. These tangents are way off-topic. If you hate the rich, then go buy a gun, hunt them down, and take their money. And remember to tell them how greedy they are to their faces; it takes a real man to do that.

The future is in question. Today people steal money and land without punishment. What else is left to take but our businesses or children? How far does this have to go until you're willing to stand against it? If it doesn't happen to you, do you even care? WILL you ever care? For Christ's sake, people, this is bloody serious. It's time to give a damn!

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 25, 2004, 04:28 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Jackney, many crimes put people in jail on the taxpayer dollar. It is a necessary system to civilization. If no life is taken then we should take no life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I was merely suggesting ways of improving deterrence.
[I think the thread is slightly tongue in cheek, anyway.]

--Jackney Sneeb

LiveAndLetLive · Feb 25, 2004, 05:06 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
That has to be judged on a case-by-case basis by a jury. So what if the majority won't agree with me on this? You think I care? I'm focused on victims demanding just retribution for damages rendered.

Do you believe Wal-Mart corporation can be brought to justice? Do you have any faith at all that the court system can do something right? You should consider your logic. "Won't, can't, and ain't" never got the job done. Your pessimism will not cause you to fight for your property rights. Maybe Wal-Mart needs to steal your home before you change your mind. Or maybe you're a doormat, and won't do anything then either. I hate to be that mean, but at least you heard it from me and not one of the victims out there.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Kyran, methinks you should reconsider how "serious" this proposal is. Because it's not serious, I assert. First, part of the concept of justice is the "reasonable man" test. Do you really think that the reasonable man feels he is victimized by government programs? This is especially so since, by your definition, virtually EVERYONE is a criminal! Second, I reject that "retribution for damages" is not what justice is about, restitution is. Third, no, I don't care to "fight" for my property rights, especially since this would entail putting MYSELF in prison. I, for instance, use roads virtually every day. Fourth, quixotic causes are an energy drain. I'm all for standing up for my rights, but, no, I don't see the point of doing so when I stand NO chance of winning. A prosecutor would never press the charges you suggest for this very reason. Fifth, what's the noise about Wal-Mart? I don't shop there, but I don't feel in any way abused by them.

No, there are far more productive ways to stand up for one's rights. Pick your battles would be my counsel, there's no shame in that.

Kyran · Feb 25, 2004, 05:16 pm

Live, instead of assuming EVERYONE is a criminal by my definition, describe the exact manner in which everyone steals under Eminent Domain abuse. Don't get mad yet. I'm just getting started. Save some hot air for later. You'll need it for your argument. =)

I certainly DO believe that reasonable men feel they are victimized by eminent domain abuse.

You say restitution, I say retribution. No biggie. I'm fairly certain we aren't far off from the same meaning.

Please note, nobody "receives" public roads as a product or service. They belong to government; taken by eminent domain for Public Use, not Private Use. Do you think YOU'RE a thief? Cmon now, stealing is one of the oldest crimes in the book. There's no reason to get paranoid or pessimistic.

This link will show you what Boortz was talking about (Wal-Mart):
http://www.aguynamedrob.com/archives/00000049.htm

The idea is private developers ask government to seize land and give it to them when the owner won't sell. This isn't the first case though. Do some research on the subject.

If African-Americans can feel they've been victimized by corporations and demand slave reparations, then dammit why can't living people TODAY who had their homes and property taken away TODAY feel victimized?

Don't give me a lecture. If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. You claim there are "more productive ways" to stand up for one's rights; but you haven't backed that up with any substance. Why would I want your counsel? Describe a better way to stop STEALING than with the justice system, Mister Advisor.

The peer pressure card doesn't work on me, as you can clearly see. Our justice system is the most appropriate way to deal with theft. What's really 'unreasonable' is the idea that anything else will work. Nothing else EVER HAS and nobody is proving me wrong!

Show me a prosecutor who won't press these charges and I'll show you a bum out of a job. Hey, if he aint gonna work why pay em? =)

damnrad · Feb 25, 2004, 06:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Greetings everyone,

I would like to present the fusionist solution to social programs. Feel free to present your own ideas and challenge the effectiveness of mine.

Theft is a crime. Since people can use the threat of government punishment to steal from taxpayers, every single social program recipient should be arrested, prosecuted and made to reimburse the taxpayer with interest. Those who create social programs should be imprisoned for no less than 20 years.

Disrespect of property rights is disrespect of life itself.

How will this end social programs? The same way they got started: threat of government force. People won't go to the Social Security office once the first few hundred thieves get arrested.

This concept will piss off every true liberal in moments; I expect flames and accusations. Try not to be offended, folks. I am merely attempting to come up with a working end to social programs. If you like any of these then your bias will prevent you from looking at this topic in an objective manner.

People use that Federal Govt to get our money, and I think it can work backwards too. Let's see what the popular consensus is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Thanks for posting this -- it's always good for us to know our enemies, and this has allowed me to see you for one. Meanwhile, I will advocate for expansion of needed social programs at federal, state, and local levels.

LiveAndLetLive · Feb 27, 2004, 06:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Live, instead of assuming EVERYONE is a criminal by my definition, describe the exact manner in which everyone steals under Eminent Domain abuse. Don't get mad yet. I'm just getting started. Save some hot air for later. You'll need it for your argument. =)

I certainly DO believe that reasonable men feel they are victimized by eminent domain abuse.

