Jobs used as bargaining chip
Big business fucking the middle class again.
From
here
Did AT&T Corp. really think that its 11th-hour offer to bring 5,000 wireless call-center jobs back to the U.S. if its $39 billion purchase of T-Mobile USA was approved would work?
From
here
Amazon.com is offering to bring thousands of jobs to California as it tries to back away from a ballot-box confrontation over the state's new Internet sales tax law.
Did someone say "tax"? :eek: OMG, the shame! But then again, the upper 5% in wealth probably are too busy buying from Tiffany's to bother with Amazon.
Whats the income at 5% Sam?
IIRC, Its about $150,000. Thats not all that wealthy in the real world.
Now if you want to go at the top 1 or 2%. . .
Whats the income at 5% Sam?
IIRC, Its about $150,000. Thats not all that wealthy in the real world.
Now if you want to go at the top 1 or 2%. . .
Good question, Classic. I did a Google search on it and most of statistics I found seem to agree with you that the lower boundary of adjusted gross income for the upper 5% starts at about $159,000. For the top 1% AGI starts at $380,000 and goes up from there.
In addition, the top 50% have a share of 87% of the national AGI, while the bottom 50% have a share of 13% of the national AGI. Pretty wide gap there.
$150,000 may not be all that wealthy in the real world, but what does that then imply for $30,000 or $40,000? REALLY not all that wealthy?
For the top 1% AGI starts at $380,000 and goes up from there.
Surprising innit?
In addition, the top 50% have a share of 87% of the national AGI, while the bottom 50% have a share of 13% of the national AGI. Pretty wide gap there.
Whats the income at 50%?
I don't know how different that is versus years past, but it certainly doesn't surprise me. There will always be some with more than others.
$150,000 may not be all that wealthy in the real world, but what does that then imply for $30,000 or $40,000? REALLY not all that wealthy?
Really, not all that wealthy.
I don't know...Last I checked, I live in the real world and $150K seems pretty damn wealthy to me.
$30 or 40K could cover the bills for a single person in a large city, but you would have to do some serious budgeting.
The last full time job I had (2004-2006) I was paid £13.5k per annum.
That works out as a little under $22k per year. Some of that went to Income Tax and National Insurance. Leaving me with a net income of: approximately £10900, or $17700
Out of which I had to pay $7300 in rent, $800 in Council Tax, and approx. $2500 in Gas and electric.
After rent, tax and fuel, I was left with approximately $7k per year for everything else.
And that's in the North, where prices are comparatively low.
I remember going through this before, when a poster claimed he could live on x amount and I honestly didn't believe it.
Turns out things are a lot cheaper in the States.
But then they don't have the safety net we have.
I currently earn £5k.
I pay my debts, my parents and feed Diz and myself.
Paying my prescription every two months and going to the dentist every six months is something I have to budget for. Whereas it just used to be something that happened.
God, the amount of jobs I applied for this summer.
I'm beginning to think I might have to do the unthinkable and get a cleaning job.
No. I know I hate it. I'll end up phoning in sick and despising myself.
Fingerers crossed that the school starts its breakfast club soon - I'm so up for that. And I hope they won't be inundated with other applicants because most jobs at schools are filled by Mums, and what Mum would voluntarily start the school run an hour and a half early?
Good question, Classic. I did a Google search on it and most of statistics I found seem to agree with you that the lower boundary of adjusted gross income for the upper 5% starts at about $159,000. For the top 1% AGI starts at $380,000 and goes up from there.
In addition, the top 50% have a share of 87% of the national AGI, while the bottom 50% have a share of 13% of the national AGI. Pretty wide gap there.
$150,000 may not be all that wealthy in the real world, but what does that then imply for $30,000 or $40,000? REALLY not all that wealthy?
More class warfare, it's all about the have's and have nots with you... You also ignore the fact that that top percent already pays almost all of the federal income tax....:rolleyes:
Here is a potential source of savings....
Undocumented workers got billions from IRS in tax credits, audit finds
The Internal Revenue Service allowed undocumented workers to collect $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits last year, a new audit says, almost quadruple the sum five years ago.
Although undocumented workers are not eligible for federal benefits, the report released Thursday by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration concludes that federal law is ambiguous on whether these workers qualify for a tax break based on earned income called the additional child tax credit.
Taxpayers can claim this credit to reduce what they owe in taxes, often getting refunds from the government. The vagueness of federal law may have contributed to the $4.2 billion in credits, the report said.
The IRS said it lacks the authority to disallow the claims.