You say restitution, I say retribution. No biggie. I'm fairly certain we aren't far off from the same meaning.

Please note, nobody "receives" public roads as a product or service. They belong to government; taken by eminent domain for Public Use, not Private Use. Do you think YOU'RE a thief? Cmon now, stealing is one of the oldest crimes in the book. There's no reason to get paranoid or pessimistic.

This link will show you what Boortz was talking about (Wal-Mart):
http://www.aguynamedrob.com/archives/00000049.htm

The idea is private developers ask government to seize land and give it to them when the owner won't sell. This isn't the first case though. Do some research on the subject.

If African-Americans can feel they've been victimized by corporations and demand slave reparations, then dammit why can't living people TODAY who had their homes and property taken away TODAY feel victimized?

Don't give me a lecture. If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. You claim there are "more productive ways" to stand up for one's rights; but you haven't backed that up with any substance. Why would I want your counsel? Describe a better way to stop STEALING than with the justice system, Mister Advisor.

The peer pressure card doesn't work on me, as you can clearly see. Our justice system is the most appropriate way to deal with theft. What's really 'unreasonable' is the idea that anything else will work. Nothing else EVER HAS and nobody is proving me wrong!

Show me a prosecutor who won't press these charges and I'll show you a bum out of a job. Hey, if he aint gonna work why pay em? =)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Kyran, are you restricting your analysis to "eminent domain" only? Are you excluding Social Security as a taking?

Even so, if prosecutors are expected to press charges against such abuses, then, by all means, go down to your local DA's office and insist on charges. Then report back here. I'll be happy for you if you prevail, and are not laughed out of their offices.

Wayne Coady · Feb 27, 2004, 10:30 am

If you are looking for a way to kill social programs,then just sit still, it is being done right now.
You see all of your tax dollars are meant to go towards public infrastructure, but instead, the bureaucrats have decided to hand them out to their buddies, people like Dick Chaney for example.
So instead of taxes being used for roads, health and education, it is being used to bank roll big business, and in time, under these types of practices, the social infrastructure will fall. That means, you could very well see the day that your pension is no more, and in your senior years, you may find that that death is not an option but a necessary. Do you suppose Bush, Chaney or even Bill Gates really gives a tinkers dam about you little middle class people?

Kyran · Feb 27, 2004, 04:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
Thanks for posting this -- it's always good for us to know our enemies, and this has allowed me to see you for one. Meanwhile, I will advocate for expansion of needed social programs at federal, state, and local levels.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Then go get a picket sign that says Kill the Poor. Dude, I don't try to use the government to make your life miserable. You have no reason to hate me. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and share some personal experience as to why you should agree with me.

I used to be pro-social programs. I used to think Minimum wage should be $15.00/hr. I used to think Overtime Pay should start after 20 hours.

Then I got a job and an apartment. I was living in a semi-ghetto area working a gas station as an assistant manager. Police and ambulances were coming in and out daily responding to domestic violence. I worked five eight-hour shifts every week, and that was enough to pay my share of the rent, utilities, and to eat. I had one dependent; my first wife. We slept on a mattress.

One day, my manager informs me that the company is having to cut hours to avoid having to pay overtime. I explained to him that I needed all 40 hours if I was going to eat that week. He said he couldn't change the rules, so we rigged the clock to never show I worked over 40 hours. This worked and I was able to feed my family. However, if the government didn't force companies to pay OT, then I might have been able to work MORE than 40 hours. I might have been able to afford new clothes or furniture, maybe even a dentist.

In EVERY case where the government uses force against employers, the poor man gets hit in the end. Taxing an employer for social security lowers the potential wage of the worker. Taking workman's comp (cmon, you can't exactly get injured in a friggin gas station) comes out of the same worker's pocket.

Later in life I jump on the internet and start meeting people; people, like you, who think that what they do helps the poor despite WHAT THE POOR tell them. I've heard some tell me I should've had my manager arrested for dodging overtime laws. I've had others tell me that "some people LIVE off of OT pay." Nobody ever names names of course. The ballsy tell me I should've gotten another job. Of all the nerve!

I get the same reaction telling liberals how their policies hurt the poor as I do from telling conservatives how their policies hurt christianity. Nobody listens and everybody thinks they know it all.

So why are social programs bad? Because I can't afford them. Stop forcing me to pay for them. Stop taking money out of my paycheck to "help" me! I don't want your "help." Life's hard enough.

You call me an enemy as IF it were a good thing. Don't want to agree with me yet? Fine, be that way. You keep making us suffer and I'll keep trying to put your sorry ass behind bars where you belong. At least I gave you an explanation for my "right-wing extremist" goals.

The experience card trumps the idealism card.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Live, taxation is a use of eminent domain. The govt takes money and puts it to public use. I believe I've stated this before about Social Security, but there are two aspects of it. One is voluntary and the other isn't. When people are force-enrolled by the government they aren't responsible for collecting checks.

Let's suppose that I did make progress though. Who's gonna believe me? This forum? I doubt it.

Stigmata66 · Feb 27, 2004, 05:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You'd have to go back to the revolutionary war. LOL!
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

*buzzer that indicates you're wrong*

No, The Pershing expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa was the last time our military protected the "mainland". But still this does not justify not having a military. A military IS necissary for national defense.

Mia · Feb 27, 2004, 10:29 pm

How does the person who works hard and pays a zillion taxes for 50 years and then falls ill and needs to fall on the system for health care fit into your scenario of "theft"?

I hope the owner of this thread never needs anything from anyone - she is cold-hearted.

Mia · Feb 27, 2004, 11:01 pm

Kyran, I apologize. I didn't read all of the posts and had never heard this name before and thought it a female one.

But as far as your little example goes, whoever told you to get another job had it right. The reason the laws exist are for employers like that one who want to cheat people. The vast majority of employers pay the overtime they are supposed to and overtime pay is the only way a large percentage of poor are able to survive!

Nothing you say makes any kind of sense whatsoever. Your employer couldn't pay extra for over 40 hours, so you worked over 40 hours for only 40 hours of pay? How did that benefit you more than working there for 40 hours and getting paid for 40 hours, and then working the additional hours you needed somewhere else than would pay you for them?

As far as that goes, if your employer was dishonest to rig your hours, he could have rigged it to allow you to at least get your regular wage for all the hours over 40.

Meanwhile you want to take overtime away from all the employees whose companies can and do afford it.

Mia · Feb 27, 2004, 11:08 pm

Sorry - I forgot to respond to the part about not naming names of those who live on overtime. I'm not going to give you actual names of actual people, but I am in the business of loaning money so I look at paystubs every day and low-wage earners and even decent/good wage earners literally live from their overtime. I see the actual people and their actual paychecks every day - it is not some hypothetical. And the numbers are not few.

You need to do a LOT more research before you say the things you do!

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 27, 2004, 11:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You'd have to go back to the revolutionary war. LOL!
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

*buzzer that indicates you're wrong*

No, The Pershing expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa was the last time our military protected the "mainland". But still this does not justify not having a military. A military IS necissary for national defense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Ok you got me...early 1900's!

My point is still served by this example...

Here in the present, military is not needed as it is simply the arm of the government.

If you demand defense service...then some company will supply it for a fee.

Kyran · Mar 1, 2004, 12:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
How does the person who works hard and pays a zillion taxes for 50 years and then falls ill and needs to fall on the system for health care fit into your scenario of "theft"?

I hope the owner of this thread never needs anything from anyone - she is cold-hearted.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, Mia. It takes a cold-hearted individual to want to feed his wife and give her decent clothes. It takes an uncaring person to ask the government to stop making his life harder.

One thing I never did when I was struggling was take taxpayer money and use it to fund my family. I say that with pride; because I respect myself for not stealing from others...even when I "needed" to.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
But as far as your little example goes, whoever told you to get another job had it right. The reason the laws exist are for employers like that one who want to cheat people. The vast majority of employers pay the overtime they are supposed to and overtime pay is the only way a large percentage of poor are able to survive!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Forget whether I was physically ABLE to work two jobs or not; since that's not even going to be counted as part of the issue. Why can't we just work the same job more hours and the government keep it's nose out of our business? Why do we have to bend over backwards? I could have used the extra shifts to get better medical coverage -- after some clothes and a SOFA.

Piss on the law. I cheated and there's nothing anybody's gonna do about it. I'll tell you what's wrong: forcing employers to pay a time and a half and forcing people (who may be not be able) to get two jobs. That adds up to more paperwork, more hassle, more uniforms to put in the laundry, and more BS.

So you think my employer "cheated" me? Well I cheat to win and when I need to cheat to eat dammit I'll cheat. WTF did you want to happen to me? Did you want my manager arrested so some other schmuck could come in and make my family starve?! Maybe you think I should have gone to jail with old Ed. That way both our wives would be destitute.

But I'm the one who doesn't care? You're not listening.

People do not survive "because of" overtime pay. I sure as heck don't. Didn't my story kind of explain the opposite? As soon as the company can hire someone to fill those hours, that overtime is GONE from that guy's pocket. No company I have ever worked for consistently gave anyone OT hours. If they did then I wouldn't have to cheat; would I? Management gets in deep trouble for that, and eventually gets fired.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Nothing you say makes any kind of sense whatsoever. Your employer couldn't pay extra for over 40 hours, so you worked over 40 hours for only 40 hours of pay? How did that benefit you more than working there for 40 hours and getting paid for 40 hours, and then working the additional hours you needed somewhere else than would pay you for them?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I worked 40 hours every week, give or take a few minutes that don't even add up to a bag of Raman Noodles. I wasn't forced to do anything by my employer. It was MY idea to cheat the timeclock. I had to talk my manager into going along with my scheme. And believe me, when you've got a cute little redhead at home worrying about the fridge being empty, you'll be willing to break stupid rules.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
As far as that goes, if your employer was dishonest to rig your hours, he could have rigged it to allow you to at least get your regular wage for all the hours over 40.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

He wasn't dishonest. Ed gave me a job and helped my family survive. That's a friend. If I did work over 40 hours then one of the little socialists working for us would've cried Government and we'd have been caught. I agreed to do X amount of work and get paid for 40 hours; nothing dishonest of the sort.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Meanwhile you want to take overtime away from all the employees whose companies can and do afford it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, I want to take FORCED PAYMENT off the backs of employers. Seeing as how my own family was struggling to survive in the face of these oppressive regulations, I can only advocate the complete dismantlement of all social programs and anti-employer legislation. If employers want to pay employees overtime, let them do it of their own volition. Stop making everyone do it your way. That's not FREEDOM.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
...I am in the business of loaning money so I look at paystubs every day and low-wage earners and even decent/good wage earners literally live from their overtime.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If they live off of it, why do you need to loan them money?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
You need to do a LOT more research before you say the things you do!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Perhaps I sound emotional, mean, possibly evil. Maybe I should be happy about facing starvation those years ago? I don't hate you Mia. I hate the uncaring government system of force. I just wish you'd open your eyes and see for yourself that what I'm saying is true...because other people out there are still struggling. I have friends who still work two jobs and deal with the fiasco of keeping two bosses happy.