Wage earners who do not have Social Security numbers and are not authorized to work in the United States can use what the IRS calls individual taxpayer identification numbers. Often these result in fraudulent claims on tax returns, auditors found.
Their data showed that 72 percent of returns filed with taxpayer identification numbers claimed the child tax credit.
The audit recommended that the IRS seek clarification on the law and check the immigration status of filers with taxpayer indentificaion numbers.
IRS officials, in response to a draft of the report, agreed to consult with the Treasury Department on the law. But they said they have no legal authority to demand that filers prove their legal status when the tax agency processes returns.
Changes to tax law are partly to blame for the explosion in refunds for additional child tax credits in recent years, auditors found. Before 2001, filers needed to have three or more children to qualify — and to owe more Social Security taxes than earned income credits.
But those requirements have been eliminated and the allowable refund for each child doubled. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 also made the refund easier to get, auditors found.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/undocumented-workers-got-billions-from-irs-in-tax-credits-audit-finds/2011/03/23/gIQAhtaKvJ_blog.html?hpid=z3More class warfare, it's all about the have's and have nots with you... You also ignore the fact that that top percent already pays almost all of the federal income tax....:rolleyes:
You bet! I think that disparity in income is outrageous. The United States is turning into a plutocracy if its not already there. Sure, let that top percent go back to paying the same amount amount of tax as before their minion, George W., pushed through those tax breaks for them.
I think that disparity in income is outrageous.
Why so much surprise? Posted repeatedly was the problem when George Jr was promoting those tax cuts. Find previous claims that Kennedy tax cuts would make everything better. Also posted was the reality about a more massive downturn.
Worst recessions were preceded by the richest getting wealthier. Warren Buffet long ago was complaining about his receptionist paying tax rates much higher than he. When the rich were getting richer while all other were not, then the Great Depression occurred - as was posted back then. During George Jr's tenure, the only other time in America history that disparity was increasing. What resulted. Notice how many in the Cellar have problems finding work. We have the economy created when, well ...
Make a law that requires everyone to replace their lawn every year. Then GDP numbers will increase - as extremists politicians love. What happens many years later when that new lawn does not result in any return on investment? Welcome to this recession. That example was posted how long ago? We have the recession we wanted because so many remained silent or encouraged George Jr's welfare to the rich. So that lawn example was posted.
We are witnessing what was obvious long ago. Economics takes revenge on all when economics are 'improved' by money games. We have the economy that we all wanted.
More class warfare, it's all about the have's and have nots with you... You also ignore the fact that that top percent already pays almost all of the federal income tax....:rolleyes:
Class warfare is what that top 1% has been engaged in for the last few decades. Just because they don't use the 'C' word, doesn't make what they've been doing class neutral.
And Obama and his ilk are playing it to the hilt to get re-elected. What a narrow minded group of people...
Class warfare is what that top 1% has been engaged in for the last few decades. Just because they don't use the 'C' word, doesn't make what they've been doing class neutral.
Yea, we call that a free market economy. What do you call it? What system would you propose?
You are such a bitch, Merc. Are you trying to make someone say, "socialism?"
What you imagine to be a "free market economy" is destroying this economy. There won't be a "free market" anything if large corporations and obscenely big earners don't stop sitting on their stockpiles of cash and start putting it into play.
Life is a bitch, not me. :)
Here is a good summary of Obama's many fails...
Conservatives vs. the Keynesian Purists
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/conservatives_vs_the_keynesian_purists.htmlYea, we call that a free market economy. What do you call it? What system would you propose?
One in which the gulf between the wealthy and the rest isn't widening practically by the hour. One in which big business and the financial sector aren't bailed out constantly and aren't allowed absolute free reign to act in ways contrary to the public good. One in which an economic and political elite isn't allowed to create an effective monopoly on wealth and capital.
One in which the gulf between the wealthy and the rest isn't widening practically by the hour. One in which big business and the financial sector aren't bailed out constantly and aren't allowed absolute free reign to act in ways contrary to the public good. One in which an economic and political elite isn't allowed to create an effective monopoly on wealth and capital.
:thumb::notworthy
but...but Dana- what you fail to see is that merc imagines himself as one of the economic and political elite. He is one of the top 1%! at least in his own mind - so why on earth would he want things to become more equal? He fancies himself wealthy! He's a yacht club member (albeit without the yacht...) and he does his master's bidding...(they let him polish their big boats and carry their cocktails )
:lol:
but...but Dana- what you fail to see is that merc imagines himself as one of the economic and political elite. He is one of the top 1%! at least in his own mind - so why on earth would he want things to become more equal? He fancies himself wealthy! He's a yacht club member (albeit without the yacht...) and he does his master's bidding...(they let him polish their big boats and carry their cocktails )
:lol:
It's gratifying to know that we, the taxpayers, paid him, setting up the rise to his lofty position. :cool:
I wonder if he gets a military pension, funded by us.