I thought that people would listen to my tale and understand how badly the government is affecting people's lives. If somebody doesn't start screaming nothing will change.

Think about where you work, Mia. Will your employer regularly schedule you to work OT hours? No. He won't. But if you could get more hours at the same rate, he probably would let you have them wouldn't he?

Just try to see where I'm coming from.

Feb 24, 2004, 02:42 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Toussaint Molten Ash Posts: 43	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) If this is true, then the person who relied on welfare can in no way compare in extent of crime to the businessman. The welfare case only takes in a few hundred dollars a month, the businessman rakes in millions in tax breaks and entitlements. When we also look at tax flows in terms of where that money is spend in resource usage, the wealthy take more in when compared with the common worker or the poor.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, surprise! Look at what happens when the government is given redistributive powers. Politics becomes a battle over who can use the government to steal from whom. And the best thing about the government is (unlike businesses) that when they decide to make claims on your money, you have no choice! So, would it not be a good idea to at least take these powers away from the government and forbid them from committing theft on behalf of lobbyists? "Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat "Now go and sin no more!" - Jesus Christ

Feb 24, 2004, 04:47 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) Look, I'm not a fan of the military in general. I think its bloated beyond any reasonable size. But honestly, we've screwed so much with our foriegn policy that the truth is, people hate the US. Of course there's countries that support us, but if WE disamrmed, we would be a target. We already are a target (see the past ?? years of anti-US terrorism). :rolleyes: I know you aren't a fan of the military, but it is that military that keeps you free to complain about this stuff, and it is that military that allows the left to steal via taxes and create programs... My point, which is now completely buried in a petty argument about the military, is that the government spends most of the taxpayers' money on the military. If you're considering social programs to be theft, consider the military to be theft on a grand scale, because about 50-100 times the amount being spent on social programs goes to the military (see http://www.truemajority.org/oreo)) Personally, I would like to continue paying taxes and see social programs increase while military decreased. I'd like to see the buget deficit and the federal debt removed (which would be real economic stimulus, no bullshit tax cuts). :rolleyes: without the military, you'd have no social programs, you'd be dead To bring it full circle back to the topic, arresting people asking for welfare checks is so stupid (read my earlier post). If you're concerned about people consentually robbing you, you have to look at the military, cause thats where about 90% of what they rob from you goes to. :rolleyes: if only that were the case...the military has been and continues to be cut by the democRATS... Peace, B Edit: Are you all incapable of grasping liberal sarcasm? In the post where i recomended using the money you get from not having to arrest people to buy yourself a shotgun, i wasn't implying that I want to shoot poor people. By saying that you should start with the military, i was implying that the military is where all the stealings going on, not that I wanted the US government to disolve and give us all blingin' shotguns to defend ourselves with. Learn to recognize a sarcastic tone.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> :rolleyes: there was nothing sarcastic behind that post nor mine "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 24, 2004, 05:12 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Theft is a crime. Since people can use the threat of government punishment to steal from taxpayers, every single social program recipient should be arrested, prosecuted and made to reimburse the taxpayer with interest. Those who create social programs should be imprisoned for no less than 20 years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, Kyran, this is a profoundly unworkable idea. First off, virtually everyone uses government programs, some more than others, to be sure. So what this implies is that the vast majority of Americans would end up in prison under your scheme. Many corporations take government contracts. Virtually everyone over 65 takes Social Security. While the idea that "taxation is theft" is interesting philosophical concept, few accept it. And who's doing the stealing, the government program recipient, or the "revenuer"? The US Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws, laws passed after the fact. It's simply unreasonable to try someone for a "crime" that was "committed" AFTER a law is enacted. I'm with you on rolling back the State, but this isn't the way to do it. Live