If I understand his bio, he is recently, mostly, off the teat, after having his education, housing, health care etc... all paid for by us. It doesn't count though, because he suckled on the defense teat not one of the other nipples.
Think of him what you will, but he put his life on the line repeatedly for you to be able to come here and complain about him.
I don't agree with him all the time either, but the man deserves your respect for his service to his country.
Some of you seem to have forgotten that.
he EARNED a military pension, funded by us.
ftfy
Think of him what you will, but he put his life on the line repeatedly for you to be able to come here and complain about him.
I don't agree with him all the time either, but the man deserves your respect for his service to his country.
Some of you seem to have forgotten that.
He does not deserve, nor does he have, my respect.
Criminals "served" their country, too, as soldiers. Generalizations don't work. Just because you signed up and wore a uni doesn't automatically grant you status in my eyes. Even Napoleon 'served' his country.
:lol:
I don't think military service in and of itself means someone is worthy of respect. That said, I also don't think veteran benefits can be in any way compared to wider benefits for citizens. Veteran benefits are there to recognise and reward (and act as an incentive) for those who sacrificed their individual freedom temporarily and in some cases their lives, in service to their country.
The notion that he did all that in order for us to be able to have this discussion is a moot point. I'm really not at all certain that fighting most American soldiers (and British for that matter) have engaged in for the past half century had anything to do with American freedom.
Merc, like any other soldier absolutely earned the right to veteran benefits.
What is sad is that raising the next generation of Americans, often at the exoense of personal career fulfilment, or caring for elderly relatives (the nation's elderly) is not counted as service to the nation, regardless of sacrifice, personal or otherwise.
Think of him what you will, but he put his life on the line repeatedly for you to be able to come here and complain about him.
9/11 was long enough ago that we no longer have to pretend that is true. Our over-size military is more a threat to our way of life than any petty tyrant overseas. We damage our people by brain-washing them to believe false ideologies and then bring them back to civilian life with a skewed vision of reality and too often mental disorders from the violence that leaves a swath of damaged families that the unnecessary folks like teachers, health care workers, and social workers have to clean up after. The real founding fathers believe a standing army to be a threat to liberty. They were correct. rant off
merc is, in my eyes, A Klansman who is OK with forwarding the agenda of BernieM. ---and if Merc was smart he'd know he was backing a Jew...but ;he's not that smart.
[QUOTE=DanaC;754303]Merc, like any other soldier absolutely earned the right to veteran benefits[/DANAC]
yesh.
even soldiers who killed innocent civvies. Amen, dana. baby, you can't have it both ways. which I am thinking dana more and more wants.
No. I just think that if you have a standing army, part of the social contract made with those soldiers is that they will be looked after later when they return to civilian life. It was one of the very earliest forms of citizenship based state responsibility and it remains important.
Soldiers do not choose the wars they fight or the enemies they face. We, the civilian world make that decision for them. Whether they are killing innocent civilians or armed enemies raises moral questions for us, in the civilian and political spheres to deal with. Soldiers just go where they are sent.
Unless you wish to dismantle the army entirely, that social contract should stand, regardless of the moral underpinnings of any individual war.
It's got fuck all to do with wanting to have anything both ways. If anything the view that soldiers should be somehow debarred from assistance because they killed innocets or because they fought an unjust war is wanting to have things both ways. Either we have armies of soldiers trained and conditioned to follow orders in the field of battle or we dont. Can;t have them and then expect them to have individual responsibility for the nature of the wars we send them to fight.
Another thing to consider is that the majority of recruits to the army are drawn from the lower economic strata of society. The army has always (in the pre- and modern era) provided a route into training and education for people who would not have that opportunity otherwise.
My problem is, and always has been, with the politicians who make the decision to go to war. Though merc may not be an example of this, soldiers are and always have been primarily the same social class as workers.
The real founding fathers believe a standing army to be a threat to liberty.
I can appreciate your perspective, but
The founding fathers also kept slaves and didn't think women deserved the right to vote ... and and and ... Its a different world.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
Ike recognized the need and the danger. The effect on our national spirit having already taken its toll, we live with a government capable of shocking violence compared to what middle American expectations were before WWII. This violence is sold to us with great moral surety. Based on our spending and debt the use of violence for national ends is regarded more highly than any other single economic or political value. It is a different world, one of our own making.