Feb 24, 2004, 06:13 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	Makeshift, by public I don't mean to to redefine anything. I'm just talking Americans. Military protects our citizens, illegal aliens, poor and rich and imprisoned whether they pay taxes or not just by virtue of being within our borders. Military is not an interest, it is a constitutional requirement. Welfare is only in the interest of a few. You're right. We can't have a government that runs things for the Specially Selected. Look, we're not in argument over the spending amount of military or social programs. Which one would I consider a need? Military. Do we need Star Wars? Not unless Darth Vader comes to take over planet Earth. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by One more question: How broad a definition of "Social Programs" do you want to use? Would you incorperate education? Would you say that perscription drugs for the elderly are social programs? Or would you just stick it to welfare checks and social security, which, in all honesty, are very cost-effective, as opposed to the chaos we'd have on our hands without.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Social Programs must include all federal departments where individual recipients voluntarily consent to accepting product, service, or money. School children are exempt because education is a mandate of the state. Unfortunately, I do not know whether Prescription Drug Benefit recipients enter into the program voluntarily or not. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LiveAndLetLive,) Well, Kyran, this is a profoundly unworkable idea. First off, virtually everyone uses government programs, some more than others, to be sure. So what this implies is that the vast majority of Americans would end up in prison under your scheme. Many corporations take government contracts. Virtually everyone over 65 takes Social Security.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It is only unworkable if you believe everyone uses government programs by choice, and that I want to arrest unwilling participants. In my opinion, you have to have really given up on justice to think this won't work. Government contracts do not apply because contractors perform a public service. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by While the idea that "taxation is theft" is interesting philosophical concept, few accept it. And who's doing the stealing, the government program recipient, or the "revenuer"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That concept is not in discussion. The topic concerns individuals who use legal might to obtain the property of other Americans for free without consent; and how to stop this. Social programs are one-half of the equation; eminent domain abuse by corporations is the other. The voluntary beneficiary is responsible when this abuse occurs, because they have to enroll and accept the plunder. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The US Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws, laws passed after the fact. It's simply unreasonable to try someone for a "crime" that was "committed" AFTER a law is enacted<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Hired larceny is already a crime in every state. You are correct. We can begin filing charges immediately. Thank you for pointing this out.

Feb 24, 2004, 06:53 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) Hmm.. It's usually said that the punishment should fit the crime, yes? It follows then that the punishment of theft should be proportionate to the ammount stolen and how much harm had been done in the process of that crime, yes? If this is true, then the person who relied on welfare can in no way compare in extent of crime to the businessman. The welfare case only takes in a few hundred dollars a month, the businessman rakes in millions in tax breaks and entitlements. When we also look at tax flows in terms of where that money is spend in resource usage, the wealthy take more in when compared with the common worker or the poor. So I say yes, let us punish those criminals who take the most from us! Let us punish those consumers of pork! Let the punishment fit the crime, and let us imprison those theiving dogs for life!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Very well said packratt. For once, I must agree with you! Although I will temper that by saying that at some point we msut forgive and forget because all of us have probably been a recipient of government enforced unfairness and thievery at some point or another, so lets jsut get rid of government and start with a blank slate. But if we were to punish welfare recipients, then you are right, we msut also punish the businessman who reap tax exemptions and bribe politicians through 'campaign contributions'

Feb 24, 2004, 06:26 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	Kyran: Social Programs must include all federal departments where individual recipients voluntarily consent to accepting product, service, or money. School children are exempt because education is a mandate of the state. Unfortunately, I do not know whether Prescription Drug Benefit recipients enter into the program voluntarily or not. Live: Well, OK, then, let's lock up ALL Social Security recipients and everyone who drives on roads. They meet your tests, I think. What purpose that will serve, I'm not sure. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is you've set up an absurbist, reducio ad absurdum construct, and now you attempt to play it out, without any sense of moderation and practicality. You simply have to grant that it ain't gonna happen, because, really, it won't, I assure you! It's a clever concept that is completely disconnected from how things are. You call it "larceny," but virtually no one would agree with that, period. There are ways, perhaps slower ways, to reduce coercion in our society. This one ain't one, I'd strongly suggest.

Feb 25, 2004, 03:13 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LiveAndLetLive,) Well, OK, then, let's lock up ALL Social Security recipients and everyone who drives on roads. They meet your tests, I think. What purpose that will serve, I'm not sure. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is you've set up an absurbist, reducio ad absurdum construct, and now you attempt to play it out, without any sense of moderation and practicality. You simply have to grant that it ain't gonna happen, because, really, it won't, I assure you! It's a clever concept that is completely disconnected from how things are. You call it "larceny," but virtually no one would agree with that, period.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That has to be judged on a case-by-case basis by a jury. So what if the majority won't agree with me on this? You think I care? I'm focused on victims demanding just retribution for damages rendered. Do you believe Wal-Mart corporation can be brought to justice? Do you have any faith at all that the court system can do something right? You should consider your logic. "Won't, can't, and ain't" never got the job done. Your pessimism will not cause you to fight for your property rights. Maybe Wal-Mart needs to steal your home before you change your mind. Or maybe you're a doormat, and won't do anything then either. I hate to be that mean, but at least you heard it from me and not one of the victims out there. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) But if we were to punish welfare recipients, then you are right, we msut also punish the businessman who reap tax exemptions and bribe politicians through 'campaign contributions'<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I guess you don't care what Wal-Mart is doing either. Stay focused people. These tangents are way off-topic. If you hate the rich, then go buy a gun, hunt them down, and take their money. And remember to tell them how greedy they are to their faces; it takes a real man to do that. The future is in question. Today people steal money and land without punishment. What else is left to take but our businesses or children? How far does this have to go until you're willing to stand against it? If it doesn't happen to you, do you even care? WILL you ever care? For Christ's sake, people, this is bloody serious. It's time to give a damn!