I keep seeing this thread title and thinking of Steve Jobs.
Picturing him tied up in a basement somewhere, all skinny and grey.
It makes me sad.
Think of him what you will, but he put his life on the line repeatedly for you to be able to come here and complain about him.
I don't agree with him all the time either, but the man deserves your respect for his service to his country.
Some of you seem to have forgotten that.
*Some* people enter the military with honorable, patriotic ideas.
*Some* people enter the military because it's a job that they are able to do, and it's their best option.
*Some* people enter the military because they have no other options.
*Some* people enter the military for other reasons.
They are all aware of what they are getting into, and are paid for their service.
You're right, they've all
earned, more or less, a pension/benefits. In fact, if their service damaged them mentally or physically, we taxpayers have an obligation to provide a safety net - just as we do for non-military folks in similar circumstances. Having served in the military does not give anyone license to espouse the concepts that mercy does and continue to have my respect. If he had directly saved my life, I would be grateful to mercy, but still not respect him.
I don't think military service in and of itself means someone is worthy of respect. That said, I also don't think veteran benefits can be in any way compared to wider benefits for citizens. Veteran benefits are there to recognise and reward (and act as an incentive) for those who sacrificed their individual freedom temporarily and in some cases their lives, in service to their country.
The notion that he did all that in order for us to be able to have this discussion is a moot point. I'm really not at all certain that fighting most American soldiers (and British for that matter) have engaged in for the past half century had anything to do with American freedom.
Merc, like any other soldier absolutely earned the right to veteran benefits.
What is sad is that raising the next generation of Americans, often at the exoense of personal career fulfilment, or caring for elderly relatives (the nation's elderly) is not counted as service to the nation, regardless of sacrifice, personal or otherwise.
I just have to do nothing by bite my tongue and roll my eyes..... enjoy your freedom on our blood. It is our duty.. Your country men have bled to death for hundreds of years to allow you to make those statements and I hope all of their deaths were worth it for your sake. Remember that as you strike out against our sacrifice.......
I did not die in these wars as many of you would have wished....
but a number of my good friends have. Sorry to disappoint. May all of you have the ability to voice your opinions and differences in an open and honest forum or media without interference from the state or any organization which wishes to squash your freedoms.
Silly cunt....
[youtube]3rFoGVkZ29w[/youtube]
You're so sensitive for such a classless jerk.
You're so sensitive for such a classless jerk.
:lol: Please tell me your feelings are not hurt..... :cry:
[youtube]21VX7631Npw[/youtube]
I just have to do nothing by bite my tongue and roll my eyes..... enjoy your freedom on our blood. It is our duty.. Your country men have bled to death for hundreds of years to allow you to make those statements and I hope all of their deaths were worth it for your sake. Remember that as you strike out against our sacrifice.......
You're aiming that at me? I've posted that soldiers earn their beneifts and I'm the one you're pointing at?
Soldiers join up and go where their country sends them. They fight and die in the wars the civilian and political sphere choose for them. Whatever motivation those soldiers have for dong what they do: the civilians who sent them to war in Iraq (for example) were not doing so in order to preserve or defend America.
As to my own countrymen fighting and dying for hundreds of years. True that. But not so that I could have my freedom. Ok, you could possibly make that argument about World War 2. But that's about it.
Most of my countrymen who have died on the field of battle in the last two hundred years have done so to further the imperial adventures of the nation.
:lol: Please tell me your feelings are not hurt..... :cry:
Not in the least bit. Its fun when I can do something that causes you to show your true colors once again. Thanks.
~ a friendly reminder ~
It is an honorable thing to serve one's country for two years in some way, whether it be in the military, senior corps, peace corps or merely volunteering to pick up trash on a highway.
We honor those who died while in service to the country not because they died, but because they did so while serving us. Serving. You and me. Whatever they did, and whatever our attitude towards that was, they did it to serve you and me.
And so, unless we did more for our various countries than pay taxes, in acknowledging our role in something larger than ourselves, we should probably shut the fuck up.
We should honor them, but we don't have to shut the fuck up if we have a problem with the way the armed forces are used.
Merc isn't getting picked on for that. He is getting picked on for his political beliefs.
we don't have to shut the fuck up if we have a problem with the way the armed forces are used
Too many people have difficulty understanding the difference.
I think everyone in this thread sees the difference clearly, but they also see it quite realistically, too. Merc shouldn't have to be treated any differently simply because he chose to go into the armed services. The quip about him not being on the government teat anymore, although somewhat crass, still plays into the discussion, and isnt being disrespectful.
And I got on him for playing the 'honor thy soldier' card with too much of a heavy hand.
I think everyone in this thread sees the difference clearly
i don't think soUmmm..there have been thousands upon thousands of deaths in the construction field - many of those men died building our bridges, railroads, dams, high-rises, etc. The same is true in factories and in the mining industry. In fact, fatal work injuries in the USA number around
4500 yearly. These men don't get the same reverence.
We honor those who died while in service to the country not because they died, but because they did so while serving us. Serving. You and me.
No? Oh, they were serving the business owners, whose interests are nowadays being served by the military. Same difference.
UT, you changed your post.
Originally you wrote something along the lines of 'they weren't serving you and me' - referring to men who die on the job.
Yes, any post of mine should be considered a first draft for five minutes.
Yeah, OK. I see its necessary to quote your posts for relevance then.
Not in the least bit. Its fun when I can do something that causes you to show your true colors once again. Thanks.
:thumb: I respect your views and your idea that we have different views on the issue. Even though I know you are wrong and will never understand or see the world through my understanding and depth of experience. I don't judge you for it, nor do I condemn you for it, I understand you are naive and have no idea what the fuck you are talking about and don't hold that against you.
~ a friendly reminder ~
It is an honorable thing to serve one's country for two years in some way, whether it be in the military, senior corps, peace corps or merely volunteering to pick up trash on a highway.
We honor those who died while in service to the country not because they died, but because they did so while serving us. Serving. You and me. Whatever they did, and whatever our attitude towards that was, they did it to serve you and me.
And so, unless we did more for our various countries than pay taxes, in acknowledging our role in something larger than ourselves, we should probably shut the fuck up.
Ummm..there have been thousands upon thousands of deaths in the construction field - many of those men died building our bridges, railroads, dams, high-rises, etc. The same is true in factories and in the mining industry. In fact, fatal work injuries in the USA number around 4500 yearly. These men don't get the same reverence.
We honor those who died while in service to the country not because they died, but because they did so while serving us. Serving. You and me.
Merc didn't die.
Are you saying that you honor people who build our roads and bridges, who prepare and serve our food, who voluntarily pick up trash along the highway, who treat our illnesses the same way that you honor those who have served in the military? They serve us, and many have died while serving us. If not, why not?
Again, just because you were in the military doesn't mean that you should be honored. I know many guys who spent their time in the military getting high and drunk, as often as possible. People in the military are just like the rest of the population. Some should be honored. They chose to work in an occupation, they were compensated for their effort.
Merc didn't die.
Are you saying that you honor people who build our roads and bridges, who prepare and serve our food, who voluntarily pick up trash along the highway, who treat our illnesses the same way that you honor those who have served in the military? They serve us, and many have died while serving us. If not, why not?
Again, just because you were in the military doesn't mean that you should be honored. I know many guys who spent their time in the military getting high and drunk, as often as possible. People in the military are just like the rest of the population. Some should be honored. They chose to work in an occupation, they were compensated for their effort.
I'd agree with that. The shame of it isn't that soldiers get benefits. the shame of it is that their's is an exclusive sacrifice, and has been allowed to eclipse all other sacrifices in the national consciousness.
~ a friendly reminder ~
It is an honorable thing to serve one's country for two years in some way, whether it be in the military, senior corps, peace corps or merely volunteering to pick up trash on a highway.
We honor those who died while in service to the country not because they died, but because they did so while serving us. Serving. You and me. Whatever they did, and whatever our attitude towards that was, they did it to serve you and me.
And so, unless we did more for our various countries than pay taxes, in acknowledging our role in something larger than ourselves, we should probably shut the fuck up.
We specifically said:
You're right, they've all earned, more or less, a pension/benefits. In fact, if their service damaged them mentally or physically, we taxpayers have an obligation to provide a safety net - just as we do for non-military folks in similar circumstances.
There can be no higher honor for someone who has sacrificed in the military than to remove the concern of providing for themselves and their family. Some of us support cutting federal spending. This would undoubtedly hurt those who have been damaged or the families of those who have been killed.
Thanks for singling me out, Mr. shut the fuck up.
Even though I know you are wrong and will never understand or see the world through my understanding and depth of experience. I don't judge you for it, nor do I condemn you for it, I understand you are naive and have no idea what the fuck you are talking about and don't hold that against you.