Feb 25, 2004, 04:28 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Jackney, many crimes put people in jail on the taxpayer dollar. It is a necessary system to civilization. If no life is taken then we should take no life.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I was merely suggesting ways of improving deterrence. [I think the thread is slightly tongue in cheek, anyway.] --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 25, 2004, 05:06 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) That has to be judged on a case-by-case basis by a jury. So what if the majority won't agree with me on this? You think I care? I'm focused on victims demanding just retribution for damages rendered. Do you believe Wal-Mart corporation can be brought to justice? Do you have any faith at all that the court system can do something right? You should consider your logic. "Won't, can't, and ain't" never got the job done. Your pessimism will not cause you to fight for your property rights. Maybe Wal-Mart needs to steal your home before you change your mind. Or maybe you're a doormat, and won't do anything then either. I hate to be that mean, but at least you heard it from me and not one of the victims out there. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Kyran, methinks you should reconsider how "serious" this proposal is. Because it's not serious, I assert. First, part of the concept of justice is the "reasonable man" test. Do you really think that the reasonable man feels he is victimized by government programs? This is especially so since, by your definition, virtually EVERYONE is a criminal! Second, I reject that "retribution for damages" is not what justice is about, restitution is. Third, no, I don't care to "fight" for my property rights, especially since this would entail putting MYSELF in prison. I, for instance, use roads virtually every day. Fourth, quixotic causes are an energy drain. I'm all for standing up for my rights, but, no, I don't see the point of doing so when I stand NO chance of winning. A prosecutor would never press the charges you suggest for this very reason. Fifth, what's the noise about Wal-Mart? I don't shop there, but I don't feel in any way abused by them. No, there are far more productive ways to stand up for one's rights. Pick your battles would be my counsel, there's no shame in that.

Feb 25, 2004, 05:16 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	Live, instead of assuming EVERYONE is a criminal by my definition, describe the exact manner in which everyone steals under Eminent Domain abuse. Don't get mad yet. I'm just getting started. Save some hot air for later. You'll need it for your argument. =) I certainly DO believe that reasonable men feel they are victimized by eminent domain abuse. You say restitution, I say retribution. No biggie. I'm fairly certain we aren't far off from the same meaning. Please note, nobody "receives" public roads as a product or service. They belong to government; taken by eminent domain for Public Use, not Private Use. Do you think YOU'RE a thief? Cmon now, stealing is one of the oldest crimes in the book. There's no reason to get paranoid or pessimistic. This link will show you what Boortz was talking about (Wal-Mart): http://www.aguynamedrob.com/archives/00000049.htm The idea is private developers ask government to seize land and give it to them when the owner won't sell. This isn't the first case though. Do some research on the subject. If African-Americans can feel they've been victimized by corporations and demand slave reparations, then dammit why can't living people TODAY who had their homes and property taken away TODAY feel victimized? Don't give me a lecture. If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. You claim there are "more productive ways" to stand up for one's rights; but you haven't backed that up with any substance. Why would I want your counsel? Describe a better way to stop STEALING than with the justice system, Mister Advisor. The peer pressure card doesn't work on me, as you can clearly see. Our justice system is the most appropriate way to deal with theft. What's really 'unreasonable' is the idea that anything else will work. Nothing else EVER HAS and nobody is proving me wrong! Show me a prosecutor who won't press these charges and I'll show you a bum out of a job. Hey, if he aint gonna work why pay em? =)

Feb 25, 2004, 06:52 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Greetings everyone, I would like to present the fusionist solution to social programs. Feel free to present your own ideas and challenge the effectiveness of mine. Theft is a crime. Since people can use the threat of government punishment to steal from taxpayers, every single social program recipient should be arrested, prosecuted and made to reimburse the taxpayer with interest. Those who create social programs should be imprisoned for no less than 20 years. Disrespect of property rights is disrespect of life itself. How will this end social programs? The same way they got started: threat of government force. People won't go to the Social Security office once the first few hundred thieves get arrested. This concept will piss off every true liberal in moments; I expect flames and accusations. Try not to be offended, folks. I am merely attempting to come up with a working end to social programs. If you like any of these then your bias will prevent you from looking at this topic in an objective manner. People use that Federal Govt to get our money, and I think it can work backwards too. Let's see what the popular consensus is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thanks for posting this -- it's always good for us to know our enemies, and this has allowed me to see you for one. Meanwhile, I will advocate for expansion of needed social programs at federal, state, and local levels.

Feb 27, 2004, 06:24 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Live, instead of assuming EVERYONE is a criminal by my definition, describe the exact manner in which everyone steals under Eminent Domain abuse. Don't get mad yet. I'm just getting started. Save some hot air for later. You'll need it for your argument. =) I certainly DO believe that reasonable men feel they are victimized by eminent domain abuse. You say restitution, I say retribution. No biggie. I'm fairly certain we aren't far off from the same meaning. Please note, nobody "receives" public roads as a product or service. They belong to government; taken by eminent domain for Public Use, not Private Use. Do you think YOU'RE a thief? Cmon now, stealing is one of the oldest crimes in the book. There's no reason to get paranoid or pessimistic. This link will show you what Boortz was talking about (Wal-Mart): http://www.aguynamedrob.com/archives/00000049.htm The idea is private developers ask government to seize land and give it to them when the owner won't sell. This isn't the first case though. Do some research on the subject. If African-Americans can feel they've been victimized by corporations and demand slave reparations, then dammit why can't living people TODAY who had their homes and property taken away TODAY feel victimized? Don't give me a lecture. If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. You claim there are "more productive ways" to stand up for one's rights; but you haven't backed that up with any substance. Why would I want your counsel? Describe a better way to stop STEALING than with the justice system, Mister Advisor. The peer pressure card doesn't work on me, as you can clearly see. Our justice system is the most appropriate way to deal with theft. What's really 'unreasonable' is the idea that anything else will work. Nothing else EVER HAS and nobody is proving me wrong! Show me a prosecutor who won't press these charges and I'll show you a bum out of a job. Hey, if he aint gonna work why pay em? =)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Kyran, are you restricting your analysis to "eminent domain" only? Are you excluding Social Security as a taking? Even so, if prosecutors are expected to press charges against such abuses, then, by all means, go down to your local DA's office and insist on charges. Then report back here. I'll be happy for you if you prevail, and are not laughed out of their offices.