:rolleyes:
Uhuh...your deep understanding and experience gets lost in your posting style, then, cause I really don't think anyone would call you deep. Unless its being deeply delusional. You are as deeply entrenched in the right-wing propaganda as you accuse us of being stuck in the liberal bias.
They serve us,
They died in the service of their employer. But here's the difference: wrt the military, you and I are the employer. Many have died serving
somebody. Folks in the military died serving YOU.
The Constitution opens with "We the people"; We includes you and me; and it is the document that establishes the military.
People in the military are just like the rest of the population. Some should be honored. They chose to work in an occupation, they were compensated for their effort.
They chose to work in an occupation that is deadly, but necessary, for the success and survival of our country. That's default honorable.
I meanwhile did not. I sat on my fat ass and did nothing for it but vote and bitch and moan. I expect you did similar.
Thanks for singling me out, Mr. shut the fuck up.
I did that because I disagree with your opinion on the subject. Please do the same for me.
OK, so let's break this down.
This sort of respect is earned after the following requirements are met, right?
- service is for you and me
- 2 year or more time commitment
- risking life is not required, but helps (road side cleaner was included in examples of honorable jobs)
- death on job is not required
Did I miss anything?
So does public school teacher fit? How about police or firefighters? How about Big Brother/Big Sister volunteer? Foster parents?
Some, yes, yes, yes, some.
Death on job not required, but possibility of personal endangerment is a major plus.
eta, sacrifice.
DING DING DING!
Death threats mounting. Oh, and a lot of dirty looks. ;)
Some
OK, This is interesting. You're saying some teachers and some foster parents deserve this respect, and some don't. It that based on how good they are, or how much they have to sacrifice/risk?
I know this is getting off into a gray area, but I kind of feel like by defining the gray areas we can make the other areas clearer.
The entire thing is a gray area. Obviously there is a difference between someone who wants to serve their country and will sacrifice their life to do it and an opportunist who will try to get whatever they want at the expense of others, but going into detail about what jobs are honorable or not will only result in biased, hypocritical, and blatantly naive remarks since we don't have a clue how each job actually affects society, what goes into it (this includes sacrifice), and the type of people that perform those jobs.
To me, it's not what job you do, it is how you approach the job. If you work as a janitor and approach the job in a honorable way, I will respect that to the fullest. If you are in the Marines and are a complete entitled asshole who shows no respect for anyone besides oneself, I will have absolutely no respect for you or what you do.
Personal sacrifice is pretty big. The inner-city teachers are heroes.
Most teachers are commendable. We thank them for what they do.
Soldiers sacrifice their entire lives for years, basically; it is not a "job". You don't get to go home to your loved ones at the end of the day. You make no decisions for yourself. You are told how to dress, what to eat, where to shit, where to sleep. Under a rigorous and probably unfair command structure that needs to own your ass entirely, and ship your ass to destinations unknown tomorrow, whether it be frigid Iceland or the middle of the Sahara desert.
The entire thing is a gray area. Obviously there is a difference between someone who wants to serve their country and will sacrifice their life to do it and an opportunist who will try to get whatever they want at the expense of others, but going into detail about what jobs are honorable or not will only result in biased, hypocritical, and blatantly naive remarks since we don't have a clue how each job actually affects society, what goes into it (this includes sacrifice), and the type of people that perform those jobs.
To me, it's not what job you do, it is how you approach the job. If you work as a janitor and approach the job in a honorable way, I will respect that to the fullest. If you are in the Marines and are a complete entitled asshole who shows no respect for anyone besides oneself, I will have absolutely no respect for you or what you do.
this one comes first because it says it best. As for generalizations (discussed below), I find them useful in direct proportion to their specificity. They can be a useful starting point, but an intelligent approach retains an openness to new information and a willingness to change one's conclusion to conform to new facts.
Today there was
a story about a Navy medic who
Authorities have released the name of a Navy corpsman whose writings allegedly describing explosives being planted at San Clemente High School touched off a massive evacuation on the first day of class at one of Orange County's largest public school campuses.
Daniel Morgan, 22, was last seen at Camp Pendleton on Tuesday night and was absent without authorization. Officials searching for the corpsman said they believed he was driving a white Jeep Wrangler with a black top. The vehicle's California license plate is 6NKZ930.
--snip--
Sheriff's officials did not discuss a motive or detail what Morgan allegedly described in his writings, other than to say he had placed explosives in or around San Clemente High.
Military, but bomb threats? respect or no? See? you generalization has real limits. just one current events example.
OK, so let's break this down.
This sort of respect is earned after the following requirements are met, right?
- service is for you and me
- 2 year or more time commitment
- risking life is not required, but helps (road side cleaner was included in examples of honorable jobs)
- death on job is not required
Did I miss anything?
So does public school teacher fit? How about police or firefighters? How about Big Brother/Big Sister volunteer? Foster parents?
FA Administrator? :lol:
Some, yes, yes, yes, some.
Death on job not required, but possibility of personal endangerment is a major plus.
eta, sacrifice.
OK, This is interesting. You're saying some teachers and some foster parents deserve this respect, and some don't. It that based on how good they are, or how much they have to sacrifice/risk?
I know this is getting off into a gray area, but I kind of feel like by defining the gray areas we can make the other areas clearer.
What about all the other public *servants*? and sacrifice? sacrifice of what? It is right to consider all public employees the same (at least for a starting point). Politicians are public servants too, right? respected? No, not really. I think the marketing of a given sector makes a huge difference in the how the members of that sector are percieved. But we need all types of people, types of workers to function as a society, despite the clear fact that not all of them are equally well represented or respected.
I think teachers, for example, have a much more direct impact on the quality of my life than the military. As such, they're more important, but they're not paid as much nor are they respected by most of the public as much. That is unfair (boo hoo), but more importantly, it exacerbates the vicious cycle of poor performance, poor morale, poor reputation, etc etc. This does not help make things better.
Being stuck with labels and stereotypes, stopping there and being unwilling or unable to think further severely limits one's ability to function in the world. It's like only having a club to solve any problem that might arise. SMASH! Fucking neaderthals.
Personal sacrifice is pretty big. The inner-city teachers are heroes.
Most teachers are commendable. We thank them for what they do.
Soldiers VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE sacrifice their entire lives for years, basically; it is not a "job". You don't get to go home to your loved ones at the end of the day. You make no decisions for yourself. You are told how to dress, what to eat, where to shit, where to sleep. Under a rigorous and probably unfair command structure that needs to own your ass entirely, and ship your ass to destinations unknown tomorrow, whether it be frigid Iceland or the middle of the Sahara desert.
Not really fixed, but improved, clarified.
You absolutely leave out the whole getting paid part. Economics is a major factor for everyone who signs up. "you make no decisions for yourself"? wtf? Who is making the decisions then? Our military isn't only like Full Metal Jacket. Lots, probably most (careful, just estimating that statistic, might be covered with my own poo) service men and women get to see their loved ones at the end of the day.
you describe a segment of military life, not for all members, not for all time. Decisions about how to respect, pay, hire, etc our military should not be based on such a narrow slice of their work.
Have you... known a lot of military, Biggie? You a big fan, you follow this stuff a lot?
Have you... known a lot of military, Biggie? You a big fan, you follow this stuff a lot?
Does it matter? Please stay on topic.
I was trying to figure out a pleasant way to say how his argument came from ignorance, other than just saying
It wasn't a sacrifice because they didn't do it for free? Really? You wanted them to do it for free? You don't value a standing military when the nation was attacked on its own soil only 10 years ago? This stems from either simple ignorance of the world, or a hatred of the nation that probably comes out of a bad relationship with a parent. In either case, the military person's sacrifice is only that much larger for having dickweeds like BigV going around spouting off that sort of shit. Do it for free, he said. What an asshole.
I'm an Air Force brat, Dad was TSgt, USAF, Ret. Mom was in the Civil Service and worked at every Air Force base where we were stationed. Three brothers in the service, two Marine Corps, one Army. I have an uncle, very dear to me, USAF, CMSgt, Ret. His wife, my aunt, also Civil Service, same career arc. Ex FIL is USMC Ret. (also police precinct captain, so local civil service connections too, not just federal).
I do follow it. I am a big fan. I have made numerous posts clearly stating my respect and gratitude for the service given to me and my country by the men and women of our military. What I know about the military is based on my own personal experience *and* what I read and hear. What I know with absolute certainty is that our military (and all the other soldiers and sailors and airmen the world over) is comprised of people. Just people. They've made decisions about their lives, their service much like I might. They want a lot of the same stuff I want. Certainly there are areas that don't overlap, and the methods to achieve our goals, shared or not, may well differ dramatically.