Feb 27, 2004, 10:30 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
Wayne Coady Sedimentary Rock Location: Dartmouth Nova Scotia Canada Posts: 12	If you are looking for a way to kill social programs,then just sit still, it is being done right now. You see all of your tax dollars are meant to go towards public infrastructure, but instead, the bureaucrats have decided to hand them out to their buddies, people like Dick Chaney for example. So instead of taxes being used for roads, health and education, it is being used to bank roll big business, and in time, under these types of practices, the social infrastructure will fall. That means, you could very well see the day that your pension is no more, and in your senior years, you may find that that death is not an option but a necessary. Do you suppose Bush, Chaney or even Bill Gates really gives a tinkers dam about you little middle class people?

Feb 27, 2004, 04:46 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) Thanks for posting this -- it's always good for us to know our enemies, and this has allowed me to see you for one. Meanwhile, I will advocate for expansion of needed social programs at federal, state, and local levels.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Then go get a picket sign that says Kill the Poor. Dude, I don't try to use the government to make your life miserable. You have no reason to hate me. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and share some personal experience as to why you should agree with me. I used to be pro-social programs. I used to think Minimum wage should be $15.00/hr. I used to think Overtime Pay should start after 20 hours. Then I got a job and an apartment. I was living in a semi-ghetto area working a gas station as an assistant manager. Police and ambulances were coming in and out daily responding to domestic violence. I worked five eight-hour shifts every week, and that was enough to pay my share of the rent, utilities, and to eat. I had one dependent; my first wife. We slept on a mattress. One day, my manager informs me that the company is having to cut hours to avoid having to pay overtime. I explained to him that I needed all 40 hours if I was going to eat that week. He said he couldn't change the rules, so we rigged the clock to never show I worked over 40 hours. This worked and I was able to feed my family. However, if the government didn't force companies to pay OT, then I might have been able to work MORE than 40 hours. I might have been able to afford new clothes or furniture, maybe even a dentist. In EVERY case where the government uses force against employers, the poor man gets hit in the end. Taxing an employer for social security lowers the potential wage of the worker. Taking workman's comp (cmon, you can't exactly get injured in a friggin gas station) comes out of the same worker's pocket. Later in life I jump on the internet and start meeting people; people, like you, who think that what they do helps the poor despite WHAT THE POOR tell them. I've heard some tell me I should've had my manager arrested for dodging overtime laws. I've had others tell me that "some people LIVE off of OT pay." Nobody ever names names of course. The ballsy tell me I should've gotten another job. Of all the nerve! I get the same reaction telling liberals how their policies hurt the poor as I do from telling conservatives how their policies hurt christianity. Nobody listens and everybody thinks they know it all. So why are social programs bad? Because I can't afford them. Stop forcing me to pay for them. Stop taking money out of my paycheck to "help" me! I don't want your "help." Life's hard enough. You call me an enemy as IF it were a good thing. Don't want to agree with me yet? Fine, be that way. You keep making us suffer and I'll keep trying to put your sorry ass behind bars where you belong. At least I gave you an explanation for my "right-wing extremist" goals. The experience card trumps the idealism card. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Live, taxation is a use of eminent domain. The govt takes money and puts it to public use. I believe I've stated this before about Social Security, but there are two aspects of it. One is voluntary and the other isn't. When people are force-enrolled by the government they aren't responsible for collecting checks. Let's suppose that I did make progress though. Who's gonna believe me? This forum? I doubt it.

Feb 27, 2004, 05:05 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You'd have to go back to the revolutionary war. LOL! <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> buzzer that indicates you're wrong No, The Pershing expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa was the last time our military protected the "mainland". But still this does not justify not having a military. A military IS necissary for national defense. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 27, 2004, 10:29 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	How does the person who works hard and pays a zillion taxes for 50 years and then falls ill and needs to fall on the system for health care fit into your scenario of "theft"? I hope the owner of this thread never needs anything from anyone - she is cold-hearted. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 27, 2004, 11:01 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Kyran, I apologize. I didn't read all of the posts and had never heard this name before and thought it a female one. But as far as your little example goes, whoever told you to get another job had it right. The reason the laws exist are for employers like that one who want to cheat people. The vast majority of employers pay the overtime they are supposed to and overtime pay is the only way a large percentage of poor are able to survive! Nothing you say makes any kind of sense whatsoever. Your employer couldn't pay extra for over 40 hours, so you worked over 40 hours for only 40 hours of pay? How did that benefit you more than working there for 40 hours and getting paid for 40 hours, and then working the additional hours you needed somewhere else than would pay you for them? As far as that goes, if your employer was dishonest to rig your hours, he could have rigged it to allow you to at least get your regular wage for all the hours over 40. Meanwhile you want to take overtime away from all the employees whose companies can and do afford it. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 27, 2004, 11:08 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Sorry - I forgot to respond to the part about not naming names of those who live on overtime. I'm not going to give you actual names of actual people, but I am in the business of loaning money so I look at paystubs every day and low-wage earners and even decent/good wage earners literally live from their overtime. I see the actual people and their actual paychecks every day - it is not some hypothetical. And the numbers are not few. You need to do a LOT more research before you say the things you do! "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 27, 2004, 11:41 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You'd have to go back to the revolutionary war. LOL! <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> buzzer that indicates you're wrong No, The Pershing expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa was the last time our military protected the "mainland". But still this does not justify not having a military. A military IS necissary for national defense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ok you got me...early 1900's! My point is still served by this example... Here in the present, military is not needed as it is simply the arm of the government. If you demand defense service...then some company will supply it for a fee.