But here in our country, at this time, our civilian led, all volunteer force is made up of people who *choose* this path. No one chooses (no sane person) without thinking about how this will affect their life, including the economic and social aspects of their life. Our military, especially individual service members, enjoys high status now, and that is a good thing, it is justified. But perhaps the unarticulated point we don't agree on is that the institution deserves respect as an institution, but the individual service members deserve respect on their own merits. Which might include their affiliation with the military, or not, as the news story above would indicate.
Well then I take it back.
I'm an Air Force brat, Dad was TSgt, USAF, Ret. Mom was in the Civil Service and worked at every Air Force base where we were stationed. Three brothers in the service, two Marine Corps, one Army. I have an uncle, very dear to me, USAF, CMSgt, Ret. His wife, my aunt, also Civil Service, same career arc. Ex FIL is USMC Ret. (also police precinct captain, so local civil service connections too, not just federal).
I do follow it. I am a big fan. I have made numerous posts clearly stating my respect and gratitude for the service given to me and my country by the men and women of our military. What I know about the military is based on my own personal experience *and* what I read and hear. What I know with absolute certainty is that our military (and all the other soldiers and sailors and airmen the world over) is comprised of people. Just people. They've made decisions about their lives, their service much like I might. They want a lot of the same stuff I want. Certainly there are areas that don't overlap, and the methods to achieve our goals, shared or not, may well differ dramatically.
But here in our country, at this time, our civilian led, all volunteer force is made up of people who *choose* this path. No one chooses (no sane person) without thinking about how this will affect their life, including the economic and social aspects of their life. Our military, especially individual service members, enjoys high status now, and that is a good thing, it is justified. But perhaps the unarticulated point we don't agree on is that the institution deserves respect as an institution, but the individual service members deserve respect on their own merits. Which might include their affiliation with the military, or not, as the news story above would indicate.
Well put.
I was trying to figure out a pleasant way to say how his argument came from ignorance, other than just saying
It wasn't a sacrifice because they didn't do it for free? Really? You wanted them to do it for free? You don't value a standing military when the nation was attacked on its own soil only 10 years ago? This stems from either simple ignorance of the world, or a hatred of the nation that probably comes out of a bad relationship with a parent. In either case, the military person's sacrifice is only that much larger for having dickweeds like BigV going around spouting off that sort of shit. Do it for free, he said. What an asshole.
Good, thanks for going the extra mile in the interest of civil discourse.
As for your remarks that stayed on the cutting room floor, I would like to address them too.
I do believe that soldiers sacrifice a lot. I think they sacrifice more than school teachers and cops and librarians and politicians and mail carriers and many others. I also think that they make that sacrifice knowingly and voluntarily and are compensated for that sacrifice and service. I also believe that those other public servants also sacrifice, and do so voluntarily and are compensated. I did not and do not suggest that they serve for free. I do value a standing army, though I think our current military-industrial complex is vastly outsized compared to the main mission, and that surplus gets exercised in non-main missions like disaster relief and police work. I freely admit that I'm not a military expert or a political science master, you get my opinions informed by a life lived while paying attention.
I'm glad you didn't suggest that I'm ignorant of the world; I'm not. Or that I harbor a hatred of our nation; I don't. It is prudent of you to refrain from speculating on a non-existent bad relationship with my parents; that one would have definitely been covered in your own poo.
My gratitude or my disdain affects a soldier's sacrifice *not one iota*. If that were true, then the current attitude of adulation for our military would diminish the service of our military, and the service of, say, the veterans of Viet Nam would be elevated. There is no logic in such a statement.
I might be an asshole, but I didn't say do it for free.
Well then I take it back.
Fair enough.
UT, please let me be clear. I hold you in very high esteem. I bear zero ill will toward you. I value your input and look forward to reading your posts.
glatt said it very well, clarifying these gray areas might help clarify other areas. For me, that is a goal worth working toward.
:notworthy
Big V - I stand in awe. Those were awesome posts.
Obama is pushing the envelope.
I wonder what other returned or serving military members of this forum think of this thread.
eta: personally I think it's just lovely that everyone has a right to discuss whether or not they should be paid or not.
I'm pretty sure no one in the private sector would put up with that sort of shit.
My husband was a marine (technically you can't say was, but he couldn't wait to get out, so he is definitely an 'ex') and he says you can never discount the sacrifice asked of our servicemen, but when it comes to death on the job, all life, when extinguished, is just as important as any others.
My husband was a marine (technically you can't say was, but he couldn't wait to get out, so he is definitely an 'ex') and he says you can never discount the sacrifice asked of our servicemen, but when it comes to death on the job, all life, when extinguished, is just as important as any others.
Oh, I agree.
I don't think you'll find many who disagree with that.