Mar 1, 2004, 12:59 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) How does the person who works hard and pays a zillion taxes for 50 years and then falls ill and needs to fall on the system for health care fit into your scenario of "theft"? I hope the owner of this thread never needs anything from anyone - she is cold-hearted.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, Mia. It takes a cold-hearted individual to want to feed his wife and give her decent clothes. It takes an uncaring person to ask the government to stop making his life harder. One thing I never did when I was struggling was take taxpayer money and use it to fund my family. I say that with pride; because I respect myself for not stealing from others...even when I "needed" to. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) But as far as your little example goes, whoever told you to get another job had it right. The reason the laws exist are for employers like that one who want to cheat people. The vast majority of employers pay the overtime they are supposed to and overtime pay is the only way a large percentage of poor are able to survive!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Forget whether I was physically ABLE to work two jobs or not; since that's not even going to be counted as part of the issue. Why can't we just work the same job more hours and the government keep it's nose out of our business? Why do we have to bend over backwards? I could have used the extra shifts to get better medical coverage -- after some clothes and a SOFA. Piss on the law. I cheated and there's nothing anybody's gonna do about it. I'll tell you what's wrong: forcing employers to pay a time and a half and forcing people (who may be not be able) to get two jobs. That adds up to more paperwork, more hassle, more uniforms to put in the laundry, and more BS. So you think my employer "cheated" me? Well I cheat to win and when I need to cheat to eat dammit I'll cheat. WTF did you want to happen to me? Did you want my manager arrested so some other schmuck could come in and make my family starve?! Maybe you think I should have gone to jail with old Ed. That way both our wives would be destitute. But I'm the one who doesn't care? You're not listening. People do not survive "because of" overtime pay. I sure as heck don't. Didn't my story kind of explain the opposite? As soon as the company can hire someone to fill those hours, that overtime is GONE from that guy's pocket. No company I have ever worked for consistently gave anyone OT hours. If they did then I wouldn't have to cheat; would I? Management gets in deep trouble for that, and eventually gets fired. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) Nothing you say makes any kind of sense whatsoever. Your employer couldn't pay extra for over 40 hours, so you worked over 40 hours for only 40 hours of pay? How did that benefit you more than working there for 40 hours and getting paid for 40 hours, and then working the additional hours you needed somewhere else than would pay you for them?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I worked 40 hours every week, give or take a few minutes that don't even add up to a bag of Raman Noodles. I wasn't forced to do anything by my employer. It was MY idea to cheat the timeclock. I had to talk my manager into going along with my scheme. And believe me, when you've got a cute little redhead at home worrying about the fridge being empty, you'll be willing to break stupid rules. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) As far as that goes, if your employer was dishonest to rig your hours, he could have rigged it to allow you to at least get your regular wage for all the hours over 40.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> He wasn't dishonest. Ed gave me a job and helped my family survive. That's a friend. If I did work over 40 hours then one of the little socialists working for us would've cried Government and we'd have been caught. I agreed to do X amount of work and get paid for 40 hours; nothing dishonest of the sort. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) Meanwhile you want to take overtime away from all the employees whose companies can and do afford it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, I want to take FORCED PAYMENT off the backs of employers. Seeing as how my own family was struggling to survive in the face of these oppressive regulations, I can only advocate the complete dismantlement of all social programs and anti-employer legislation. If employers want to pay employees overtime, let them do it of their own volition. Stop making everyone do it your way. That's not FREEDOM. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) ...I am in the business of loaning money so I look at paystubs every day and low-wage earners and even decent/good wage earners literally live from their overtime.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If they live off of it, why do you need to loan them money? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) You need to do a LOT more research before you say the things you do!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Perhaps I sound emotional, mean, possibly evil. Maybe I should be happy about facing starvation those years ago? I don't hate you Mia. I hate the uncaring government system of force. I just wish you'd open your eyes and see for yourself that what I'm saying is true...because other people out there are still struggling. I have friends who still work two jobs and deal with the fiasco of keeping two bosses happy. I thought that people would listen to my tale and understand how badly the government is affecting people's lives. If somebody doesn't start screaming nothing will change. Think about where you work, Mia. Will your employer regularly schedule you to work OT hours? No. He won't. But if you could get more hours at the same rate, he probably would let you have them wouldn't he? Just try to see where I'm coming from.